Why didn't the disciples get their stories straight

[johnhs]

before writing the gospels? Glaring contradictions that I'm reading here. Were they dumb?

[Kenisaw]

before writing the gospels? Glaring contradictions that I'm reading here. Were they dumb?

No I don't think they were. Perhaps they wanted to get a different message across than the other guy. Perhaps they didn't know about what else was written. Let's not forget that there is ample evidence of editing of many NT writings as well, so we can't even say for sure what the original writings were. We are talking about things written by mostly people unknown years after they are credited as being written, so it's hard to get into specifics about the mindset of the authors.

[Ancient of Years]

before writing the gospels? Glaring contradictions that I'm reading here. Were they dumb?

No, it was all deliberate. Paul and the various gospels were addressing problems that arose in the Jesus movement. Each had his own specific agenda and wrote the way he did to carry out that agenda. Here is how I see it. (Quoting myself from other posts.)

Jesus preached a return to true righteousness as the way to open the messianic age and relieve the foreign oppression to which the Jews had been repeatedly subjected. But Jesus was then executed by the Romans. Although the teachings of Jesus continued to be popular and spread far and wide, the unexpected killing of this messianic figure by the worst of those oppressors was problematic. It is not surprising that rumors should appear that Jesus rose from the dead, a link to popular apocalyptic expectations of the day.

Paul constructed a framework to resolve the issue of Jesus getting killed. He pulled together various images from Judaism converting the inexplicable death of Jesus into an atoning sacrifice and the resurrection story into a promise of an imminent general resurrection with associated judgement. To justify this Paul had to make Jesus become more than simply human, a major shift from existing messianic tradition. Apparently borrowing from Philo Paul makes Jesus into the ‘Son of God’. Paul also worked to expand the range of the Jesus movement into the Gentile world, possibly to fulfill the ‘all nations’ prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere in messianic scripture. An important part of Paul’s scenario was that the return of Jesus and the general resurrection would happen quickly. He expected that at least some of his readers and hopefully himself would still be alive when it happened. But as the years went by this idea became less and less likely.

Not long after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, about 40 years after the death of Jesus, Mark wrote his gospel to address the problem of the delayed return of Jesus as well as the issue that the Roman oppressors had annihilated another messianic movement (the Zealots) and much of the Jewish social order in the Revolt. Mark connected the destruction of Jerusalem to a prophecy of Daniel, making it a sign of the imminent return of Jesus as the Son of Man also from Daniel, turning a disaster into a sort of victory. Note that Paul seems to have no knowledge of Jesus being called the Son of Man. In this way, Mark seeks to reassure Christians that the promise will be fulfilled after all as well as to disperse the dark shadow cast on messianic movements by the disaster of the Jewish revolt. Mark’s ‘hidden messiah’ theme appears to be a way of disconnecting the Jesus movement from Zealot messianism. It was the Zealots who had instigated the revolt.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple eliminated the center of Jewish religious and intellectual life. The Hillel Pharisees who left Jerusalem before the end proceeded to rebuild Judaism on the rabbinical model. (The Shammai Pharisees were combatants in the war and were mostly wiped out. The Hillel branch were politically accommodationist and did not participate in the war.) Matthew wrote his Gospel to protect his community of Jesus following Jews from incursions by the new rabbinical Judaism. His program was to firmly establish Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and therefore the true continuation of historical Judaism in the post-Temple era. Matthew used Mark as his basis but expanded greatly on the story in pursuit of his goal.

Luke wrote his Gospel to address some aspects of Matthew that would be problematic to a Gentile readership. Matthew had emphasized the Jewish nature of the Jesus movement to the point that it could appear to be exclusively Jewish. In addition, Matthew’s continual emphasis on the ‘King of the Jews’ theme might raise memories of the Revolt and its horrors. Using Mark and Matthew as his base, Luke rewrote considerable portions to counter these aspects of Matthew. These rewritten portions include the genealogy, the Nativity story, the Sermon on the Mount and the post resurrection appearance narrative.

Although it was not their main programs, both Matthew and Luke, written years after Mark, were concerned with the continuing passage of time without Jesus returning. They both utilized Mark’s references to Jesus coming back while some of his hearers were still alive and the Daniel-based Olivet Discourse but added in various hedges about just how soon it would be. For example, Matthew says that no one knows when it will happen and Luke refers to the King being gone a long time. But both immediately stress the serious consequences for those who have lost faith when the end does come.

By the last years of the 1st century, disclaimers were not going to work anymore. The Gospel of John concentrates on theological exposition and simply omits any reference to a quick return of Jesus except in the final chapter where the idea that some of the disciples would still be alive when it happened was explained away as a misunderstanding.

Luke in Acts does a brilliant job of switching the story from Jesus coming back soon to the Holy Spirit appearing at Pentecost. He then proceeds with the ongoing story of the early church. Along the way he switches some aspects of Paul around to reconcile some of his claims with what was by then mainstream Christianity.

