Are there discrepancies among the gospel accounts of the last supper?

  • Thread starter Thread starter graceandglory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Flame of Christ;5175560**:
I would say that John 6 “the bread of life” discourse is truly magnificent when taken in relation to what Jesus said about receiving His body and blood in the synoptic gospels.
Hello Flame of Christ.
Would you please elaborate on this thought with more specific references to scripture?

Thanks!
 
You are the one who stated it as fact.

There is no document to go to that states “the following are not doctrines…” (but it would be nice if there were - I think a lot of people would be really surprised).
Agreed.

Also, if a source is questioned, I’d offer the Catechism. Where does the Catechism teach that the authorship is definitively taught by the Church as buffalo described? It’s not. The theory described is common, and there’s nothing wrong with it per se…but it’s not binding doctrine.
 
Hello Flame of Christ.
Would you please elaborate on this thought with more specific references to scripture?

Thanks!
I will add my two bits here. The synoptic account does not really make sense without the Bread of Life discourse.

Think about it, there they were at table then Jesus says: Take and eat this is my Body, …drink this is my blood." Nowhere in the synoptic Gospels does Jesus prepare them for this moment. They would have thought what do you mean this is my Body… this is my blood.

But because one year earlier they around passover time, He gave them that discourse which they did not understand either (same with those who left :)), then during the Last Supper, the penny would have dropped. Somethine like: So this is what He meant when He said my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed, He was not really talking about cannibalistic ritual.

The institution of the Eucharist will not make sense without the Bread of Life discourse. Picture the synoptic Gospels by themselves and this section does ot make sense. Take John 6 without the synoptic account and it does not make sense either because John does not have an institution of the Eucharist. Having told the apostles to eat His Body and drink His blood, He fails to give them the wherewithal to do that.

I think God willed it this way so that we will know that we need all four Gospels to truly understand the full import of the Eucharist.
 
I will add my two bits here. The synoptic account does not really make sense without the Bread of Life discourse.

Think about it, there they were at table then Jesus says: Take and eat this is my Body, …drink this is my blood." Nowhere in the synoptic Gospels does Jesus prepare them for this moment. They would have thought what do you mean this is my Body… this is my blood.

But because one year earlier they around passover time, He gave them that discourse which they did not understand either (same with those who left :)), then during the Last Supper, the penny would have dropped. Somethine like: So this is what He meant when He said my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed, He was not really talking about cannibalistic ritual.

The institution of the Eucharist will not make sense without the Bread of Life discourse. Picture the synoptic Gospels by themselves and this section does ot make sense. Take John 6 without the synoptic account and it does not make sense either because John does not have an institution of the Eucharist. Having told the apostles to eat His Body and drink His blood, He fails to give them the wherewithal to do that.

I think God willed it this way so that we will know that we need all four Gospels to truly understand the full import of the Eucharist.
Benedictus…
Thank you!!!
I think this is exactly what I was looking for! This makes so much sense now!!!
THANK YOU for taking time to post in this thread!!!
 
Not discrepancies- points of view. Any event will have several points of view. writers don’t paintings about the same subject.A painting of the Last supper by Fra Angelico, will be way different then one by Bosch, Dali or Klee. same subject but viewed much differently by each one’s imagination and style.
St. John Chrysostom (you can look these homilies up) spoke at length about how the “discrepancies” in the Gospel accounts actually attest to their validity.

Had every single detail been exact in each account, people would suspect that the four writers (who, by the way, wrote separately and at different dates – John’s being the last, and even Luke mentions his account is an ordered account to help recall info already known by the Church) had conspired to make sure everything matched – thus they would be deceivers.

Police and federal agents all know that when witnesses’ stories match too perfectly, the people probably met and made sure their stories matched. It actually DESTROYS the credibility.

The Catholic Church is responsible alone for the compilation, preservation, and canonization of the NT so why not just doctor the books to make everything perfect so there would be no criticism’s, right?

Thus, since the Church (not hiding anything) canonized these books with the apparent contradictions, it is proof that the Church is being honest about the content, the accounts reflecting exactly, at least what the eyewitnesses claim they saw and experienced.

No cover-ups. No lying.

People all the time see the same event and recount it with different details, remembering things differently. There is nothing contradictory. Besides, certain details are not important (what kind of fish did Christ eat after His resurrection? What if one writer said it was halibut and another salmon?), but the message of the Gospels is: Jesus is alive! He died for our sins, God who took on our humanity to free us from sin, could not be conquered by death, and rose on the third day, then ascended into Heaven and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
 
The institution of the Eucharist will not make sense without the Bread of Life discourse. Picture the synoptic Gospels by themselves and this section does ot make sense. Take John 6 without the synoptic account and it does not make sense either because John does not have an institution of the Eucharist. Having told the apostles to eat His Body and drink His blood, He fails to give them the wherewithal to do that.

