DoubtingDave

As my mum points out many times, there are no contradictions in the gospels! They were written by 4 people with different perspectives, different education levels etc.

It would be like having four people view a car accident. You may get different responses!

Wow! What a simple way to clear everything up. NOT!

Do you really think, in all honesty, that the disciples would have contradicted each other? Especially if they used Mark as a template.

Also, the gospels contradict each other on serious fundamental issues. Dont you think they would take their time and know what happened?

What are your thoughts on that argument and rebuttal?

GakuseiDon

How many times did the rooster crow before Peter denied knowing Jesus? And who provided this information?

SempaiDon

mountainman

Four eyewittness reports? Indeed a tetrarchy of official support.



My thoughts are that you may need to examine the nature and history of the Eusebian Canon Tables, before making any final decision. These things were deliberately packaged with the earliest bibles for a very good reason. It tells us precisely who of the 4 eyewitness reports said what and whether it was agreed upon by 3, or 2 or 1 or none of the other eyewitness reports. Just the thing you need for quick reference in a hasty decision about the contents of eyewitness reports in the new and strange testament. People learn to live with contradictions - the 1686 years since the Constantine Bible appeared (packaged with these "Eusebian Canon Tables") has established this as a rather peculiar fact.



Thank Christ for the Logos of the Father of Neoplatonism Ammonias Saccas whom Eusebius names as the author of these ready-reckoner who-said-what tables.

Having said that, there will always be contradictions. The fabricators of the new and strange testament to the Greeks built these in imo. You dont issue the same story under 4 names. Somewhere in between is the place to aim. All they needed was the leadership of four people - four supposed eyewitness reports to the events in downtown Jerusalem etc in the 1st century. Matthew wrote his report first according to Big E, who is after all said and done, our authority on the 4 eyewitness reports, on the correspondence of Paul with various parties, and on the mass of Heretical Gnostic Eye-witness Reports.

aa5874

Tell your mum what she claims is ONLY VALID if ALL FOUR did actually SEE the car accident.

The authors of the Gospels did NOT claim they actually SAW anything that they wrote about Jesus.

JonA

Of course. That's the whole reason for writing a gospel: to give your own spin on things.

Yes, especially if they used Mark, or any other traditions, as a template. If you already have a gospel in hand, then there can be no other reason for writing a new one other than to alter what was in the old.

Jon

aa5874

So, the Jesus stories are just all spin.

spin

...at a drive by...
There is a teleology of gospel writing implied here that is not convincing to me. Someone sits down to give their "spin on things". A gospel was a collection of traditions. The earliest gospel we have--Mark--is a collection of traditions at least some of which were oral. (How better do we explain the two stories of the feeding of the multitudes with loaves and fishes? Why else does Jesus come from the unnamed "his country" when supposedly he was from Nazareth in 1:9?)

If your community has a gospel, let's say Mark, and preachers come to the community from time to time telling Jesus stories that are not in your gospel. (The Didache talks of itinerant preachers who made their living of christian communities.) What does your community do? Do they forget them or record them? If they record them, why shouldn't those "memories" be incorporated in their gospel?

There is a general malaise in thinking over the production of gospels as though you had one writer who either wrote from a fresh page or redacted earlier written gospel materials, perhaps inventing along the way. The lone penman theory is ridiculous to me.

jgoodguy

Sound like a good spin to me. In addition we have all the redactors and interpolators modifying what was original.

DrZoidberg

The myth states that the disciples split up to spread the word. They might have written it on the road. Not to be an apologetic or anything but your mom's explanation I think makes perfect sense, assuming we accept the rest of the myth.

All it comes down to if you believe the Bible contains the inerrent word of God or if it's esentially written by people. I think, as Christians go, your mom has a very healthy attitude to the Bible. In effect she's saying that some common sense needs to be applied before swallowing what's in the Bible. It's hard to argue against the wisdom in that. This is a kind of Christianity I have no problems with as it is pretty harmless.

Vorkosigan

Haha. Witty lad. Just by coincidence no doubt, the two examples you picked are probably insertions by later redactors.

Vorkosigan