- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
01/09/2014 UPDATE: I have posted it all online. Don’t try to open it on a phone! It’s all on one page and your phone probably won’t like that. Here it is:
It needs some more editing and and introduction, but it’s readable. I’ve lost steam so I don’t know when I’ll get through the final edit (which is about the fifth time going through it).
Please let me know if you see any errors.
I have been combining the four gospels and it’s been a great experience. I don’t pretend it makes a more accurate depiction of what happened 2000 years ago, but it makes a nice way to read about the life of Christ. I just wanted to share a sample to show how it works. I sometimes switch to another author mid-sentence to get a little more detail. What do you think?
The TransfigurationMark 9Luke 9And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered
Mark 9Matt 17Luke 9And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.”
Mark 9Matt 17And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, “Arise, and be not afraid.” And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.”
Mark 9Matt 17And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.”
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
It is widely believed that Matthew, Mark and Luke (synoptic gospels) all came from the same source. All were written well after Jesus’ death. Each wrote a slightly different account from this source, so it would make sense that one could read them together to fill in the holes. I like it Shawn. Each one lends a slightly different tone to the text and gives the whole story a richer detail. For what it’s worth, I’ve seen significant differences among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Matthew put events in a very different order. Yes, they still may have used a common source, or more than one source, as a reference. There are several viable hypotheses. I updated the first post with a link to the content I put online. I hope people will enjoy it, and I will appreciate any feedback. I actually got through all four books long ago, but I have been checking and re-checking the work.
Looks great to me Shawn. It reminds me of reading the book “Jesus The Christ” with the semi-chronological summary of the life of Jesus. Granted I was pretty green to the bible, but it really showed how differently 4 people might see the same events. This is even more pronounced if they were using the same source. 4 men telling the same story in different ways. Not only with different word choice but some even with unique events. Did the other three men neglect to include the unique event or was there another reason why it is only listed in one of the gospels.
There’s no “like” button, but if there were I’d push it. :clap: Roy wrote:Looks great to me Shawn. It reminds me of reading the book “Jesus The Christ” with the semi-chronological summary of the life of Jesus.
The “semi” part is important because it is very difficult to determine the order of events. I have spent a lot of time figuring it out, and part of it is just guessing or making an arbitrary decision.
Roy wrote:4 men telling the same story in different ways. Not only with different word choice but some even with unique events. Did the other three men neglect to include the unique event or was there another reason why it is only listed in one of the gospels.
Good question. “The question of the precise nature of their literary relationship—the ‘synoptic problem’—has been a topic of lively debate for centuries and has been described as ‘the most fascinating literary enigma of all time‘” ( sourceMaybe Mark wrote his account and shared it with Matthew, who checked it out and said, “Hey, this is cool. I want to use it as a basis for my own account. I will make some modifications to reflect how I remember events and add some things that were significant to me.”
Luke was probably converted after Jesus died and wrote his account in the early 60s (I am assuming here that Luke is actually the author, even though many modern scholars say otherwise). The introduction of Luke is interesting:
Quote:Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus…(ESV)
Luke indicated that “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” had compiled narratives and that “many” others had endeavored to do the same. He made “an orderly account” based on the records he had. Along with other events and teachings, the parables of The Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan are found only in Luke. I suppose these things were taken from the “Q source.” He also spent a lot of time with Paul, who somehow had details regarding the Last Supper.I reckon not all of the apostles were present for all of the events recorded in the 4 books, so it makes sense that each account includes some events while omitting others.
Shawn wrote:I reckon not all of the apostles were present for all of the events recorded in the 4 books, so it makes sense that each account includes some events while omitting others.
There also each written for different audiences, I think.
DarkJedi wrote:Shawn wrote:I
reckon not all of the apostles were present for all of the events
recorded in the 4 books, so it makes sense that each account includes
some events while omitting others.
There also each written for different audiences, I think.
Matthew is written for Jews. John much more aimed at Greeks. Luke is also slightly more geared towards Gentiles.
John is my favorite but the odd one out.
John’s perspective is certainly unique, though, and he includes things the others don’t. John’s account is very interesting. Perhaps he was more of a writer than the others, as he is more poetic. Did he not care to record parables? Why was he focused more on miracles? One theory, which makes sense to me, proposes that he set out to compile a record to fill gaps left by the synoptics. John was called “the Beloved”. Maybe his personality simply was different and geared more toward love, which I think absolutely is the central theme in all his writings. Maybe he didn’t write it for any particular audience, like the others; maybe he wrote it as more of a personal testimony written by a best friend. Maybe he didn’t want another “academic” or “apologetic” treatise. I don’t know, but I think his personality and closeness to Jesus might have played a huge role in how and what he wrote.
The Greek used in John is much more akin to that of Greek philosophy and even the Gnostic Gospels. He uses many of words and concepts eg Logos that would be familiar to these people. This alone suggests we may be looking at the original languae, whereas the other three may have Aramaic/Hebrew originals.
Ray, I think you’re right about John writing a testimony rather than an academic compilation. He focused on light vs. darkness, and accepting the light. The book includes:
Quote:In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (1:4-5)
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (3:18-19)
I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (8:12)
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. (12:46)
He didn’t write anything about the birth of Jesus or genealogy. His account begins at a point where Jesus had already begun his ministry. There is nothing about the temptations of Christ, the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist, the calling of the twelve, arguments regarding the sabbath and fasting and taxes etc, cursing the fig tree, signs of the second coming, and parables.He is the only one who wrote about turning water to wine, the visit with Nicodemus (“God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son”), the healing at the Pool of Bethesda, the bread of life (almost a parable, but I guess it’s a metaphor), certain teachings in the temple (“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”), the woman caught in adultery, raising Lazarus from the dead, the washing of feet, and the commandment to love (besides what is said in the Sermon on the Mount).
John actually spelled out his purpose in the very last verse:
Quote:But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.