Gospel Truths?
May 2020
The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John form the spiritual backbone of the New Testament. They contain accounts of the deeds and sayings of Jesus. Most Christians regard them as being divinely inspired. In this article I shall look at some of the inconsistencies in the Gospels and some of the ways in which they contradict each other.
The first three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic (from the Greek meaning “with the same eye”) Gospels. They include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and with sometimes identical wording. John’s Gospel is very different from these three and has some stories not contained in the others e.g. the raising of Lazarus. In addition, there is a focus on being born again and eternal life.
The dating of the Gospels is contested, but generally it is believed that Mark’s was written about 70 CE, Matthew’s and Luke’s about 80-90 CE and John’s about 90-100 CE. They were all composed in Greek which is important as this was the intellectual and international language of its day. Plus, Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the original stories and sayings therefore had to be translated. The stories have been translated and copied into languages many times since they were first written down. No copies of the original manuscripts exist. Incidentally the composers of the Gospels are not known either. The names were associated with the individual books much later. The earliest known fragment (containing seven lines of John’s Gospel) is in the Manchester Rylands Library and dates to 150 CE.
Most scholars believe that Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels made use of and borrowed from Mark’s Gospel. The Gospels should therefore form the order Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Having said that, there is also a theory that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke took some of their sayings of Jesus from a missing or lost document Q. These sayings are not in Mark’s Gospel and formed an early collection of the sayings of Jesus.
Anyone who has read the Gospels will have noticed that the Jesus in Mark, Matthew and Luke is basically the same man. He says lots of the same things and does lots of the same deeds. The Jesus in John’s Gospel is different. John’s Jesus does not speak in short pithy sayings and parables. He gives long talks and sermons and almost goes out of his way to be deliberately misunderstood e.g. John 6:51-58 where Jesus talks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. If you know about the Catholic belief in transubstantiation then this makes sense, but to people at the time it must have been simply puzzling and slightly disturbing to hear. When Jesus talks to the woman of Samaria at the well (John 4:4-26), it also baffled her to hear Jesus state he could provide water that would make you never thirst again.
The Jesus in The Book of Revelation is totally different again. Scholars are divided over who wrote this. Many think that the “John” who wrote Revelation on the isle of Patmos is the same person as John the Apostle while others do not. In either case the Jesus of Revelation is not the same Jesus as featured in the Gospels. It is full of fantastic imagery and not for nothing has the Book of Revelation been referred to being written by “John on acid”.
Below I have listed various themes which occur in the three synoptic Gospels and compare/contrast them with each other and with John’s Gospel as well as with other known facts about life in the Roman empire 2000 years ago. I have also included in a small exploration of St Paul’s views. The majority of points I refer to below are referenced directly to quotes from the Gospels themselves which you can look up yourself.
If you have not already done so then I would recommend that you read the Gospels and New Testament as whole. I first read the Bible in its entirety when I was 18. I started at Genesis and read all the way through to Revelation. I don’t particularly recommend that method, but I have read and re-read books from both the Old and New Testaments many times since. Not only do the books provide a fascinating insight into Christianity and its development (and thereby its effect on Western civilisation), but the stories themselves are wonderful. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that many Christians actually read the stories at leastways not in a critical manner. Short parts of the Gospels are read out in churches services on Sundays. However, the Gospels are not read through in order. If you have a story from one Gospel read out to you in church one month and then have the same story from another Gospel read out maybe months later, you will not notice or remember any differences. To my knowledge no comparisons are ever made in churches that point out the different treatment by the Gospel writers of the same stories or sayings.
Below are the topics that I explore: -
The virgin birth and date
The Census and Bethlehem
The Christmas story
The brothers and sisters of Jesus
The length of Jesus’ ministry
The teaching(s) of Jesus on Divorce
“Love Your enemies” and “Turn the other cheek”
The Last Supper with the missing eucharist bread and wine/body and blood
An aside on the Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code
The Crucifixion
The Marys
Mary Magdalene and the Resurrection
Mark’s Gospel and its additional ending
How does Judas die?
St Paul, slavery, women and sex
Final thoughts
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The virgin birth and date In the Catholic tradition, Mary the mother of Jesus is a virgin who conceives Jesus via the Holy Spirit. This is called the Immaculate Conception in the Catholic church. Jesus is subsequently born in Bethlehem.
