The Four Gospels - translated by E V Rieu

 

I am an atheist.  I don't believe in any religion.  That doesn't stop me being interested in all religions.  I am keen to know what the founders actually said and did; who they were and how they impacted on their world.  This is a Penguin Classic edition from 1952, translated by E V Rieu who also translated Homer for the series.  Rieu was a believer, yet he translates the Gospels like any other ancient text.  He also provides an essential introduction, summarising scholarly opinion of his time.  He presents the four accounts in the order it is believed they were written, starting with Mark.  This is a brilliant move.  Matthew is the most popular because it comes first in the Authorised Version.  Because it contains everything most people know - the divine conception, the boyhood etc - most readers feel no need to go further.  But Matthew is only a compiler, working from a multitude of texts.  Mark, as well as being one of the key texts for Matthew, may actually have been there, in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was betrayed by Judas.  He may have been the boy whose lioncloth was stripped away by the arresting party leaving him naked.  In any event he is held to have been Peter's assistant when he travelled to Rome.  When Peter was martyred Mark went to Egypt where he too was martyred.  His account is Peter's account, and Peter was definitely an eye witness.  Luke was Paul's assistant, probably also the author of the Acts of the Apostles.  Luke witnessed many of the Acts but his Gospel is Paul's take on the life and teaching of Jesus, and neither Luke nor Paul was a witness.  Indeed, Paul was in many ways the antagonist of the original disciples.  John is the only Gospel author who saw with his own eyes, who was there throughout Jesus's ministry, who was almost certainly the beloved disciple who even attended the crucifixion.  His account is very different from Matthew's -= yet it comes across as very real.  He speaks of miracles.  He claims to have seen Jesus many times after his death.  John and Mark are very credible.

The fascinating thing about reading the Gospels in plain English is twofold: what is there, in terms of the miracles, the infuriatingly metaphorical parables (which John in particular finds intolerable), and, across all four, the assertion that those who see Jesus in resurrected form do not recognise him yet somehow know it is him; and, secondly, what isn't there.  Mark, for example, ends with the women finding the tomb empty and this, compelling cliffhanger of a sentence: "They said not a word to anyone, because they feared..."

I never had any doubt that Jesus was a real historical figure.  I lost faith around the age of 18 and was a complete atheist by 30.  Reading the Four Gospels hasn't changed that.  I don't believe that Jesus was any more the Son of God than I am.  That is not how I read these accounts of what he actually said.  One key omission from these accounts, even Matthew, is any mention by Jesus of life after death.  He does speak of resurrection after an incoming Day of Judgement.  He is also very clear that those he is speaking to, including John, will see the End of Days in their lifetime.

In summary, then, my faith is not restored.  But I am enthralled.