Freethought & Rationalism Archive

02-16-2004, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregor
Why include four ? Simple marketing.

So?

If it's a mystery religion the mystery must be exposed but not be to revealing and that is good thinking. "You've got to have a plan," you know?

Ebonmuse · 02-16-2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MiddleMan
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?

I've always wondered the same thing myself. In fact, I wonder why Christians aren't more upset about it - if literacy was rare back then and papyrus was precious, why waste the space telling the same story four times? Wouldn't it serve a greater purpose to only tell the story once, and use the space saved to go into greater detail about Jesus' life and tell about things that had to be omitted from the gospels as they are?

02-16-2004, 10:37 AM

The four different persepctives should force the reader to look beyond the literal intepretation and there realize that Jesus' life was also a metaphor and there is nothing more that needs to be told.

Mageth · 02-16-2004, 10:51 AM

Early church fathers apparently had numerological reasons for selecting four and only four gospels.

The Four Gospels, by Irenaeus, 2nd Century.

The reason for four and only four gospels may also be tied to the "four evangelists", represented by the lion, bull, eagle, and man, an astrologically-derived set of symbols found in several places in the Bible, as well as in various other mythologies concurrent with or predating the Bible.

This page ties the "four evangelists" to the chimeric sphinx figure (stretching things a bit, perhaps, but interesting to think about):

Quote:

[the] Sphinx [is] composed of a man's head and chest, eagle's wings, a bull's hindquarters, and a lions' forequarters became symbols of the Biblical tetramorph and the four living creatures of Revelation. [Ezek 1:5-14; Rev. 4:6-8] These in turn represent the cherubim; the four Evangelists and their Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the four kings of the created world - the lion (king of the jungle), the eagle (king of the air), the bull (king of the farm), and man (king of creation); and, according to St. Jerome, Christ's Incarnation (the man), His Passion (the bull), His Resurrection (the Lion), and His Ascension (the eagle).

MortalWombat · 02-16-2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Early church fathers apparently had numerological reasons for selecting four and only four gospels.

The Four Gospels, by Irenaeus, 2nd Century.

Actually, that particular translation is from a later manuscript of Irenaeus. Earlier ones, such as the translation of St. Maynard, have not removed the following italicized verses:

Quote:

There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less:
Four shall be the number of the gospels, and the number of the gospels shall be four.
Five gospels shall there not be, and neither shall there be three, excepting that thou then goest on to four.
Six is RIGHT OUT.
Four like the points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.....

MiddleMan · 02-16-2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ebonmuse
I've always wondered the same thing myself. In fact, I wonder why Christians aren't more upset about it - if literacy was rare back then and papyrus was precious, why waste the space telling the same story four times? Wouldn't it serve a greater purpose to only tell the story once, and use the space saved to go into greater detail about Jesus' life and tell about things that had to be omitted from the gospels as they are?

This is a great insight, Ebonmuse. I hadn't thought of it from that angle. I think you've got something there!

gregor · 02-16-2004, 02:17 PM

Four?

Post hoc excuses.

If there were a fifth gospel that towed the company line, they'd included it and come up with some numerology why five was a "magic" number.

Mageth · 02-16-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregor
Four?

Post hoc excuses.

If there were a fifth gospel that towed the company line, they'd included it and come up with some numerology why five was a "magic" number.

Irenaeus' argument for "four and only four" was made before they settled on the Canonical Gospels.

Tornado Watch · 02-16-2004, 03:30 PM

Actually wasn't there a gospel of Thomas that was written, but for some reason not added to the Bible?

That's another thought that I don't understand about the Bible.. I believe there were over 200 writings which were considered "the word of God" but only 66 were put into the Bible itself.. why were the others left out?

Mageth · 02-16-2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Tornado Watch
Actually wasn't there a gospel of Thomas that was written, but for some reason not added to the Bible?

Yes. There were many other Gospels as well. Thomas' "Gospel" is a collection of 100 or so sayings of Jesus, some of which appear in the Canonical Gospels, many of which do not. IIRC, there is also a "Gospel" of Mary Magdalene, a Gospel of Philip, a Gospel of Peter, a Gospel of Truth, etc....Most were excluded because they didn't match the "orthodox" interpretation of the Christian Faith, many having Gnostic or other non-orthodox messages. See Elaine Pagel's excellent The Gnostic Gospels for more info.

That's another thought that I don't understand about the Bible.. I believe there were over 200 writings which were considered "the word of God" but only 66 were put into the Bible itself.. why were the others left out?

Various reasons, I would assume.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-16-2004, 10:37 AM	#13
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	The four different persepctives should force the reader to look beyond the literal intepretation and there realize that Jesus' life was also a metaphor and there is nothing more that needs to be told.

02-16-2004, 02:17 PM	#17
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Four? Post hoc excuses. If there were a fifth gospel that towed the company line, they'd included it and come up with some numerology why five was a "magic" number.

02-16-2004, 03:30 PM	#19
Tornado Watch Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: AL Posts: 1,260	Actually wasn't there a gospel of Thomas that was written, but for some reason not added to the Bible? That's another thought that I don't understand about the Bible.. I believe there were over 200 writings which were considered "the word of God" but only 66 were put into the Bible itself.. why were the others left out?

02-16-2004, 03:48 PM	#20
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Tornado Watch Actually wasn't there a gospel of Thomas that was written, but for some reason not added to the Bible? Yes. There were many other Gospels as well. Thomas' "Gospel" is a collection of 100 or so sayings of Jesus, some of which appear in the Canonical Gospels, many of which do not. IIRC, there is also a "Gospel" of Mary Magdalene, a Gospel of Philip, a Gospel of Peter, a Gospel of Truth, etc....Most were excluded because they didn't match the "orthodox" interpretation of the Christian Faith, many having Gnostic or other non-orthodox messages. See Elaine Pagel's excellent The Gnostic Gospels for more info. That's another thought that I don't understand about the Bible.. I believe there were over 200 writings which were considered "the word of God" but only 66 were put into the Bible itself.. why were the others left out? Various reasons, I would assume.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.