The reason given for Jesus being born of a virgin is to fulfil a prophecy in Isaiah.
Isaiah 7:14 New International Version (NIV) 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]
Footnotes: a) The Hebrew is plural. b) Or young woman c) Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls son, and he or son, and they d) Immanuel means God with us.
The word “virgin” is a mistranslation of the original word in Hebrew for “young woman”. This has been translated into Greek as “virgin”. This has been mistakenly taken up to indicate the divine nature of Jesus as the son of a virgin.
The name Jesus is derived from the Hebrew name Yeshua, meaning "to deliver; to rescue."
Most dictionaries will translate Jesus' name (which was apparently more properly translated to Joshua than "Jesus") to be "God is salvation." Yah is short for Yahweh, and shuah is from yeshuah which means "to save, save alive, rescue."
Even if you accept that Isaiah’s prophecy really is true and a young woman (not a virgin) was to give birth and that child was to be Jesus, then why wasn’t Jesus called Immanuel? Furthermore, why in Matthew 1:21 does an angel tell Joseph to name the child Jesus?
The date of Jesus’ birth is contested by scholars. King Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. Jesus must have been born before this according to the Gospels. Unfortunately a mistake was made later when the date of Jesus’ birth was calculated. Most scholars place Jesus’ birth to around 7-4 BCE. As we date our time from the birth of Jesus then the year now 2020 (at time of writing) should really be somewhere between 2024 and 2027.
Finally, why is something as special as a virgin birth only mentioned in Matthew and Luke? Neither Mark nor John deal with Jesus’ miraculous birth. The author of Luke is supposed to have received details of these stories from Mary. Mark’s Gospel may have been written before the author of Luke found out the details. However, the Gospel of John is much later and you would think the author of this would have heard of these stories himself.
The Census and Bethlehem Luke 2:2 tells of a census while Quirinius was governor of Syria which forces Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem where
Jesus is born. The earliest known Roman census in Palestine was taken in 6-7 CE so that would be too late for the birth of Jesus. Plus, there is little, if any, evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria before Herod's death in 4 BCE.
Let us consider the census. The Romans were very efficient administrators. What would be the main reason for a census? Obviously to record and count people to see who needed to pay tax. In Luke’s Gospel, everyone is asked to go back to the town of their birth for the census which is why Joseph has to go to Bethlehem. Why would the Romans ask everybody to go back to their home town for a census? In small towns many people may have stayed there all their lives so it would make no difference. However, in a big city like Jerusalem, for instance, there would have been many people from all over Palestine. To ask them to go back to their home town would cause huge disruption. And what would they do once they were back in their towns? Presumably Joseph would have had to report to a Roman official in Bethlehem that he was working as a carpenter in Nazareth. What would the Roman official do then? Send a report to another Roman official in Nazareth that Joseph was working there as a carpenter and he needed to be taxed accordingly? Surely it would have been easier to have Joseph report to a Roman tax/census official in Nazareth that he was living and working there? Why have him trek all the way to Bethlehem? How many other people in Nazareth or Jerusalem would have had to travel all over Palestine? Think of the inconvenience, loss of business and need for Roman tax officials in many towns to be sending reports to their counterparts in other towns? It is simply absurd so how and why did the story come about?
The Jews thought that a prophecy in Micah 5:2 meant that the Messiah would come out of the town of David i.e. Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2 says, “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
The Jews interpreted this passage as a prophecy about their Messiah.
The Gospel writers therefore needed to get Jesus (of Nazareth) to have been born in Bethlehem and so they used the census story to have Joseph take Mary there. Without the device of a census that forces people to go back to their home towns there is no reason for Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem.
As an aside, I see this indirectly as proof that Jesus existed as a real person. There was a Jesus but he was born in Nazareth or at least brought up there. Everyone knew Jesus was from Nazareth and reference to this is made frequently in the Gospels. The fact that the Gospel writers tried to manufacture his birth in Bethlehem to fit in with the prophecy means that Jesus of Nazareth must have been a real person. Otherwise why go to all that bother of the census etc. If Jesus had been a made-up figure, then the Gospel writers could have just said he was born in Bethlehem and that would have been that.
