TotD: the 4 Gospels contradict each other

[CDWolfe]

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each tell a different version of the resurrection story, in total contradiction to each other:

Matthew: on the 3rd day, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visit the tomb. They saw a single angel sitting on the stone.

Mark: on the 3rd day, Mary, Mary and Salome come to visit the tomb. They saw that the stone had already been rolled away and a young man dressed in white was sitting inside the tomb.

Luke: on the 3rd day, several people go to the tomb (men and women), the stone is rolled away, and while they are inside two men dressed in dazzling clothing appeared before them.

John: on the 3rd day, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw that the stone had been rolled away, sees that the body is gone, leaves to get Peter and 1 other, goes back to the tomb, the men enter and see only the linens, while Mary stayed outside, but when she looked in she saw 2 angels dressed in white sitting in the tomb, and then she saw Jesus standing there though she did not recognize him.


Wow! Four very different versions of the same story from people who were [edit] alive during that time. Opinions?

What is interesting to note is that if you can actually read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, the story actually stops when they visit the tomb and see that the stone has been rolled away. Apparently someone later on decided it needed a longer, happier ending...though none of it is found in the original texts. Hmmm...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wow! Four very different versions of the same story from people who were supposedly there. Opinions?

Wow!

(BTW: Your conclusion is much, much better than your argument. You might wish to read some material on the reliance coherence of eyewitness testimony.)

 

[CDWolfe]

Wow!

(BTW: Your conclusion is much, much better than your argument. You might wish to read some material on the reliance coherence of eyewitness testimony.)

No need. I already know that different witnesses see different things during the same event. Was just part of the presentation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No need. I already know that different witnesses see different things during the same event. Was just part of the presentation.

 

[CDWolfe]

???

Not sure what your face palm is for...

Reliance = the act of relying
Coherence = systematic consistency
Eyewitness = one who sees an occurrence
Testimony = solemn declaration by a witness

Put them together and you get exactly what I am referring to. During traumatic events, people tend to lose details, can't remember things, or the mind plays tricks on you and you see things not so clearly. If you are referring to something different, do tell...and provide sources.

 

[CDWolfe]

Moving on...

One angle you must consider, even if it seems blasphemous, is that perhaps Jesus's body was stolen from the tomb, and every event afterward was made up to try and make the messiah prophecy stick.

Remember, according to the original texts, the story ends with the tomb visit on the 3rd day.

Christians obviously will refute this, because to declare otherwise destroys the very basis of Christianity.

Orthodox Jews pretty much adopt this idea because Jesus did not fulfill all the prophecies, and therefore was not the messiah.

Who is right or wrong? No one can prove one way or another. It's all speculation and theories.

 

[arthra]

There is a lot of variation among the Gospels. I found a good resource where you can explore it..

Table of Gospel Parallels

As a Baha'i I accept that Jesus lived and taught and many of His teachings ... the Gospel.. can be appreciated even today. I don't believe though that He was physically resurrected as many Christians do. We believe He was spiritually resurrected.

 

[CDWolfe]

I too accept that Jesus lived and I believe in his moral teachings. As to his divinity, I am unsure. I would like to think he was the messiah (my Baptist roots) but with me it usually takes more than theory and speculation that is contradicted left and right.

 

[outhouse]

Moving on...

is that perhaps Jesus's body was stolen from the tomb,

.

I used to think this, but that is a few leaps past plausible.



Simply believing in a spiritual resurrection, and the realization that the gospels were not intended to be read literally as a history book

But more as different guides of morals and thought provoking exchange of ideas between early christian communities.


More then likely he ended up in a pit for the dogs to scavenge

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What is interesting to note is that if you can actually read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic

I can. Well, actually my Hebrew is pretty limited, and my Aramaic is like someone who knows Spanish trying to read Portuguese, but I have no problem with ancient Greek, and as all the gospels were written in Greek, that would seem to be all that matters. Yet I don't find what you say to be true. Perhaps you can show how "Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic" supports what you say?

 

[CDWolfe]

I can. Well, actually my Hebrew is pretty limited, and my Aramaic is like someone who knows Spanish trying to read Portuguese, but I have no problem with ancient Greek, and as all the gospels were written in Greek, that would seem to be all that matters. Yet I don't find what you say to be true. Perhaps you can show how "Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic" supports what you say?