I think God willed it this way so that we will know that we need all four Gospels to truly understand the full import of the Eucharist.

Excellent point. John’s Gospel was the last one written, and was probably written since everyone already knew well the account of the Last Supper but not as many about the “Bread of Life” discourse – thus, John emphasized the meaning of the Eucharist by including this discourse, at which he himself was present as well of course, to help the early Christians.
 
Here are a few quotes that appear to be discrepancies. But these discrepancies are not crucial to our salvation:

Acts 1:16-19: “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood.”

Mt 27:5: “Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.”

Both of the above are historically different as to what happened to the money and as to how Judas died. But I believe the message here is that Judas, because of his actions, died a horrible death.

Matthew 10:27: “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him. And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him.”

Mark 15:16: “Then the soldiers led Him away into the hall called the Praetorium, and they called together the whole garrison, and they clothed Him in a purple cloak”.

Both of the above accounts are historically different as to the color of the outer garment that was placed on Jesus by the garrison. But is this the message we are supposed to get? Or should we get the message of how Jesus was scorned, scourged and ridiculed prior to His crucifixion? I believe in the latter. I might add though that some Theologians believe the authors of these two verses may have had the following in mind: Matthew had Jesus clothed in scarlet to signify the blood that Jesus was about to shed for His people; and Mark may have used the color purple as he saw Jesus as a King, and purple is usually a majestic color, and wanted to convey this to His people. Who knows??

2 Samuel 11:21: States Abimelech was killed by a woman who cast an upper millstone upon him from a wall.

Judges 9:54: States that Abimelech’s armor-bearer killed him with his sword.

The message here, I believe, is that Abimelech was killed by the hands of another and did not die of natural causes.

We sometimes refer to the Holy Spirit’s assistance in the writing of the Gospels. This is traceable to Paul, who wrote, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” This is thought to mean, by many biblical scholars, that the Holy Spirit guided and protected the biblical authors in such a way that their writings were free from error IN MATTERS THAT RELATE TO SALVATION i.e. faith and morals. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit protected the biblical authors from making historical and scientific errors. God never intended that they compose books of the bible relating to science and history. God’s interest was in the SALVATION of His children. The biblical writers were free to add words or thoughts of their own as long as they did not detract from God’s message of salvation. The bible was never considered to be free from scientific and historical errors. This is why you will find some obvious biblical errors in the bible as noted in the above references.

Hope this helps in understanding the true messages given to us by Jesus through Scripture. Remember, whenever reading or studying Scripture, ALWAYS look for God’s message - What is His message for us? What does He want us to know? And make sure this all ties in with God’s plan for our Salvation, and not for scientific and/or historical purposes. Knowing what hill Jesus was crucified on, or how His cross was constructed, or what color robe He was wearing, would be interesting, but of no consequence - BUT knowing that He was crucified and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our salvation IS important. ALWAYS SEEK THE MESSAGE GOD IS GIVING US AS PERTAINS TO OUR SALVATION.
 
This is not church doctrine.
It’s the ancient Tradition of the church, going back to the Early Church Fathers.

Actually, from The Authors of the Gospels:
  • Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.
    Code:
    	+ The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.
    	
    	+ The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.
    	
    	+ Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis
    	
    	+ The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.
Chapter 2 of the above-referenced document cites the early historical evidence… and is interesting reading!
 
Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.
No. It insists that the written Gospels are of Apostolic origin. That’s not the same as saying that this-specific-Apostle physically wrote this-specific-Gospel. See para 18 and 19 of Dei Verbum
  • The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.
Can you describe what in the Markan priority theories you think conflicts with Dei Verbum? I’m really at a loss to understand where that claim would come from, I’m familiar with the Markan priority theory and have read Dei Verbum many times. I don’t see any conflict. Thanks for any help.
  • The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.
Many theories/traditions regarding authorship are in agreement with Dei Verbum.
 
VERY, VERY, VERY MUCH APPRECIATED! THANK YOU SO MUCH:thumbsup:.

Isn’t he just brilliant! Thank you Lord for our wonderful Pope/QUOTE
I second the motion!! Thanks, Nita. Our Pope is the most brilliant man on the planet!
 