The Christmas Story If you have seen a Christmas scene in a church then you will have seen the shepherds, three Kings, sheep and cattle, a star, angels and Joseph and Mary surrounding Jesus in his manger. But how much of this is in the Gospels? Only two Gospels, Matthew and Luke, mention the Christmas story of the birth of Jesus. The Wise men (they are not Kings) are mentioned in Matthew 2:1. They are not mentioned in Luke. In Matthew, the angels and shepherds are mentioned, but again not in Luke. Luke does have Jesus laid in a manger and obviously Mary and Joseph would have been present.
The brothers and sisters of Jesus The tradition of Jesus being an only child is not upheld even in the Gospels themselves. The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. In Luke, when Jesus is told by a crowd gathered to hear him speak, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you,” Jesus famously rejects them: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (8:19-21). The Gospel of John says that after Jesus performed his first miracles in Cana, “he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days” (John 2:12).
At school I once asked a priest why the Gospels refer to the brothers of Jesus. His reply was that it was a mistranslation for “cousins”. However, when I asked why the mistranslation was not just corrected in new bibles he had no answer. It is difficult to believe that this is a mistranslation as the text only really makes sense when referring to brothers, but not cousins or other close relatives. An argument that is used to explain this is that Joseph was a widower and these others were his children from his previous marriage. Nice but even the Gospels do not corroborate this. There is no Gospel story that mentions 6+ children accompanying Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem or them being present during the Christmas story.
Why is Jesus presented as an only child? The reason I think makes most sense (in spite of over-whelming evidence from the Gospels themselves) is as follows. Early Christianity established a tradition that Mary was a virgin (who conceived Jesus through divine intervention). As time went by, this virginity was subsequently extended to the rest of her entire life and Mary was declared to have “perpetual virginity” by the church. Mary could not therefore have had extra children with Joseph and so the others are conveniently explained out of the story by priests.
Length of Jesus’ ministry In the synoptic Gospels, the ministry of Jesus takes a single year, but in John it takes three, as evidenced by references to three Passovers. In John’s Gospel, the cleansing of the Temple occurs in the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than near its end as in the other three Gospels. The other three Gospels condense events from John’s three years into a single year.
The teaching(s) of Jesus on Divorce Jesus allows and does not allow divorce depending on the circumstances and which Gospel you read. Mark and Luke agree that there are no circumstances in which divorce can be allowed.
Mark 10:11-12 11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
However, Matthew’s Gospel modifies this.
In Matthew 19:3, Jesus is asked by the Pharisees about divorce. His reply is below.
Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9 Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery" 10 His disciples said to Him, “If this is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.”…
And again Matthew 5:32 Jesus includes the exception of sexual immorality for divorce.
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
This appears to be confusing unless… If you accept that the Gospels of Mark and Luke have recorded the original teaching of Jesus then someone has altered Matthew’s Gospel to allow divorce for “sexual immorality”. Why would anyone do that? Possibly because they believed that men would never accept it if they couldn’t get divorced for that reason. Even Jesus’ disciples thought that not being able to get divorced except for sexual immorality was too strict.
“Love Your enemies” and “Turn the other cheek"
These two sayings form a central core of Jesus’ pacifism. He himself does not resist when he is being taken to his crucifixion. Jesus also stops one of the disciples from attacking one of the people who come to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Matthew 5:39 New International Version (NIV). 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Matthew 5:43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…
These are considered commendable actions and stances to take. However, I disagree with both. I see nothing wrong in physically defending yourself against any aggressor who hits you on the cheek or anywhere else. As for loving enemies maybe some people can but I can’t and/or don’t and/or won’t. You may think that makes me a nasty person and maybe I am, but I appear to have the vast majority of Christians who ever lived on my side. I see nothing in the history of Christianity which convinces me that any sizeable group of Christians have ever put these words into practice in any substantial way anywhere or at any time. I don’t blame them for that at all. However, if you believe that God – the supreme being, the author of life and omnipotent creator of the universe - is telling you to do these things then surely that should count for something. Why haven’t the majority of Christians ever put these sayings into practice? Maybe it is because it is simply impossible for the vast majority of humans to obey this commandment. You are being asked to do something which you will almost certainly fail in.
I will finish this point with one more saying of Jesus which has become known as the Golden rule “You must love your neighbour as yourself”.
