Talk:Four Evangelists

ALERT: Major oversight
As of this date, this article says nothing at all about who actually wrote gospels. Many, if not most, folks coming to this article are probably looking for some information about the actual scholarly thought about this. Why is there nothing? A paragraph would be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC00:67E0:E058:4A06:9541:F57D (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Crickets? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.105.34 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Feel free to write it! 2.28.151.173 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
I added a bit of explanations on why the symbols are attributed that way. As far as I know, that attribution may only be accepted by some forms of chrisitanity (catholocism ?). I think calling the symbol of Matthew an angel rather than a man is a mistake, but I'm no theologian or historian.

Flammifer 14:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Mary speaking in Luke only
This also represents Mary as obedient, like an ox, as this is the only Gospel where she says something.

This hardly seems correct. Mary (not named, but called "the Mother of Jesus") speaks in the Gospel of John. I'll delete the reference to her speaking only in this Gospel unless someone can explain why it should remain. 66.178.202.34 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming
The subesction on naming relates to formal and casual naming conventions of the gospels, not the four evangelists of the title. Doesn't seem significant enough to be listed here. Any objections to it being removed? Just nigel 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At least the second bit seems relevant enough to have a place at the bottom of the article. Johnbod 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK no big deal, if i carded that strongly I would have already removed it ;) Just nigel 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that whenever their names are mentioned in the English Wikipedia the order Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John should be used due to the fact it sounds the best when orated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.236.128 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dictating gospels
"Sometimes they appear to dictate to the writing evangelist." It is taking artistic license with Christian understanding of how the gospels were written if they do appear this way. I've not seen it, but if the illuminators have drawn it this way sometimes I understand that it is worth mentioning. Do you have an example for this? Just nigel 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it illustrates the divine inspiration. Probably it draws from the account (for which there is a first-hand witness) of the dove seen whispering in the ear of St Gregory. None of the Commons examples seem to show it however. I'll keep my eyes out. Johnbod 12:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was refering to the fact that the notion of 'divine inspirtaion' (as in the Christian evangelists) differs significantly from other religious notions of 'dictation' (as in Mohamad). It may be that they are 'inspiring' the evangelists and not 'dictating' to them. But if we find an example we can see.--Just nigel 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I hardly think the difference will be visible. Johnbod 10:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Faulty images and description
New and pressing issue: The 1516 painting by Pier Francesco Sacchi depicts the four original Doctors of the Church (Ambrose, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory) rather than the Four Evangelists. The painting's full title is Four doctors of the Church represented with attributes of the Four Evangelists. See this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Francesco_Sacchi

I noticed several things about two of the displayed images.

'Haregarius_001.jpg's description is wrong: The evangelists are not '"displayed twice"'. If you read carefully you can spot the names of the Old Testament prophets who are often credited with prophesying Jesus as the Messiah (Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel).

'Germany_Rottenburg_St-Moritz_Evangelists.jpg' is faulty in that the 15th century artist erred in the animals attributed to the saints. Looking closely, the lion bears the inscription "'S.MATHAUS'" and the winged man carries a banner inscribed "'S.MARCHUS'". As explained in the article the traditional attributes are Matthew = man and Mark = lion. It should be replaced with a correct picture to prevent confusion. I think I saw some pics in the German wiki... 85.177.109.223 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I inquired with St Moriz's church secretary and edited the image descriptions as she confirmed my observation. 85.182.6.63 (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lions sleeping with open eyes?
Could anybody provide reference for lions sleeping with open eyes. I did a quick search and was not able to find any such facts!Jyrejoice (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The symbols
Cannot source it yet, but the symbollogy is as follows: The symbollogy was prob borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology, via an unknown route, one of three likely: Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) directly from the Babylonian captivity,
 * 2) borrowing from a neighbor mythology such as wandering Chaldean astrologers, neighboring west semites, or
 * 3) inheritance from the original Canaanean religion where JHWH was one of many gods.


 * No, the symbols come from the Book of Ezekiel 1-2, namly the Chariot Vision (merkabah) of four many-winged, four-faced creatures. The evangelist's symbols are always shown with wings. The creatures had faces of a human, lion, bull, and eagle.

!|evangelist !|symbol
 * Matthew
 * winged man/angel
 * Mark
 * winged lion
 * Luke
 * winged ox/bull
 * John
 * eagle
 * }
 * While this was a vision to Ezekiel while in the Babylonian captivity, many myths and stories of the region used these animals as symbols. There is no reason to assume that the symbols are linked to any one culture's set of myths. (It was the church fathers than linked the four types with the four evangelists.) User talk:Carlaude 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * John
 * eagle
 * }
 * While this was a vision to Ezekiel while in the Babylonian captivity, many myths and stories of the region used these animals as symbols. There is no reason to assume that the symbols are linked to any one culture's set of myths. (It was the church fathers than linked the four types with the four evangelists.) User talk:Carlaude 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tetramorph page describes the symbols better than this page and, with a source, links the "living creatures" correctly with the fixed signs of the zodiac. Which was Babylonian. Earth Sprite &infin; 17:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Authorship of Gospels
Biblical scholars mostly agree that the canonical gospels were not written by contemporaries of Jesus. This entry (particularly the symbols section) seems unaware of that fact. The gospels were written anonymously, in Greek, by highly educated scribes, a couple of decades after Jesus of Nazareth's death. The "Four Evangelists" were almost certainly not the authors of the four canonical New Testament gospels, although "tradition" has incorrectly considered them as such.Matt2h (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? It deals with the issue from the first line onwards, if not ideally. But this short group article is not the place to go into much detail. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The bishop and church historian Eusebius of Caesaria (c. A.D. 264-c. 340), in his Historia Ecclesiastica (or Ecclesiastical History, in English) wrote about the authorship of the Gospels. I don't have the quotation from his work, but I recall that he said that Mark started first, then Matthew, then Luke and John.  I am not sure though.  It would be worthwhile to put some investigation into any sources that support this. One can read Eusebius' work online on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here.--Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that Pandora's box is the subject of Q source. History2007 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization
Per Ascension of Jesus, "ascension" is not capitalized unless it is a component of a work of art, a place name, or some other already-proper noun. Therefore in the phrase in question, it should be lowercase. Elizium23 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's wrong - obviously. It is exactly the same as Crucifixion and Resurrection. When the single word is used to mean the specific event it is a proper noun. Johnbod (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , while I agree that it is wrong, it is uniformly wrong on Wikipedia and reflects consensus contrary to our instincts. Elizium23 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all according to MOS:GOD. Elizium23 (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all - for example Ascension of Jesus in Christian art treats it correctly. Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we could make a valid case for capitalization: Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to proper names of specific incidents or periods but could we make that case across 3+ major articles and have it take hold? Elizium23 (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) exactly - What MOS:GOD actually says is "Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to proper names of specific incidents or periods (the Great Flood and the Exodus; but Ancient Egyptian myths about the Nile's annual flooding, and an exodus of refugees from Soviet religious persecution)." - which is absolutely fine.  I think that is in fact already usually followed. Of course "ascending Christ" etc is different. Johnbod (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)