Rewrite the gospels to make them more coherent

Cafe Society
1

Atheist though I may be, I’m still fond of the Bible–parts of it, at least–when considered as a work of literature. There’s some good poetry in there, and at least one compelling tragedy. As vexing as I may find much of its dogma, the book itself is often good reading.

That said, it could be BETTER reading. The original manuscripts were composed long before word processors, or typewriters, or correction fluid; hell, they predate the idea of spacing between sentences. And because of the many different authors, even more editors, and utter dearth of story conferences, the stories are frequently contradictory in a way that diminishes their narrative power.

Which brings me to the thread topic. Imagine that you have been given the job of story editor to the Gospels. You’re not allowed to change the basic theme of the story: i.e., that Jesus of Nazareth is, in some unique sense, the Son of God, born to reconcile humanity with its creator in some essential way. But you can change the emphasis and details; you can add anecdotes, subtract them, flesh out details, and so forth. You can decide to tell the story from an omniscient POV, or have one of the supporting characters narrate it, or play with the narrative structure in other ways. The point is that you’re approaching this as a sacred text; you’re approaching it as a work of literature.

What do you change? What do you keep?

Here’s a few suggestions to prime the pump:

  1. Have Thomas narrate the story. Start just before this incident when Thomas sees the resurrected Christ for the first time; that is, have him considering whether to go see the amazing sight his friends tell him is waiting for him in a certain rented room. Tell everything else in flashback.

  2. Ditch any resurrection stories prior to the big one: no Lazarus, no Jairus, no widow of Nain. For the disciples to have witnessed Jesus bringing three people back from the dead, and then not to believe him when he said that he himself was going to die and come back from the dead, is idiot plotting.

I’ll forebear to offer more until I see whether the thread gets any traction.

2

Would it have killed them to have a few hard dates sprinkled about? And how about a bibliography? I would have gotten a few more F’s in my writing courses if I had left off as many cites as the gospel writers.

3

Actually, Skald, you’re about 1,930 years late on this idea. Somebody already did just that – admittedly, working from a First Century perspective of what good reportage ought to be.

His name, of course, was Luke.

But, actually, you’re evaluating them on a standard that is not valid – and in saying this, I’m not claiming any special status for them. Any Classical era piece of writing does not observe the careful line between factual narrative and evocative fictional prose that distinguishes “A History of the Napoleonic Invasion of Russia” from “War and Peace.” This is as valid a point dealing with Livy, Tacitus, or Manetho as with the Four Evangelists.

All four of them were written polemically, with the intent of convincing people to believe in Jesus, by recounting His life and teachings in a way that portrayed Him as a figure they could grasp in His role. All four took full advantage of the long-discarded canon that it is appropriate to put speeches that approximate what the historical figure said into his mouth.

Matthew is anxious to portray Him as the promised Messiah of the Jews. And if he has to make Him the gretest exponent of all time of haggadah and halacha, and interpret every quasi-Nostradamic generality in the Tanakh as a predictive prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, he darn well will. Mark’s out to show Him as the Wonder-Working Son of God, whose role is a secret. John shows him as the man who is nonetheless the Eternal Word of God manifest in human form.

They’re not seeking to be perfectly accurate reporters. To change the mnetaphor, they’re not photographers; they’re portraitists, each intent on displaying Jesus as he himself understands Him.

Which is not to say you’re not wrong in seeking that sort of account. Just that it’s inappropriate to fault them for what they did write.

Rojelio: Look at Luke 2:2 and 3:1. For the time, it’s just what you’re objecting is missing. There was no universal dating standard, though the Seleucid Era was beginning to take on that role. Dates were given in terms of who was chief honcho of where, nearly always. Roman accounts always date themselves by who was consul that year (and, if appropriate, for the nth time). And the modern tradition of providing sources is just that – a modern tradition. One might as well ask why they didn’t give Mary a lie detector test when she claimed to be pregnant without having gotten fucked.

4

Polycarp, I’m not saying the lack of coherence (by contemporary standards) of the Gospels is my reason for disbelief; had I intended to talk about that, I’d have opened a thread in GD or IMHO. I was simply trying to begin an artistic exercise. I could just as easily have started a thread entitled "What changes would you recommend JRR Tolkien make in Lord of the Rings, but that would have led to a discussion of Gwaihir and Landroval by the third post, and we’ve done that 4,985,205, 142 times.

5

There quite possibly were not hard dates. At all. Ancient dating systems (A Babylonian girl goes out with a Roman dude…) were notoriously messy, and our “dates” for ancient rulers are quite often semi-decent guesses, trying to line up ancient rulers based on various sources. Most ancient dating systems were awkward and inaccurate lunar/seasonal cycles based vaguely on the ruler’s reign. Unfortunately, poor record keeping and missing sources mean that in a lot fo cases we simply have no clear idea when something happened. Witness the fact that we still really don’t know exactly when Jesus was born. We think it was around maybe 3 B.C., but this is a basically an educated guess. And we have vastly more numerous Roman-era documents than most of history for most of the world.

6

Here is my favorite version of the bible. It is much more interesting to read it this way.

7

Well, one of the things that sticks out in my mind vis-a-vis the Gospels is the role of Judas.

His portrayal through the Gospels is shoddy, at best, and certainly varied to a degree that seems insane. Here is someone who is either: so convinced that Jesus was the Messiah he’d try to force Jesus to ‘do the right thing’ by betraying him to the Romans; or so venal he was stealing money from the Disciples’ charity fund. (Now, it’s possible that he was both these things, but IIRC the incidents behind them are not described in the same Gospel.) Then after Jesus was killed he was so distraught he’d kill himself, rather than try to work for redemption - which was supposed to be the whole of the reason for Jesus’ suffering and resurrection.

If redemption is supposed to be such a huge concern of Jesus, and the Evangelists, I believe it would be more effective drama to show how Judas might have redeemed himself. Of course there are the various Books of Judas, but none of them have any official recognition.

8

Are you familiar with The Jefferson Gospel? It was Thomas Jefferson’s attempt to purge the supernatural and redundancies and inconsistencies. Not quite what you’re talking about but it is somewhat similar. It used to be given to all incoming Congressmen (House and Senate)- don’t know if it still is.

9

Walter Wangerin has done more or less what the OP is talking about, though I haven’t read it.

10

I know the Jefferson Bible, yes. It’s not how I’d tell the story; I’d keep quite a bit of supernatural elements. But I’d eliminate some of the redundant miracles, such as the miraculous feeding of the 4000 and then, later, the feeding of the 5000. (Yes, I know those are probably just one story told two ways.)

11

Perhaps 1,000 were bulimics or veegans.

Which genealogy would you go with? Or last words?

12

Or perhaps, in the only Gospel to contain references to both the feeding of the 4000 and the 5000, Jesus himself mentions both of them later, suggesting that they were separate incidents.

13

Dear mankind,

come ON!

  • Jesus