This is not original to Jesus as it also appears in the analects of Confucius and before him in the Old Testament at Leviticus 19 : 18. I think Jesus read this saying from Leviticus (it is sandwiched between chapters on bestiality and adultery) and decided this is what he wanted to preach. However, Jesus himself attests to the whole of the Law from the Old Testament. At Matthew 5:18-19, he states :
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
My reading of this is that Jesus wants all people to follow the Law as laid down by Yahweh. Of course, people cherry pick what parts of the New and Old Testament they want to follow, but Jesus at least seems clear on what he wants people to do.
The Last Supper with the missing eucharist/bread and wine/body and blood. Read the four Gospel passages for this. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, the Last Supper stories contain the words of the Eucharist that are continued to this day in church services i.e. that the bread and wine are offered up as the body and blood of Jesus. Catholics believe that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the actual body and blood of Christ. Other Christians do not take the words of Jesus quite so literally. However, these words are missing from the telling of the Last Supper in John’s Gospel. As this is an important part of all church services it is difficult to understand why the author of John omits it. This is spite of the fact that in the other Gospels Jesus had asked the disciples to “do this in memory of me”.
An aside on the Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code In his book, Dan Brown puts forward the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci next to Jesus in The Last Supper. Lots of people have dismissed this because although the figure next to Jesus looks like a woman, Leonardo painted many youths in an effeminate manner. This can be seen in his portrayal of St John the Baptist and it is an entirely convincing point to me. However, there is another argument. In the Gospel of John there are several references to “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. If you believe that John the disciple was the author of John’s Gospel then this is usually taken to be John modestly and anonymously describing himself. In John’s telling of the Last Supper story, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is sitting next to Jesus. It is this disciple who asks Jesus who it is that will betray him, after being requested by Peter to do so. As Leonardo’s figure looks like a woman, people say this must have been Mary Magdalene. However, other references to this disciple in John’s Gospel prove that it is not Mary and must be a male. At John 19: 26- 27, Jesus is being crucified and the texts states 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” The disciple cannot therefore be a woman. Mary and the beloved disciple can also be seen as two different people at John 20:1-10. When Mary Magdalene discovers the empty tomb, she runs to tell Peter and the Beloved Disciple. The two rush to the empty tomb and the Beloved Disciple is the first to reach it. However, Peter is the first to enter. It does not make sense to refer separately to Mary and then to the Beloved Disciple in the same story if they are the same person.
The Crucifixion – A reading of the four Gospels shows that four events took place.
-
The veil of the temple was ripped in half
-
There was an earthquake,
-
A darkness/eclipse came over the land and
-
The dead came back to life.
These are written as though they occurred to underscore the importance of the death of Jesus at the crucifixion. Read the four Gospel passages for this yourself. All four have the temple veil tear in half. As well as this the individual Gospels include the following events.
Mark 15:33 has “At noon, a darkness covered the land “
There is no reference to an earthquake or the dead coming back to life in the Gospel of Mark account.
Matthew 27:51-53 - At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
There is no reference to a darkness/eclipse in the Gospel of Matthew account.
Luke 23 44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.
There is no reference to an earthquake or the dead coming back to life in the Gospel of Luke account.
John 19: 1- 30 contains the crucifixion story.
There is no reference to a darkness, an earthquake or the dead coming back to life in the Gospel of John account.
One, two or three of the above events occur in all four Gospels, but all four events do not occur in any single Gospel. Why? The region was prone to earthquakes so a witness might not remember one occurring, but I can’t imagine anyone forgetting a 3 hour darkness/eclipse starting at high noon in Israel. Also, you would expect such an event to have been noticed and recorded by a Roman writer somewhere. Perhaps not. After all, it is not even recorded in all four Gospels. As for the dead coming back to life and wandering around Jerusalem, not only is this an incredible event, but it beggars belief that such an event could have slipped someone’s mind and been omitted in any account.
One last point I will make is about the crucifixion relates to the Good thief. He only occurs in Luke’s Gospel. Matthew and Mark have the 2 thieves either side of Jesus but they both mock Jesus with everyone else.
Matthew 27: 44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
Mark 15: 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
It is only in Luke that the Good thief tries to comfort the dying Jesus.
Luke 23 39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. ” 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
It seems obvious that this later version with a Good thief has been made up or inserted later after the Mark and Matthew versions had been written.
The Marys There are several Marys in the Gospels and it is a little confusing at times to differentiate them. Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are the two most important.
