MiddleMan

This may seem like a silly question at first, but why are there four gospels? I particularly would like someone like Magus55 to answer this question. I want the opinion of someone who believes that the gospels were written by historical witnesses to the events they propose to narrate as well as having been inspired by an omniscient deity.

If an omniscient deity is the ultimate author of the text, why inspire four versions of the same event (i.e. the life of Christ)? And if four, why not five, or six, or eleven?

(A Note for the historically-minded: I am aware of the process of canonization, voting and whatnot. That is not my point. I am trying to look at this problem from the perspective of one who grants --for argument's sake-- the existence of an omniscient deity who inspired not only the four gospels, but the rest of the Bible as well.)

rlogan

Brought to you by our primary internet research scholar at the institute for composite studies and electric motor rewinding:

Why Four Gospels

Iacchus

So, how many witnesses do you think it would be better to have at the scene of an accident? Hey, at least this way you can compare stories.

Of course maybe this whole thing about the Bible was just an accident? Just kidding!

However, I'm sure there are those of you who may feel otherwise ...

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, first of all, the "four gospels" are just the ones accepted by the early Christian cult. There are more, but they were deemed "heretical," primarily because they either didn't uphold the hierarchical structure of the cult (like the Gospel of Thomas) or they were written by women (there's a gospel of Mary, for example) or they just didn't follow the dogma chosen by the early cult leaders. And by "early" I mean hundreds of years after any alleged "events" of Jesus' existence.

As to the four accepted, there aren't really four gospels per se. There is one gospel (Mark) and then three later revisions; variations on the same myth (though the synoptics are typically the only ones most biblical scholars point to, leaving John to dangle in the wind).

So, what we're really dealing with is one myth retold a couple of times over many years with all of the normal aggrandizements and additions that happen to all myths. We don't have any actual witnesses, we have cult followers retelling the one myth told to them by earlier cult followers at best pretending to be witnesses, so the four witnesses to a car accident analogy is completely erroneous and extremely misleading.

A far more apt analogy would be stories about Paul Bunyan being told for years until one author writes them down and then years later another author writes his variation of the "original" authors myths and then years later another author builds on that collection of myths and so on. No "witnesses," just a collection of myths retold and revised to suit the whims of the authors.

Amos

To satisfy my own limited curiosity I think they held a gospel writing competition and from there it was something like 'let the best man win.'

If for a moment we remove the historical Jesus and look at it as a metaphysical event it can be argued that each human being can write his or her own gospel with some limits on 'she' gospels.

The purpose of the Gospels is to make the transition from Judaism to Catholicism wherein the Jews lived in anticipation of the messiah and Catholicism can now live by the example set by Jesus as messiah. In other words, they tell us 'how its done' so we don't end up like the children of Israel and wander for 40 years in the promised land and die there nonetheless.

It's therefore a "desert story" that came to be know as a Purgatory story in Catholicsm to show us how to get out of 'there' in 4 years instead of 40 years lest we die there nonethelesss.

Frome here Matthew is the religious perspective that shows the internal effect that religion can have on humans. Mark is the pagan perspective without any knowledge of this religious effect and Luke tells us how the subconscious mind deals with this effect. After this John runs away with the conclusion to pave the way for Catholicsm as an independent religion to show that if Judaism ends with the Gospel it will also be the end of Catholicism in its own time . . . wherefore Jesus dies and will die time and time again [but the Gospel of] John will never die (Jn.21:23).

Amaleq13

The question isn't silly but the earliest known Christian answer certainly is. It comes from Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3.11.8) toward the end of the 2nd century BCE:

See? There is a perfectly logical reason.

Amos

He probably meant that immortality spreads like wind as if coming our of the fourth Gospel.

MiddleMan

I want to thank everyone for their replies. The reason I posed the question was because, as seems obvious, there was some sort of "need" (and place the reasoning for that "need" anywhere you want) for four tellings of the same story, more or less to get the "whole picture."

But what I fail to understand is why, then, there are not four tellings of the Red Sea parting? Why aren't there four witnesses to the Flood (Noah and each of his sons writing a differing yet complimentary version)? Etc. Do you see what I'm driving at?

If this Yawheh character is the ultimate author of the text (and so, of course, has THE view of the situation), then why have four witnessess to Jesus' life but not four witnesses to any other remarkable event in the Bible? Point of fact, of course, is why have FOUR versions at all if, ultimately, there is only ONE Author and, therefore, ONE ultimate witness?

Amos

There probably is a hunderd different tellings of the Red sea parting which itself is also just a metaphor that describes a metaphysical event that can overcome human beings. The Red sea account is just a very accurate description of this event and that is why it is so popular.

gregor

Why include four ? Simple marketing.

One assumes that those early fathers in 200 CE and later wanted to grow the flock as much as possible. So, you have to include in your proto-canon as many stories in use at the time as possible, while still retaining as much core theology as possible.

Mt, Mk, L/A, Jn - in
G of Thomas - out, too gnostic
G of Ebionites - out, not a deity
G of Mary - Oh, please
Shepard of Hermas - don't think so
Q sayings - not enough trinity

Then scribes can polish off the rough edges in later translations to improve consistency in the myths