by peacefulpete 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
LT,
That was the same question I had. With all the interpolations the catholics are accused of.....why not re-adjust the 4 gospels?
The only ones who could have the four Gospels together were not redactors anymore, but Catholic copyists or scribes who held the text as sacred and wouldn't consciously change it.
On one hand they are lying, selfish copyist....or at least their counterparts are..........and on the other hand they are faithful caretakers of the word. Which is it?
Gumby
Good point Narkissos, However many feel that Tatian was immitating his teacher Justin who may have utilized some form of gospel harmony as well. But were these harmonies created because they were uncomfortable with 4 Gospels? Perhaps rather these were convenient compilations much like the Sayings Gospels like Thomas. I think the latter explanation fits the rather loose use of the books and the lack of debate about content at this early stage. For a certainty what harmonies like the Diatessaron demostrate is that the books were not considered inviolable. I'll add to your first comment about Catholic interpolations having been identified, only that dispite many having been identified most remain in the text without informing the casual reader.
Gumby:
I'm glad I'm not the only one on that track.
Yayy! - we got to gun for the same side for a change - LOL.
I take on board the other comments, as they would have related to various communities during the first three centuries, but after that point...???
LT,
I'm like you as I STILL have an open mind. I have not switched to a believer again, but there are some things that don't add up. Somebody must have been very clever to get the entire bible story to jive in the many ways that it does.......it's the parts that DON'T jive that ruin it.
Back to mondays drudgery.....I'm off to work.
Gumby
LT, Gumby:
I think we need define the words we use cuz we're getting a little mixed-up.
In the usual pattern a line is drawn between A. redaction period, involving writers, editors, and even glossators, as subject to literary criticism (i.e., criticism based upon internal, or content, evidence from the text itself) and B. transmission period, involving copyists or scribes, annotations or commentaries, as subject to textual criticism (i.e., criticism based upon external, or material, evidence from manuscripts and other witnesses). This limit corresponds to the fixation of the text, which is admittedly not an instant process (somewhat like the freezing of a river). So the exact line may be endlessly discussed: it's very difficult to distinguish a late (willful) gloss from the later editor from a (still later) scribal marginal note which eventually (and mistakenly) crept into the text.
The usual Bible editions try to stick to this (partly imaginary) line. The standard, btw, is different for the N.T. (where critical editions such as Tischendorf's, Westcott & Hort, or Nestle-Aland, make up a heterogeneous text from all extant manuscripts, which doesn't exactly correspond to any of them) and the O.T. (where the 10th-century-CE masoretic text, as standardized by the Jewish [pharisaic-rabbinical] community, is the main basis except for a few corrections). One could imagine a number of "mini-Bibles", ranging from the non-critical translation of one manuscript as it is (this has been done, in French, for parts of the Western Codex Bezae), to the hypothetical results of textual + literary criticisms: for instance, a translation of a reconstructed Q or Proto-Mark, which are offered in a number of scholarly works...
The only conclusion, IMO, is that there is no such thing as one original Bible text. Every stratum of scripture has its interest, and may be studied for itself.
PP:
IMO Tatian's Diatessaron (which includes some very late Gospel texts, such as GJohn's Prologue) implies the general fixation of the four Gospels, inasmuch as it didn't change them but was composed (and eventually rejected) as still another book. As for the logia sources such as Q or GThomas (and perhaps Justin's collections), one must take into account that they are not just compilations of disconnected sayings, but literary compositions involving a part of inventio (Kloppenborg) as well as the canonical Gospels.
Narkissos..I agree in principle that the inclusion of material from the 4 Gospels in the Diatessaron suggests requires these texts being extant, yet the work left out many controvertial aspects of the tales. The virgin birth for example. (of course maybe it was not yet part of the Mattean story?) The near excusive use of this Gospel in Syrian Christianity rather than any of the 4 says to me that the STORIES were yet free to be reworked.
Gumby...the Synoptics (mark,matt,luke) are similar because they have literary dependence. That is that the writer of Matt USED an early form of Mark (aka UrMark). "Luke" then used both as well as other material (including possibly Josephus). Mark then later was modified to incorporate some things from the other two. John has a complicated history. Elements in it may well be as early as UrMark but was reworked a couple times, including tales from the Synoptics to harmonize it somewhat with the others. Why the stories are not identical (as might be expected if editors desired it so)is complicated. Narkissos has well said how these books arose in separate camps and therefore the texts were somewhat fixed before the efforts to harmonize them took place. Secondly the forms of individual gospels were not uniform. perhaps early efforts to harmonize them was done using versions of the texts that did not eventually win favor due to traditional use of another form. For the sake of argument, in the story about oil on the feet perhaps the author of Luke used a form of Mark that read more alike Luke than it does today. However that particular form of Mark didn't have as wide of circulation as the one that eventually became identified as the Cannonical Mark. However, it does seem sufficient to assume many of the varients are simply due to the writer's liberty with the stories.
Nontheless the fact that some similarity exists in the Gospels is not surprising, as this was by design. The proto-orthodox Fathers chose the partially harmonized form of the 4 from among many for that very reason. These Fathers were not yet "all powerful" as numerous sects of Xtinity existed as rivals to theirs. The fact that eventually similarly minded xtians won out thru political intrigue to become a large corporation meant that they were free to suppress the history of the Gospels, but not extensively rewrite them anymore. There simply were too many copies and too many minds to persuade away from a traditional form of the stories. The best they could now do is insert a passage here and there largely unnoticed. Unfortunately for the Church, the early redactors simply had no way to anticipate the literalist theology that was to come. The next best thing was to keep people from reading them at all.