There is also Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus (who was brought back from the dead in the Gospel), (Mary) Salome (who is also identified as the mother of the sons of Zebedee and finally Mary, mother of James and Joses.
Mary Magdalene was present at the crucifixion and is a key figure in the resurrection stories.
John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Mary Magdalene is described in Luke’s Gospel as one of the women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, and as the one from whom seven demons had gone out. Mary is mentioned and confused with other Marys and other women in the Gospels giving rise to the legend that made her a model of a penitent sinner and even, according to Pope Gregory in the 6th century, a reformed prostitute. Many people see this as a way to denigrate Mary as a woman and raise the esteem of the male apostles even though no less a figure than St Augustine had previously described her the Apostle to the apostles. The penitent woman mentioned in the Gospels is not named as Mary Magdalene so the Pope’s decision to assume she is Mary Magdalene (especially when Mary is named in full in various Gospels) seems unusual at the very least. It is therefore a powerful argument to say that this was meant to lower her position as a woman in the pecking order of important people in the life of Jesus. In 2016 Pope Francis awarded Mary her own feast day. Some might say this is too little, too late to reverse over 1400 years of anti-female propaganda where she was promoted as a common prostitute by the church.
Mary Magdalene and the Resurrection –Mary is mentioned in most accounts of the resurrection, but not all. Below is a short description and comparison of the various accounts.
Mark’s account According to Mark 16:1-8, the earliest account of the discovery of the empty tomb, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb of Jesus and found that the stone had already been rolled away. They went inside and saw a young man dressed in white, who told them that Jesus had risen from the dead and instructed them to tell the male disciples that he would meet them in Galilee. Instead, the women ran away and told no one, because they were too afraid.
Matthew’s account According to Matthew 28:1-10, Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb. An earthquake occurred and an angel dressed in white descended from Heaven and rolled aside the stone as the women were watching. The angel told them that Jesus had risen from the dead. Then the risen Jesus himself appeared to the women as they were leaving the tomb and told them to tell the other disciples that he would meet them in Galilee.
Luke’s account According to Luke 24:1-12 a group of unnamed women went to the tomb and found the stone already rolled away, as in Mark. They went inside and saw two young men dressed in white who told them that Jesus had risen from the dead. Then they went and told the eleven remaining apostles, who dismissed their story as nonsense. In Luke's account, Jesus never appears to the women, but instead makes his first appearance to Cleopas and an unnamed "disciple" on the road to Emmaus. Luke's narrative also removes the injunction for the women to tell the disciples to return to Galilee and instead has Jesus tell the disciples not to return to Galilee, but rather to stay in the precincts of Jerusalem (Luke 24: 49).
John’s account Mary Magdalene's role in the resurrection narrative is greatly increased in the account from the Gospel of John. According to John 20:1-10, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone when it was still dark and saw that the stone had already been rolled away. She did not see anyone, but immediately ran to tell Peter and the “beloved disciple”, who came with her to the tomb and confirmed that it was empty but returned home without seeing the risen Jesus. According to John20:11-18, Mary, now alone in the garden outside the tomb, saw two angels sitting where Jesus's body had been. Then the risen Jesus approached her. She at first mistook him for the gardener, but, after she heard him say her name, she recognized him and cried out "Rabbouni!" (which is Aramaic for "teacher"). Jesus then sent her to tell the other apostles the good news of his resurrection. The Gospel of John therefore portrays Mary Magdalene as the first apostle, the apostle sent to the apostles. She is the first to use the standard credential formula of the apostles, “I have seen the Lord” (John 20:18), which Paul uses in 1 Cor. 9:11 to claim apostolic status.
Paul’s account Paul misses Mary out entirely in his letter to the Corinthians.
According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which was written roughly 20 years before any of the gospels, Jesus appears to Cephas, then the 12 disciples, then to 500 people then to James and then the Apostles and lastly to Paul. This passage makes no mention of Mary Magdalene, the other women, or the story of the empty tomb at all, but rather credits Simon Peter with having been the first to see the risen Jesus.
We therefore have a variety of descriptions of this most important of the events in the Christian story.
Did Mary meet one young man with her two friends OR one angel and then Jesus with her friend OR two men with her friends OR two angels and then just Jesus on her own.
Had the stone been rolled away when Mary arrives at the tomb OR did she see an angel roll it away?
