An aside
Witness Lee definitely sided with the ‘traditional’ (post Nicene) view of the Gospels: that they present a harmonious picture devoid of error. His footnotes clearly indicate he sided with the Synoptic version of the date of crucifixion (Friday). In true Lee fashion, he never mentioned the possibility of John’s alternate version of history. Was he aware of the difference? I suspect that he was. But the traditional view is that the Gospels are harmonious, inerrant, and consistent with each other, in spite of evidence to the contrary. I find it interesting that he had no footnote at all on John 19:31, where the “great” Sabbath (RCV) is mentioned. To me, that is like a “no comment”.
John and the Synoptic Gospels
For those who want to check out for themselves what I am suggesting in these posts, I would start with the Wikipedia article on the Gospel of John. The observation that John and Mark differ on the date of the crucifixion is of course well-known among scholars. The article asserts that for many centuries, Christian leaders deemed Mark to be more historically accurate than John, but that view has been tempered in recent years as new research comes to light. It is a good read.
I take it as fact that among the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Mark was written first, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a starting point in writing their gospels. Mark is definitely the shortest of the three. Most notably lacking in Mark are narratives about the birth of Jesus, and neither is there much about events that occurred after the resurrection. In fact, the oldest versions of Mark abruptly ended at 16:8. The additional verses were added later. The gospels of Matthew and Luke each add material at both ends, and elaborate on events in between, making them much longer than Mark.
Both Mark and John were likely written during middle-to-late part of the first century AD, and Matthew and Luke toward the end of the first century.
[There are disagreements as to the authorship of all four gospels, and some point to evidence of multiple authors. I use the traditional names as a convenience.]
It is quite possible that all of Paul’s epistles predate any of these Gospels. This is why Paul’s epistles are so important to understanding the true message of the Gospel.
Timotheist’s Rules of Thumb regarding the Four Gospels
In my personal research of the four Gospels, I have come up with these general rules-of-thumb:
1) When Mark and John agree on something, then that is as close to the truth as one can get.
2) When Mark and John differ on something, I tend to take John over Mark (the date of the crucifixion being a prime example,)
3) When it comes to Matthew and Luke, the additional material must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If contradictions are found between the additional material and the original material, then the new material is suspect.
If the idea that the Gospels may contain errant material is too much for you to accept, then I do not judge. I came to this conclusion after many years of intense study and prayer. I needed to change my stance on inerrancy over time in order to survive, as my faith began to falter with each new piece of evidence to the contrary. Now that I am the other side of the issue, I personally feel much better, and my faith was restored.
My hope is that these posts reach out to like-minded people out there. If you are among those who do not agree with me, then please put me on ignore and never look back. But if you find these posts of interest, please give me the feedback.
Peace be with you,