It was a lot like a bronze sculptor working with hot wax. The window of opportunity for manual manipulation of wax is short, later the artison must use tools to enhance his sculpture, yet after it is cast in bronze, on display and photographed the artist must forever allow the work to represent his talents. If he grows to despise his work he has to convince the museum to remove it from display and destroy all photos. Thats not an easy thing to do.
Nark, and pete,
Thanks for both of you taking the time to write what you did.
I agree pete, that over a long enough period of time, the Jesus story could have easily been manufactored to blend in it's contents. As I mentioned.....there are plenty of discrepencies to see that this was done.
Narc,
The only conclusion, IMO, is that there is no such thing as one original Bible text. Every stratum of scripture has its interest, and may be studied for itself.
Which is one reason alone as to why I personally doubt it's inspired........among other reasons.
If this book which is suppose to be the word of god, and in it's pages(especially the N.T.) has the message of eternal life through Jesus Christ.......then I feel god would have preserved it's original message just as he supposedly inspired it's writers to write. I don't feel god had in mind for his children to have to go back through history and find where men erred in copying it. He also would not have allowed a group to keep it hid from his children as the catholics did, in that it would cause millions to miss it's life saving messages. God can do better than that.
Narc.......I'm glad you came along so poor ol' pete can have someone to relate to in all this damn einstein shit that I can't understand that you two talk about.
Gumby
I don't know how to respond to that Gumby. Other than to assure you that you are quite capable of understanding all that has been posted here if you wanted to. Two years ago i knew hardly anything about Bible history, a couple books later and i start to sound like I know what I'm talking about. (at least some of the time). I do appreciate Leolaia and Narkissos and others that challenge me to learn more. Don't waste the opportunity to discuss things with them.
John's account does not say that this incident took place at the home of Lazarus. John simply says that Jesus came to the town of Bethany, the town where Lazarus lived. When he says that "here" a banquet was given in Jesus honor, the "here" refers to Bethany, not to Lazarus' house. He does not say that Jesus went to the house of Lazarus. Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus was at the home of Simon the Leper when this incident took place. The fact that Martha was serving does not mean Jesus was at the home of Mary and Martha. Some suggest that Simon was Martha's husband, or that he was the father of Martha and Mary, but neither of these suppositions is supported by any historical information we have. The fact that they were at Simon's home and that Martha was serving simply indicates that there was a close friendship between Simon and the family of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. That Martha was willing to serve at a banquet in Jesus' honor, even if it was not her own house, doesn't surprise us. In the earlier incident at the home of Mary and Martha it is clear that Martha loved to cook and serve a meal for guests.
Matthew and Mark tell us that it was a woman who anointed Jesus. John tells us who the woman was, namely, Mary. This is not a contradiction, but as is often the case, John simply adds more details to an account recorded by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. John also adds the detail that it was particularly Judas among the disciples who objected to Mary pouring this expensive liquid on Jesus' body.
Nor is it a contradiction when Matthew and Mark say that Mary poured the liquid on Jesus' head while John says she poured it on Jesus' feet. Both are true. But again John adds the latter because of Mary's unusual action of then wiping Jesus' feet with her hair after she had poured the liquid on Jesus' feet. It was custom to greet a guest by washing his feet and giving him some olive oil for his head (cf. Luke 7:44-45). Mary did both. She poured some perfume on Jesus' head and then also put some on his feet and wiped his feet with her hair. Note that Jesus does not say that Mary poured perfume on his "head" or "feet", but instead he says, "She poured perfume on my body." It is significant that Jesus' knows Mary's thoughts why she did both. He knows she believed his word that he would soon die, and so she had come to prepare his body for burial.
A unprejudiced reading of John declares she and the host did not put oil on jesus' head but his feet. The woman is a stranger in Mark and Matt yet one of his closest friends in John. The Lazars the Leper of Matt and Mark is an unknown character. The simple reference to him with out expanation strongly suggests the story about this Simon the Leper was esponged from the book of Mark. Matt then simply copied the passage as it appeared when he used it as source material. At any rate it seems the implication is that Simon was a familiar friend and disciple. (often assumed that he was healed by Jesus in earlier pericope???) The meal taking place in Lazarus house in John is more than implied in the text, theoretical explanations aside.(Simon the Leper or Simon the Pharisee are not mentioned, Lazarus and his sisters are and they prepare the meal.) The story goes, "Then six days before the passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was...THEY then made him a supper there, and Martha served."
Further in the Matt and Mark version all the disciples complain about the waste of hundreds of denarii in John only Judas does. (The Judas character was apparently a later invention to the Jesus story and "John" has lastly embellished this pericope to further villify him)
Luke has the setting as the beginning of his story not the end as do the others. Yet the details make clear we are dealing with yet another version of the same tale. There the Simon is a Pharisee and an unbeliever(vs39) and it is he who complains, but not about the money but about the sinfullness of the unnamed stranger woman. There is no honest way to harmonize the stories. Any attempts to literalize them misses the message of the writers and insults the intelligence.