Did an earthquake occur OR not?
Did Mary run away from the tomb and tell no one OR did she return with Peter?
Are the disciples told to meet Jesus in Galilee OR told to stay in Jerusalem?
And finally, did Mary even see Jesus at all OR is Cephas (Simon Peter) the first to see him?
Mark’s Gospel and its additional ending
Ancient copies of the Gospel of Mark can have several different endings. The shortest ending is found in the oldest manuscripts, all of which stop at verse 16:8 without the resurrected Jesus ever actually making an appearance to anyone. Most later manuscripts contain some additional verses, not always the same, which were apparently added to the Gospel at later points in time.
The Codex Sinaiticus ends at Mark 16:8 as does the Codex Vaticanus. These two complete bibles are from the 4th century. The Codex Sinaiticus is the world’s oldest surviving Christian bible. The Vatican views the Codex Vaticanus as “the most important of all the manuscripts of Holy Scripture.”
See http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/translation.aspx
The missing final chapters Mark 8 9-20 that are included in later Gospel versions contain references to the risen Jesus.
Were early versions of Mark’s Gospel truncated? Or were the verses concerning the resurrected Jesus added to it later. Some people argue that Mark deliberately left the tale on a cliff hanger as a literary device so that a dramatic sequel could be written in which Jesus has risen from the dead. Others argue that an unfinished draft was mistakenly used as the finished article. It has also been postulated that the original story was written on papyrus sheets, put into a book-like format and that the last sheet fell off or went missing so that it was subsequently copied down incorrectly. Later the missing last page was found and so the extra verses were added in or alternatively someone else just made up the verses with Jesus resurrected to fit in with the other Gospels.
How does Judas die?
Matthew 27:5 tells that Judas regretted his betrayal of Christ for 30 pieces of silver -
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
However, The Acts of the Apostles (which says it was written allegedly by Luke) gives a slightly different story at Acts 1: 16.
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
The explanation usually given for this apparent difference is that Judas did hang himself in both stories but that his middle also burst open when his body had decayed and fell down from whatever he hanged himself on. This makes sense if you accept that the author of Acts has omitted the minor detail that Judas had hanged himself first. Also, the purchase of the field is either completed by the chief priests or by Judas so he could hang himself there.
St Paul, slavery, women and sex
In this last part I am going to depart from the Gospels and look at St Paul’s attitude towards slavery, women and sex. I recognise that Paul’s letters are not Gospels as such, However, Paul was such an influential character in the development of Christianity that it is difficult to overstate his impact on the religion.
In the Gospels, Jesus is silent on the subject of slavery. St Paul, however, does not shy away from it at Ephesians 6:5
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
And again at 1 Timothy 6:1-4
1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. These are the things you are to teach and insist on. 3If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our LORD Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions.
It seems that far from condemning slavery Paul wants slaves to obey their masters and especially if those slave owners are Christians. It is not the most enlightened teaching in the New Testament and was later used to justify slavery in the western world and slow down the Abolitionists.
Paul’s letter to Timothy (at 1 Timothy 2:8-15) deals with the issue of women in authority over men
(8) I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. (9) I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, (10) but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (11) A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. (12) I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (15) But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Paul’s attitude towards gay activities is seen at Roman 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“
For this reason [viz. idolatry], God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 King James Version (1611): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
People argue that Paul was a 1st century man who had a 1st century attitude to slavery, women and sex and that this approach has been relaxed with time by the Church - not least since the idea that women should have no authority over men would be impossible to put into practice nowadays. Discriminating against gay people would be less acceptable in today’s world. However, you need to ask where do we get our morals from? I don’t believe it is from religion, but from some innate sense of fairness which we are born with. You can see this early on in children. They seem to instinctively know whether something is fair or not before they ever encounter any religious teachings. However, if you believe that the Bible is the word of God and that we derive our morality from it then shouldn’t its teachings be eternal and for all people and times? If the church (of whichever Christian sect) simply adapts its teachings to modern ethical ways of thinking and acting – such as the emancipation of slaves and women and acceptance of gay rights – then what is the point of it? What is the moral lead or authority it is supposed to be taking or showing us? People’s attitude towards gays is a lot more open and healthier today. You can also see that women have been (and continue to be) suppressed in society and that religions (not just Christianity) have been (and continue to be) used to justify that suppression. This can be seen very clearly in the treatment of Mary Magdalene who was branded a whore early on by the Pope and even relegated out of the resurrection stories by Paul. The fact that some religions are more tolerant of women and gays is to be applauded, but you should not forget how the discriminations came about in the first place or how the religions acted when they had the power to do as they pleased.