One last holdout is John of Patmos who tells an uber-dramatic story in Revelation of the end of days happening very soon, incorporating powerful images and referencing every apocalyptic and messianic scriptural reference he can find. A number of the events in Revelation are veiled references to things that have occurred recently, making them seem like fulfilled prophecies. In this way he seeks to dispel doubt with an imagination capturing story.

In this way most of the NT can be seen as explanations of problems that arose:

• The unexpected death of Jesus being explained as an intentional sacrifice coupled with an imminent resurrection and judgment Paul)
  
  The passage of time and the dramatic events of the Revolt being explained by making that the sign of Jesus returning very soon (Mark)
  
  The appearance of rabbinic Judaism as a competitor to the Jewish branch of the Jesus movement being warded off by emphasizing the Jewish character of that movement (Matthew)
  
  The problems for Gentiles created by Matthew and the reversal of several themes of Matthew (Luke)
  
  The continued passage of time and loss of faith in an imminent return of Jesus addressed in different ways by the Gospel of John, Luke in Acts and John of Patmos in Revelation.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why didn't the disciples get their stories straight before writing the gospels? Glaring contradictions that I'm reading here. Were they dumb?

In simplified form:

Very little is known about gospel writers. Even the names were assigned centuries later and actual identity is unknown to, or disputed by, Christian scholars and theologians.

None of the writers can be shown to have witnessed the events and conversations they describe. Their sources of information are unknown (and may have been or included folklore, fable, legend, oral tradition).

There is no indication that gospel writers, whoever they may have been, intended their writings to be incorporated together in the anthology known as the Bible (much later). There is evidence that they copied from one another and/or a common source. Extensive passages are identical words (not likely happenstance).

Gospels may have been written decades apart chronologically and considerable distance apart geographically.

[johnhs]

before writing the gospels? Glaring contradictions that I'm reading here. Were they dumb?

No I don't think they were. Perhaps they wanted to get a different message across than the other guy. Perhaps they didn't know about what else was written. Let's not forget that there is ample evidence of editing of many NT writings as well, so we can't even say for sure what the original writings were. We are talking about things written by mostly people unknown years after they are credited as being written, so it's hard to get into specifics about the mindset of the authors.

Ok, so the editors were dumb.

[johnhs]

There is evidence that they copied from one another and/or a common source. Extensive passages are identical words (not likely happenstance).

There is? Like blatant contradictions?

[InHIsHands]

before writing the gospels? Glaring contradictions that I'm reading here. Were they dumb?

You are reading to different audiences, sir...
For Mark, he spoke to a converted audience of Jews who knew the Word of GOD.
For Matthew, he spoke to a mixed group...converted gentiles and jews...and so in Matthew you have a lot more references to Old Scriptures
For Luke, he spoke to a predominantly converted audience of Gentiles.
For John...well John spoke of the hidden spiritual truths of Jesus.
For Paul you have letters written to the body of believers as issues arose
For acts you have all the wonders of the newly converted disciples led by THE SPIRIT and in the POWER of THE LORD doing the WORKS of GOD...
For Revelation...well you have the coming prophecies afterwards, after the ministry of reconciliation is complete.

[johnhs]

I have one answer that says they copied from one another and one answer that says they had no idea the other gospels existed. Plus one answer that is a copy/paste that has nothing to do with the OP.

[InHIsHands]

before writing the gospels? Glaring contradictions that I'm reading here. Were they dumb?

No, it was all deliberate. Paul and the various gospels were addressing problems that arose in the Jesus movement. Each had his own specific agenda and wrote the way he did to carry out that agenda. Here is how I see it. (Quoting myself from other posts.)

Jesus preached a return to true righteousness as the way to open the messianic age and relieve the foreign oppression to which the Jews had been repeatedly subjected. But Jesus was then executed by the Romans. Although the teachings of Jesus continued to be popular and spread far and wide, the unexpected killing of this messianic figure by the worst of those oppressors was problematic. It is not surprising that rumors should appear that Jesus rose from the dead, a link to popular apocalyptic expectations of the day.

Paul constructed a framework to resolve the issue of Jesus getting killed. He pulled together various images from Judaism converting the inexplicable death of Jesus into an atoning sacrifice and the resurrection story into a promise of an imminent general resurrection with associated judgement. To justify this Paul had to make Jesus become more than simply human, a major shift from existing messianic tradition. Apparently borrowing from Philo Paul makes Jesus into the ‘Son of God’. Paul also worked to expand the range of the Jesus movement into the Gentile world, possibly to fulfill the ‘all nations’ prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere in messianic scripture. An important part of Paul’s scenario was that the return of Jesus and the general resurrection would happen quickly. He expected that at least some of his readers and hopefully himself would still be alive when it happened. But as the years went by this idea became less and less likely.