No. It insists that the written Gospels are of Apostolic origin. That’s not the same as saying that this-specific-Apostle physically wrote this-specific-Gospel. See para 18 and 19 of Dei Verbum

Can you describe what in the Markan priority theories you think conflicts with Dei Verbum? I’m really at a loss to understand where that claim would come from, I’m familiar with the Markan priority theory and have read Dei Verbum many times. I don’t see any conflict. Thanks for any help.
From Dei Verbum and the Synoptic Gospels:
To put the forthcoming debate into the right context it is necessary to go back to the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Reply in 1911 to the attack of the Modernists on the historicity of the Gospels, which categorically defined the traditional Catholic position. This reply was framed in its usual question and answer form:
"Having regard to the universal and unwavering agreement of the Church ever since the first centuries, an agreement clearly attested by the express witness of the Fathers, by the titles of the Gospel manuscripts, the most ancient versions of the sacred books and the lists handed on by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, by popes and Councils, and finally by the liturgical use of the Church in the East and in the West, may and should it be affirmed as certain that Matthew, the apostle of Christ, was in fact the author of the Gospel current under his name? Answer: In the affirmative (cf. *Acta Apostolicae Sedis, *Vol. 3, 19 June 1911, pp. 294ff.).
The Commission, of course, has never made any claim to being an infallible body, and it is quoted not for its authority as such but as witnessing to the total commitment of the authorities of the Catholic Church at the beginning of the twentieth century to the belief that the apostle Matthew was the author of the Gospel bearing his name and thereby responsible for the text as we now have it. Nevertheless, one of the Commission’s principal functions has been to provide Catholic teaching with wise and safe norms (cf. E. F. Sutcliffe, “Replies of the Biblical Commission,” *Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture * (London, 1953, S.47f.).
In the next paragraph of the same Reply the Commission held that “the verdict of tradition . . . gave adequate support to the view of Origen, Jerome, and others that Matthew [wrote before the other evangelists and that he wrote] the First Gospel in the native language then used by the Jews of Palestine for whom the work was intended.”
The reader’s attention is drawn to the carefully worded phrase “adequate support” which the tradition provides for the view that Matthew was the first to write a Gospel and that he wrote it originally in Aramaic or in Hebrew. The Commission thus makes a clear distinction between the overwhelming support of the Tradition for Matthean authorship and its merely adequate support for the relative order of the Synoptic Gospels and the question of the original language of Matthew. And the Commission went on in the following paragraph to assert that if the original language of Matthew was other than Greek, our Greek Matthew is certainly “identical in substance” with the hypothetical Aramaic original, which many at one time held to have been the foundation of our present Greek text.
The purpose of the above-quoted Replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission was therefore to give Roman Catholic scholars and teachers the guidelines necessary to cope with the flood of non-Catholic scholarship emanating from Germany and France at the beginning of the century affirming the Two-Document Hypothesis, namely, that Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and that both Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark and the hypothetical source “Q.” In a further Reply, issued on 26 June 1912 (*AAS, * 4, p. 465), it forbade Catholic exegetes either to embrace or to advocate the Two-Document Hypothesis. This reply reads as follows:
Ought those to be considered faithful to the above prescriptions [concerning the authenticity and integrity of the Synoptic Gospels], who without the support of any traditional evidence or historical argument readily embrace what is commonly called the ‘Two-Document Hypothesis’? . . . And are they consequently free to advocate it? Answer: In the negative to both parts.
Nevertheless the Commission made the following concession in the first paragraph of the same statement:
“Provided all is safeguarded that according to previous decisions must be safeguarded, especially concerning the authenticity and integrity of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the substantial identity of the Greek Gospel of Matthew with its original text, and the chronological order in which they were written, in order to explain their mutual similarities and dissimilarities, is it lawful for exegetes, given the many different and contradictory opinions proposed by writers, to discuss the question freely and to have recourse to the hypotheses of Tradition whether written or oral, or also of the dependence of one Gospel on another or on others that preceded it? Answer: In the affirmative (‘On the Synoptic Problem,’ 26 June 1912, *AAS *4, p. 465).”
(to be continued next post)
 
(continued from previous post)
A matter of special concern to the learned members of the Biblical Commission with respect to the Two-Document Hypothesis was that it gave to Protestant scholars and Catholic modernists like Loisy more or less untrammelled liberty to interpret the Gospels in accordance with their own liberal theological views. Thus the Pontifical Biblical Commission was at that time willing to grant liberty of research only on the strict understanding that the apostolic authorship and historicity of the Gospels remained unquestioned.
The Instructio (the relevant parts of which are to be found in an Appendix to this article) was therefore made available to the Council Fathers in time for the debate on the text of Dei Verbum. Professor Beda Rigaux notes in his Commentary on this document (cf. *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, * Vol. III [CDV III], Burns & Oates, Herder & Herder, Eng. tr. 1968, p. 259) that in fact, and rather surprisingly, “whole sentences of it passed into the text of Dei Verbum.”