Look again at Paul’s bland statement that “Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”. If this is not Paul trying to exonerate Adam (and therefore all men) and blaming Eve (and therefore all women) then I don’t know what is. It is as though Paul fails to recognise that even in the made up Genesis story Eve was not evicted from Eden on her own. Adam was also booted out of Eden by God because he had merrily chomped his way through the apple as well. Whether Adam was deceived or not is neither here nor there. And what is worse - to do something in a state of deception (as Paul says Eve was) or not to be deceived (as Paul says Adam wasn’t) and still do it anyway. Paul’s attempt to portray Eve as the cause of all the troubles is simply stupid at best and misogynistic at worst.
There are many beautiful passages of lovely prose in Paul’s letters, but these should not blind you to the fact that the ones above are fatally flawed no matter how you look at them or attempt to explain them away.
Final thoughts
There are approximately 2.4 billion people who profess the Christian faith in the world with 33,000 different Christian sects. (See www.madsmeds.org/surely-right for my thoughts on this). They all use and revere the various translations of the New Testament and pay particular respect to the Gospels. The idea of the Gospels as being divinely inspired has been with Christianity almost from the beginning. Once the stories were written down, the early church started to decide which Gospels and letters etc could be declared as sacred and therefore kept and which profane and therefore be discarded and/or discredited as heretical. It was Bishop Irenaeus in the 2nd century who classified as Scripture most of the books which are now known as the New Testament. He decided that there were 4 Gospels just as there are 4 winds and 4 corners of the earth. To him, 4 was a mystical number and so there must be 4 Gospels. He chose Matthew, Mark, Luke and John out of the many Gospels that were available at the time which had developed out of the many tales of Jesus that were circulating.
At first the stories of Jesus would have been told verbally by the people who were there and saw the events. These would have been re-told by those who heard them. At some point early on (possibly as the disciples were starting to get old or die) it was decided to write down some of the sayings and deeds of Jesus. These were developed into Gospels and there were many other Gospels written at the same time (of Thomas, Peter, Judas and Mary Magdalene to name but a few). The Gospels were translated (and mis-translated) and additional sayings or details inserted in just the same way that the original oral stories must have been enhanced in their tellings and re-tellings. This was not necessarily done in any deceptive manner although some enhancements will have been – allowing divorce for unfaithfulness stands out in my mind. Anyone who has seen the Yorkshiremen’s sketch by Monty Python will know how they send up people who exaggerate as the guys vie for who had the worst upbringing. Also, anyone who has played “Chinese whispers” knows that people naturally just misunderstand or misinterpret any messages or stories that are passed on verbally. You don’t have to believe that this was done deliberately or maliciously. It is simply human nature. I always regard this in the same way the tale is told of the fisherman who catches a fish in the morning. When he recounts this to his friends he uses his hands to show the fish is one foot long, by lunchtime it is two feet long and by the evening (after a drink in the local pub) his arms are not long enough to show how big the fish is.
To think that a story could have been told orally for 30 odd years and not been changed is simply unbelievable to my mind. Even eye-witness accounts change with time as the memory fades. The differences between the apparent eye-witness accounts of the same stories in the Gospels bear this out. The subsequent tellings and re-tellings, writings and re-writings and translations must have resulted in alterations.
The Gospels and the other books of the New Testament have been and remain the basis upon which Western civilisation has largely been formed and anyone who wishes to study Western civilisation needs to read them. However, they are not perfect accounts of the life of Jesus and need to be read with an open mind while making full use of your own critical faculties for reasoning and logic.
You can see from the comparisons above that the contradictions between the telling of the major stories in the Gospels are profound. It is difficult to see how anyone can conclude that these stories were divinely inspired. If they were then the divine protector of them has done a less than perfect job in ensuring that they were properly translated, kept free from insertions or enhancements and remained whole and complete.
But don’t just take my word for it – pick up a bible, look up the quotes and compare the stories yourself.
Solidarity
Brian Madican
April 2020