Not long after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, about 40 years after the death of Jesus, Mark wrote his gospel to address the problem of the delayed return of Jesus as well as the issue that the Roman oppressors had annihilated another messianic movement (the Zealots) and much of the Jewish social order in the Revolt. Mark connected the destruction of Jerusalem to a prophecy of Daniel, making it a sign of the imminent return of Jesus as the Son of Man also from Daniel, turning a disaster into a sort of victory. Note that Paul seems to have no knowledge of Jesus being called the Son of Man. In this way, Mark seeks to reassure Christians that the promise will be fulfilled after all as well as to disperse the dark shadow cast on messianic movements by the disaster of the Jewish revolt. Mark’s ‘hidden messiah’ theme appears to be a way of disconnecting the Jesus movement from Zealot messianism. It was the Zealots who had instigated the revolt.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple eliminated the center of Jewish religious and intellectual life. The Hillel Pharisees who left Jerusalem before the end proceeded to rebuild Judaism on the rabbinical model. (The Shammai Pharisees were combatants in the war and were mostly wiped out. The Hillel branch were politically accommodationist and did not participate in the war.) Matthew wrote his Gospel to protect his community of Jesus following Jews from incursions by the new rabbinical Judaism. His program was to firmly establish Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and therefore the true continuation of historical Judaism in the post-Temple era. Matthew used Mark as his basis but expanded greatly on the story in pursuit of his goal.

Luke wrote his Gospel to address some aspects of Matthew that would be problematic to a Gentile readership. Matthew had emphasized the Jewish nature of the Jesus movement to the point that it could appear to be exclusively Jewish. In addition, Matthew’s continual emphasis on the ‘King of the Jews’ theme might raise memories of the Revolt and its horrors. Using Mark and Matthew as his base, Luke rewrote considerable portions to counter these aspects of Matthew. These rewritten portions include the genealogy, the Nativity story, the Sermon on the Mount and the post resurrection appearance narrative.

Although it was not their main programs, both Matthew and Luke, written years after Mark, were concerned with the continuing passage of time without Jesus returning. They both utilized Mark’s references to Jesus coming back while some of his hearers were still alive and the Daniel-based Olivet Discourse but added in various hedges about just how soon it would be. For example, Matthew says that no one knows when it will happen and Luke refers to the King being gone a long time. But both immediately stress the serious consequences for those who have lost faith when the end does come.

By the last years of the 1st century, disclaimers were not going to work anymore. The Gospel of John concentrates on theological exposition and simply omits any reference to a quick return of Jesus except in the final chapter where the idea that some of the disciples would still be alive when it happened was explained away as a misunderstanding.

Luke in Acts does a brilliant job of switching the story from Jesus coming back soon to the Holy Spirit appearing at Pentecost. He then proceeds with the ongoing story of the early church. Along the way he switches some aspects of Paul around to reconcile some of his claims with what was by then mainstream Christianity.

One last holdout is John of Patmos who tells an uber-dramatic story in Revelation of the end of days happening very soon, incorporating powerful images and referencing every apocalyptic and messianic scriptural reference he can find. A number of the events in Revelation are veiled references to things that have occurred recently, making them seem like fulfilled prophecies. In this way he seeks to dispel doubt with an imagination capturing story.

In this way most of the NT can be seen as explanations of problems that arose:

• The unexpected death of Jesus being explained as an intentional sacrifice coupled with an imminent resurrection and judgment Paul)
  
  The passage of time and the dramatic events of the Revolt being explained by making that the sign of Jesus returning very soon (Mark)
  
  The appearance of rabbinic Judaism as a competitor to the Jewish branch of the Jesus movement being warded off by emphasizing the Jewish character of that movement (Matthew)
  
  The problems for Gentiles created by Matthew and the reversal of several themes of Matthew (Luke)
  
  The continued passage of time and loss of faith in an imminent return of Jesus addressed in different ways by the Gospel of John, Luke in Acts and John of Patmos in Revelation.

Messianic age? There is only two generations sir...those before HIS COMING and those after HIS COMING...

The Messianic age, I hope...translates to those who are covered over in HIS COVERING?

But why call it the Messianic age when it should be called the GOOD NEWS of GOD'S reconciliation with sinners in CHRIST JESUS?

[johnhs]

before writing the gospels? Glaring contradictions that I'm reading here. Were they dumb?

You are reading to different audiences, sir...
For Mark, he spoke to a converted audience of Jews who knew the Word of GOD.
For Matthew, he spoke to a mixed group...converted gentiles and jews...and so in Matthew you have a lot more references to Old Scriptures
For Luke, he spoke to a predominantly converted audience of Gentiles.
For John...well John spoke of the hidden spiritual truths of Jesus.
For Paul you have letters written to the body of believers as issues arose
For acts you have all the wonders of the newly converted disciples led by THE SPIRIT and in the POWER of THE LORD doing the WORKS of GOD...
For Revelation...well you have the coming prophecies afterwards, after the ministry of reconciliation is complete.

Search this forum (or google) for gospel contradictions. That is what I'm referring to. So called contradictions seems far fetched given the claim that they collaborated to sell their fantasy to the masses.