My source is a PhD professor at Regent University who teaches ancient history, various theology courses, and is an archaeologist. His native tongue is English, but he is fluent in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, German and French. It was during one of his lectures.

It was a class on the book of Mark. The earliest manuscripts available for study do not have Mark 16:9-20. They stop with verse 8. The rest expanded from there, but without a written source explaining why (plenty of theories though).

I found it hard to believe he was fluent with all those languages as well but some people have a passion for it...much like Pope John Paul II, who was fluent in Polish, English, Italian, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Croatian, Latin and ancient Greek.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not sure what your face palm is for...

Given ...

Wow! Four very different versions of the same story from people who were [edit] alive during that time. Opinions?

you appear to feign amazement ("Wow!) that different versions of the same story could be told by eyewitnesses yet later acknowledge that having eyewitnesses offer different versions of the same story is relatively commonplace.

That just struck me as -worthy.

 

[Sleeppy]

It'd be interesting to have more information. At what time(s) are the additions supposed to have happened?

 

[CDWolfe]

It'd be interesting to have more information. At what time(s) are the additions supposed to have happened?

Not sure which additions you refer to, but if you wish to compare the gospels, may I suggest BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. as a resource. You can look up multiple passages and translations on that website. Read through them, keep up with who goes to the tomb, what they see, etc. and compare each book accordingly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not sure which additions you refer to, but if you wish to compare the gospels, may I suggest ...

I think he was asking about dating additions.

Also, sense you've been so kind as to share your "TotD" it would help to know how you establish vorlage such that you can distinguish between (a) additions, (b) deletions, and (c) concurrent traditions.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm not looking for the differences in those passages, but when they are supposed to have been added. After verse 8.

 

[outhouse]

It'd be interesting to have more information. At what time(s) are the additions supposed to have happened?

If I understand this right. there is a short and long ending of Gmark.

The short ending first was redacted, and later a long ending in Gmark was added early 2nd century and mainstream mid 2nd century

 

[Sleeppy]

If I understand this right. there is a short and long ending of Gmark.

The short ending first was redacted, and later a long ending in Gmark was added early 2nd century and mainstream mid 2nd century

Thanks Outhouse.

Do you also know if the events in the redaction were mentioned elsewhere? Any mentions before the 2nd century?

 

[outhouse]

Thanks Outhouse.

Do you also know if the events in the redaction were mentioned elsewhere? Any mentions before the 2nd century?

Not before the second century.

Afterwards there were all kinds of different endings, as wiki states. by the 5th century there were 4 different endings

Read the Gospel of Mark wiki link it has this to say.

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Mark 16
Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, appears to be a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[36] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[37] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[37]
The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending.[38] Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, whether it resulted from accidental loss, or even the author's death.[39] Those who believe that 16:8 was not the intended ending argue that it would be very unusual syntax for the text to end with the conjunction gar (γά&#961, as does Mark 16:8, and that thematically it would be strange for a book of good news to end with a note of fear (ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, "for they were afraid").[40] If the 16:8 ending was intentional, it could indicate a connection to the theme of the "Messianic Secret". This abrupt ending is also used to support the identification of this book as an example of closet drama, which characteristically ended without resolution and often with a tragic or shocking event that prevents closure.[41]

 

[CDWolfe]

I'm not looking for the differences in those passages, but when they are supposed to have been added. After verse 8.

Ah, allow me...

Mark 16:9-20 was not found in the oldest available texts as an "original" ending. It was added in the 2nd century CE. The latter part of Mark was written in a different style than the first part, which leads scholars to believe that a different person completed the work. Many of the most renowned biblical scholars doubt the authenticity of 9-20.

If you look at the history of the time period, Christianity was just taking off, Christians were being persecuted, and the Pharisees (middle class Jews) and the Sadducees (aristocrats) had just been slapped down by Jesus on numerous occasions (they hated him, needless to say). Remember that they were the ones who wanted Jesus crucified, not the Romans (they just carried it out).

One can reason that there was animosity between the Jews and the Christians, and that measures were taken on both sides to "win" the conflict. One very popular theory was that 9-20 was added by the Christians to fulfill prophecies of the messiah, while the Jews worked to debunk the story. Religion is very political and powerful.

In summary, 9-20 was added well after the death of Jesus, and is not found in the original story line. The "why" is left up to debate and has been for 2,000 years.