Now since Larry has deprived me of his company (), I am free to present some more evidence of the evolution of the Gospels.  This concerns the story of the Gentile woman who approached Jesus (pbuh) and pleaded with him to exorcise the demon which had possessed her daughter.  The story is related by Mark and Matthew, but not Luke or John:

Mark -
"²⁴ Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. ²⁵ In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. ²⁶ The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

²⁷ “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

 ²⁸ “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

 ²⁹ Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

 ³⁰ She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone."  (Mark 7:24-30)

Matthew -
"²¹ Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. ²² A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

 ²³ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

 ²⁴ He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

 ²⁵ The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

 ²⁶ He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

 ²⁷ “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

 ²⁸ Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment." (Matthew 15:21-28)

We know from Jewish sources from the time period that the terms "dogs" and "swine" were commonly used to refer to the Gentiles.  However, Geza Vermes points out that the term was also used for wayward Jews as well:

"Exceptionally they [dogs] are associated with bad Jews whose countenance in the eschatological age is expected to resemble 'the face of a dog' (mSotah 9:15)."  ("The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 109)

The apparent racist tone of these passages from the Gospels of Mark and Mattew aside (as the issue is whether the Gospels have evolved), how is evidence of evolution?  First, the differences between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew need to be considered.  As Vermes points out:

"Against his usual trend, Matthew makes Jesus appear even more severe than in Mark's account.  He first ignores the woman and when his disciples suggest that he should rid them of this nuisance, he take no action: this Gentile person is not his problem.  The idea of a universal saving mission to every nation is not part of this picture.  Jesus' intervention...was strictly an exception justified by the out-of-the-ordinary faith of the mother." (p. 278)

The presence of the passage in both Gospels suggests that Jesus' mission was to the Jews only.  However, there is a difference between the two accounts as to how Jesus deals with the woman, with Matthew showing Jesus being more stubborn.  Matthew's Gospel, as claimed by Church tradition, was primarily written for a Jewish audience.  This could perhaps explain why Matthew tries very hard to make Jesus into a prophet whose main concern is with the Jews. 

But why is the passage not present in the Gospel of Luke?  It is accepted by Church tradition that the author of the gospel was a Gentile physician (Luke).  He was not a Jew.  As David Malick of bible.org puts it:

"The tone of Luke and Acts is similar: worldwide outlook, interest in Gentiles, interest in woman, apologetic tendency [...]

Many subjects in Acts would have been prominent before A.D. 70: Gentile admission to church fellowship, coexistence of Jews and Gentiles in the church, food requirements of the apostolic decree [...]

Luke has a universal emphasis for the Gospel: 1. Samaritans 2. Gentiles 3. Sinners 4. Poor 5. Outcasts 6. Women 7. Children [...]

Therefore, Luke writes Luke-Acts to argue that the Christian Gospel is not anti-semitic, but is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures' promise of salvation to both the Jews and the Gentiles. "The Way" shares in the initiation of the spiritual promises to Israel. They are the stewards of the promises to Israel. The reason it is primarily Gentile in nature is because the Jews rejected the message of Jesus as Messiah, and pushed the church out. Nevertheless, the Jews as a people are not rejected by God or his servant Paul. The promises will yet be consummated for the nation through the resurrected Jesus--the hope of Israel." ("An Introduction to the Gospel of Luke")

When we consider that Luke wrote his gospel primarily for a Gentile audience and wanted to include Gentiles in the plan of salvation, it is not at all surprising that he would omit the story of the Canaanite woman seeking Jesus' help.  There are two reasons for this:

1.  To keep the story would contradict Luke's primary message, that salvation through Jesus is open to Jew and Gentile alike, and

2.  To keep the story would probably hurt the acceptance of the gospel among the Gentiles.  Let's face it.  Jesus' reference to Gentiles as being like "house dogs" would not fare well among Gentiles the Church wanted to convert.  Being a Gentile himself, Luke probably did not like the story as well. 

Hence, the story was omitted and the gospels evolved from being concerned with salvation for the Jews to salvation for all mankind. 


Edited by islamispeace - 31 August 2011 at 12:28pm

Dear Ron,

Besides not providing any evidence to back up your explanation, you fail to realize that your response completely ignores the Gospel of Luke's omission of the story.  Why did Luke's gospel omit the story?  Because as its target audience were the Gentiles, Luke probably felt the story would be too hard to swallow.  He also omitted it as it contradicted his message, which was that salvation through Jesus was open to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Regarding your claim that Matthew's purpose of including the story "was to confront the racist attitudes of the Jews and so lead them to be more global minded in their thinking", it fails to explain why Matthew used the same racist term the Jews used to refer to Gentiles.  If his purpose was to combat the racism of some Jews, he did not do a good job as he only perpetuated the same racist stereotypes.  It would be like if a white person wrote an essay condemning racism towards black people, but to do so used the N-word.  Using such a word would obviously take much of the passion out of an otherwise noble intention. 

Notice also that in both Mark and Matthew's accounts, Jesus only heals the woman's daughter after she accepted her position as being secondary to Jews.  That was her so-called "faith".  It is no surprise then that Luke completely eliminated the story.  To suggest that Gentiles have a stake in salvation, but only after the Jews have had their fill, would not be accepted very easily by Gentile Christians.  Therefore, the changing accounts from Mark to Matthew and eventually the complete omission of the story from Luke serves as evidence of evolution.



Indeed! 

We agree that the story of the virgin birth was not originally part of the Gospel, but emerged some time after Jesus died.  Our disagreement is on the source of that later addition, and on the appropriate word to describe it.

You believe that Mary is the source (via Luke), but that she kept this important information a secret throughout Jesus' life and allowed everyone to believe that Joseph was the natural father.  You have no evidence to support this theory.  (Simply asserting the same claim with more detail does not count as evidence.)

I believe that the story was an embellishment added by the later Gospel writers.  I have no evidence for this either, but I find it hard to imagine that Mary would have allowed a falsehood about Jesus to be perpetuated for more than thirty years without saying a word.  (I also find it hard to believe that Mark knew about it but failed to mention it.  I'm not sure if that is still your claim.)

Either way, regardless of how or why it changed, or who initiated the change, the story did change significantly.  It simply comes down to a question of whether we would use the term "evolve" to apply to such a change.  I would, and you wouldn't.  But then, as far as I can see, you would never use that word regardless of the facts.  You can always retreat into "divine inspiration" or "progressive revelation" to dismiss any evidence that could be offered.