The New Testament Along the Camino: The Gospels

Exploring the world means nothing if we don't reflect on our experiences and their impact on our lives. As part of the Wayfarer Expedition, I set the goal to examine one piece of cultural, religious, or historical significance for each location. In Spain, along the Camino de Santiago, that piece is the New Testament. It only makes sense, seeing as the entire point of the trek is to end at the resting place of James the Greater. This week, I finished reading the Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament written by the Four Evangelists, and I learned a lot from my Bible readings over my morning coffee.

The Miracles of Jesus. As a Christian, we know and believe that Jesus conducted miracles during his three-year ministry. From healing the blind man to raising Lazarus, there is no shortage of miraculous works. What I didn't realise was that Jesus went about the country performing one miracle after the next. Each of the Four Evangelists mentions that He continued performing miracles almost as an aside. Even John, at the end of his book, states that to write them all down would fill a book all on their own.

Not to Make Jesus Known. Until the encounter with Legion and the pigs, Jesus explicitly told each individual not to make Him and His works known. Now, they didn't abide by that instruction, thus leading to throngs of followers seeking out Jesus, but I found it interesting that Jesus, the Son of Man sent to save the world, insisted not to make His presence and works known.

John's Story of Judas and Peter's Sword. John's recounting of Judas's betrayal is the only one not to mention the Judas kiss. In fact, John's version states that the mob and soldiers came into the garden demanding to take Jesus in an un-surreptitious manner. Now, it could be that Judas kissed Jesus and John simply left that out, and I find it highly unlikely that three of the four would get it wrong given how consistent their books are with one another.

Another interesting piece from John's book is he identifies the Apostle that cut off the ear of the servant. The other three only mention that one of the disciples drew their sword; John names Peter as that disciple. This raised several questions which may or may not be answered moving forward. First, why was Peter carrying a sword as a disciple of Jesus? It may be as understandable as me carrying a firearm at church, or it could be to ward off serious threats from the pharisees and their wayward followers. Interestingly, I understand why he cut off the ear of a servant rather than attacked the mob and soldiers directly. After all, he would deny Jesus three times in short order, so it is no stretch of the mind to see that he wouldn't want to be arrested with Jesus on murder charges.

There will be signs, but nobody knows the hour. "The end is nigh" is a cliche, but very real doomsday prophesy from those who claim to study the Bible. A common response from the religious crowd is that Jesus specifically says that no one knows the hour when He will return, which is true. Jesus does make such a statement. However, He also states that there will be signs, and we should look for and recognise them just as we look for signs with the weather and in the fields. So are the "end is nigh" folks biblically inaccurate in their proclamations? Maybe not. Of course, their claims should always be examined and debated, as the world was supposed to have ended too many times over by this point to take any of them at face value.

Small inconsistencies. The Four Evangelists are not entirely consistent in their versions of Christ's life; however, their inconsistencies are in the gross minority. I was shocked how each book told a lot of the same stories and parables in the same way (albeit with different specific words). Naturally, the Councils of Rome, Carthage, Florence, and Trent, and the Synod of Hippo, who confirmed/aggregated the Bible as we know it today, almost certainly took this into account when deciding which books were divinely inspired and which were not, but even so, the fact that they are as consistent as they are is cause enough for me to believe them as true. Where there are inconsistencies, they are extremely minor. For example, one of them says that Peter would deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows twice, while the other three say it happened before the rooster crowed. Finally, three of them state that Jesus gave no answer when questioned by Pilate, while John says that he did (at least to some questions). At the end of the day, when I weigh these small inconsistencies against the totality of the Evangelists' consistency, I have no compunction about discounting them as differences in the Evangelists' memory or issues with translation.

Confirming My Contentions with Catholicism. (I do not intend to disparage the Catholic Church or Catholics with this paragraph; I am simply giving my thoughts.). As a Baptist who had great church leaders growing up, I have always taken issue with the Catholic Church's reliance on manmade doctrine that is "inspired" by the Bible. In my travels through Spain in 2024, I studied various Catholic practices and left the country with the same impression as when I left.

In Matthew 23, Jesus specifically says not to call anyone but Him father, teacher, or instructor, as there is only one of those, and He is God. Yet, Catholics do; indeed, they have established an entire hierarchical structure to the Church. Now, Catholics say that Jesus was using those as examples and not being literal, but even taking that point of view, I cannot reconcile that practice with Jesus's own words.

In Mark 7, Jesus discusses the traditions of the pharisees and criticises them as the tradition of man rather than the commandment of God. Now, Jesus doesn't say that all traditions are bad, but that practicing traditions at the expense or in place of the commandments and true faith is. Thus comes in my contention with the Catholic Church. Confession, for example, is a great tradition and practice, as confessing one's sins to another, especially a spiritual leader, is a fantastic way of holding themselves accountable. However, there is no biblical mandate for this confessional practice, as the veil was torn and Jesus time and again says that there is only one way to Heaven, and that is through him. Those who confessed sins to Him did so directly, not through a disciple. Requiring otherwise is a tradition of man, not a commandment or requirement from Jesus or the Bible.

Parting Thoughts

I have enjoyed reading the Bible over the last ten days or so, and I am looking forward to reading Acts and the Epistles. As you can probably tell from this piece, I am not just reading it to say that I did, but to critically evaluate the Christian faith on the merits of its Holy text. So far, that critique has yielded few truly foundational issues and many new nuggets that I probably learned once upon a time but have since forgotten.