There was, however, one significant difference: the Council, while basically adopting the Commission’s “three stage” idea, prefaced it in two places (see Ch. 2, S.7; Ch. 5, S.18-19) with a clear declaration on the apostolic authorship of the Gospels as well as on their historicity. Furthermore, in Ch. 5 (*The New Testament *), after declaring that the four Gospels are “our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour,” it continues as follows:

"(S. 18). The Church has always and everywhere maintained, and continues to maintain, the apostolic origin of the four Gospels. The apostles preached, as Christ had charged them to do, and then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, **they and **others of the apostolic age *ipsi et apostolici viri] * handed on to us in writing the same message they had preached, the foundations of our faith: the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

“(S. 19). Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels just named, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up (cf. Acts 1:1-2). After the Ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with the fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed” (*Vatican Council II, Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents *, edited by Austin Flannery, O.P., 1988 revised edition, Dominican Publications, Dublin).

In the above-mentioned text we have the official affirmation of the historicity, i.e., the historical character, of the Four Gospels, and likewise of their apostolic authorship. There is also the additional affirmation that not only were apostles involved in the composition of the Gospels but also “apostolic men,” which is an acknowledgement of the tradition that, while two of the Gospels are ascribed to the apostles Matthew and John, the other two, Mark and Luke, are ascribed to “apostolic men,” i.e., associates of the apostles. It is obvious that the Council Fathers had no intention of either weakening or changing the existing teaching that Matthew and John had personally composed their respective Gospels, but they felt that, without yielding any ground, and because Vatican II had a pastoral objective, they had to make room for the discussion of views which, if proved correct, would have enormous implications for ecumenism as well as for future scholarship.
Hope this helps.
 
=graceandglory;5165085]1. Are there discrepancies among the four Gospel accounts of the Last Supper?
A friend brought this question up. I never thought about it.
2. Are there factual differences or just stylistic?
The bible is and has to be true. 2Tim.1:13,Jn. 16:12-15, Jn.17: 14-19, Eph. 11: 13-14, and Jn. 14:25] BUT it is not always factual. Both the OT and NT are filled “with moral stories” to make this or that point.True, but not necessarily factual.

However the explaination for the variances in the accounts of the “Last Supper” are for a different reason.

Mt., Mk. and Lk. were giving "Personal-historicalaccounts of what they themselves saw." This is the approach of each of them in their recounting as personal witness to the varying events in Christ life. Which also explains why not evey event is recounted by each of the authors.
3.How do you explain “synoptic” gospels vs. the Gospel of John?
4. Why is the Bread of Life discourse separated from John’s account of the Last Supper?
John was teaching, not simply recounting events.
**John, on the other hand writes not recounting, BUT EXPLAINING **the meaning of these events. same topics, eye witness account but now with a different objective. John’s Gospel is “highly Sacramental and highly Theological!”
The Bible is always true but not always factual. Also the fact that there are varying accounts of the same story are to be understood that while the Old Testament is largely Historical and or Prophetical, the New Testament fulfills Prophecy, introduces a New Religion, and other expanded teaches such as the new Teaching on Adultery, in Mt. 5:27-31.
Varying New Testament accounts of the same event can be explained in that the Bible is God’s “inspired word” (and thus has to be true) BUT it is not God’s dictated word, that each account is an “personal-historical account.” The bible is NOT God’s "dictated words."
What do I mean?
Ask any police detective questioning eyewitnesses at a crime scene. If twelve people saw the same crime, no two will recount it in the same identical manner, yet they are all telling the truth; explaining what “they saw (or thought they saw.)
Such is the case with the Apostles and Gospel writers. Their personal lives experience’s and level of education, as well as their emotional state all play into how they perceived and recorded each event.
Each is true, factual but different.
All people react somewhat differently to what is seen or heard or experienced.
One can hear but not comprehend
Hear and comprehend but not accept
Or can even be “opposed to the message”
  1. (And most importantly maybe) Can you direct me to a resource that I can read this for myself, and share it with this friend of mine?

I know of no book that expalins you’re excellent question. There is however a very good and short booklet entitledThe Little Catecheism of the Eucharist by Father Roberto, OP, "New Hope Publications" that is easy to read and understand, and beautifully illistrated.

God bless you,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top