Crowley

I grew up in a christian household. I was taught the Bible from a very early age. But there has been a question that has puzzled me for some time. Why are there four Gospels. Leaving aside the miracle that four of Jesus' apostles/contemporaries were literate enough to write such a work, why wouldn't they collaborate?

I don't know about you, but when I was in school and we had a group project we would pick the person with the best writing skills and/or penmanship to write the report. In order to ensure that the words of Jesus were preserved in tact it seems that having four men recalling the same event would increase the accuracy. Also, they could have discussions like "Ok, what does everyone remember about his childhood. I know he didn't like to talk about it, but let's pool our collective facts so we can flesh out our Savior." Also, they could collectively remember the order of events that so that the story/gospel would be at least internally consistent rather than contradictory like they are now.

I suppose that one could argue that they were all divinely inspired to write the like of Jesus' ministry. If that is the case, then they should have all been visisted by the same angel so he could have made sure they got the facts right?

To clarify: My question, I guess, is more logic and common sense based rather than any real Bible history. It is to determine: What benefit is gained from having four error ridden Gospels versus one "Complete and Accurate Gospel of the Life of Jesus" compiled by the apostles?

aa5874

First of all, the Gospels are still actually anonymous, today, the authors did not identify themselves in their writings, so it is highly likely that the four original authors did not know or recognised each other. Also, the four authors appeared to have written at different times in history and their writings were carried out, it would appear, many years after the supposed ascension of Jesus, maybe upto 40-100 years afterwards.

And technically the Gospels do not contain errors, they are just fiction. Each Gospel writer, it would appear, fabricated his Jesus from his imagination and the OT.

For example, gMark's last words of Jesus were, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me"?
gLuke's last words were, "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit."
gJohn's words were,"It is finished"

These last words of Jesus, according to the authors, do not appear to be errors at all, but were pre-calculated by these authors to propagate whoever they wanted Jesus to be and whatever they wanted Jesus to do.

wordy

Suppose there was one that was the first. what was his name?
Marcion? He is seen as a heretic I guess.

But the Constantine folks didn't like how he put it together
so they came up with Mark instead and tried to delete all
instances of the first one so that Mark should be the only version known.

then came Mathew and Luke probable to serve different groups.
A kind of political move.

But they forgot about the Gnostics so they needed a semi-gnostic
version that was debunking the gnostics so they come up with John.

It is all about politics and not much about a real person as far as I know.

Chili

That is bad news already.They are not error ridden Gospels but Matthew explains the Jewish error that Jesus came to correct. So away with Judaism in Mark, add some Catholic metaphysics in Luke where Peter was rock, and have the right Gospel left in John. So in the end there is only one that counts and the others 3 are telling us how and why they ended up in John the way they did.

schilling.klaus

The four canonical gospels are forgeries by Irenaeus and his friends who wanted them to correspond to the four groups of beasts in the apocalyptic visions of e.g. Ezechiel.
(winged lions, winged bulls, angels, eagles).

There are many many many many more gospels that are not canonical and often older than the canonical ones.

Klaus Schilling

Amaleq13

You have to keep in mind that the Gospels are not thought to have all been written at the same time or place but one can argue that what you suggest is not far from what the author of Luke claims to have been trying to accomplish.

I would suggest that if each version of the story independently obtained sufficient popularity with enough people then all would have to be accepted when it came time to decide what was "canon" and what was not.

Chili

A gospel must be prior to us by nature and second to us by others before we understand their version of it.

mountainman

Military supremacists understand there are four directions.
If you have a big and successful army and you secure the
north and the west and the south, and then the East,
then you can sow the game up from Constantinople.

The four eyewitness directions are something a simple
person can understand, and fight for. It does not take
much imagination to count four fingers. In fact, its a
thumbs up idea.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

There is also the question as to whether the four gospels
are a reaction to an earlier writing by people who are purported
to be living at the same time as the alleged Apostle Peter.

One such person is Simon Magus, who is also supposed to
have written several treatises, two of which allegedly bear
the titles The Four Quarters of the World and The
Sermons of the Refuter, but are lost to us.

If indeed Simon Magus wrote The Four Quarters of the World
and was subdued and died before Peter, then it is only
logical that his authored work must predate the gospels
by a number of decades, minimalist like.

Best wishes


Pete Brown

neilgodfrey

My answer to "what benefit?": None

Hence the need for an additional ingredient: Authority.

Authority either in the form of the Church hierarchy on earth; or if that is problematic, the hierarchy emanating from the Holy Spirit, -- emanating from the One Mind and itself infusing all four.