Posted on Facebook by Samoa Lualima
History, Memory, Scribes, and the Preservation of the Life of Christ
READING 1598-2 (Q&A) EXPLAINED
Reading 1598-2 presents a very unusual and controversial explanation about the origins of the four Gospels. It reflects the perspective found in the readings of Edgar Cayce rather than the traditional positions held by most Christian scholars and churches. What makes the reading interesting is that it attempts to describe not only who wrote the Gospels, but also the historical process behind how the records were formed, copied, transmitted, and edited across generations.
The reading begins with a remarkable statement. Cayce says that the truth of these matters could best be verified through direct investigation of ancient records, especially those preserved in the libraries of the Vatican Apostolic Library. This introduces an important theme: spiritual truth and historical investigation do not need to oppose each other. The reading encourages personal study, research, and verification rather than blind acceptance. Cayce repeatedly says, “VERIFY same for self’s OWN understanding.” In many ways, this reflects the biblical principle found in Acts 17:11, where the Bereans were praised because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” The reading therefore encourages active seeking rather than passive belief.
The first major claim concerns the Gospel of Gospel of Mark. Cayce says Mark was the earliest Gospel and that it was heavily influenced or dictated by Saint Peter shortly before Peter was taken to Rome. Interestingly, many modern biblical scholars also believe Mark was probably the earliest Gospel written. The traditional Christian view has long held that Mark recorded Peter’s eyewitness memories and preaching. Early church fathers such as Papias of Hierapolis described Mark as Peter’s interpreter. Cayce’s reading therefore aligns surprisingly closely with early Christian tradition on this point. The reading suggests that Mark preserves an urgent, direct, eyewitness-style account shaped by Peter’s living memory of Christ. This may explain why Mark’s Gospel often feels fast-moving, vivid, emotional, and immediate compared to the others.
The reading then moves to the Gospel of Gospel of Matthew. Cayce states that Matthew himself wrote it while in exile, decades after Mark, and that it was directed toward scattered Jewish believers throughout Palestine and regions such as Laodicea. This fits with the strong Jewish character of Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew constantly connects Jesus to Old Testament prophecy, repeatedly saying things such as “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Matthew presents Christ as the promised Messiah and rightful King. The genealogy traces Jesus back through Abraham and David, emphasizing covenant and kingship. Cayce’s statement about Jewish communities scattered throughout the region also reflects the historical reality of the Jewish diaspora after increasing Roman pressure and unrest.
The most unusual part of the reading concerns the Gospel of Gospel of Luke. Cayce claims it was actually written by “Lucius” rather than Luke himself, though connected to Luke’s ministry circle during the missionary work of Paul the Apostle. Mainstream Christianity generally attributes Luke and Acts to Luke the physician, a companion of Paul. Cayce’s reading may suggest either a scribal assistant, editorial contributor, or alternate identity behind the final composition. More importantly, the reading emphasizes that Luke was written for believers living under Roman influence throughout the provinces of the empire. This is fascinating because Luke’s Gospel does appear more universal in tone than Matthew. Luke emphasizes outsiders, Gentiles, women, the poor, sinners, and the worldwide scope of salvation. His Gospel often softens some Jewish-specific elements and presents Christianity in a form understandable to the wider Greco-Roman world. Cayce also suggests that some textual differences between the Gospels emerged through the influence of Roman provinces and later transmission processes. Modern textual scholarship likewise recognizes that early manuscripts underwent copying variations, editorial shaping, and transmission differences over time.
The reading’s discussion of the Gospel of Gospel of John is perhaps the most controversial. Cayce states that it was written by several people and finalized by a scribe representing John the Beloved, with portions composed at different times and assembled decades after the Crucifixion. While this differs from traditional church teaching, some modern scholars also observe that John appears more layered and theological than the Synoptic Gospels. Certain sections seem reflective, developed, and possibly edited over time. The final chapter itself hints at a broader community preserving John’s testimony: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). Some scholars have proposed the existence of a “Johannine community” that preserved and organized the teachings associated with John. Cayce’s reading seems to describe something similar — not necessarily denying John’s authority, but suggesting a collaborative process of preservation, dictation, editing, and compilation.
One of the deeper implications of this reading is that Scripture emerged through both divine inspiration and human history. The reading does not portray the Bible as mechanically dropped from heaven word-for-word. Instead, it presents the Gospels as living testimonies carried through memory, oral teaching, scribes, communities, persecution, exile, missionary expansion, and historical circumstance. In this sense, the Bible becomes both spiritual and incarnational — divine truth expressed through human vessels. This mirrors the Christian understanding of Christ Himself: fully divine yet expressed through human flesh.
The reading also indirectly highlights why the four Gospels are different from each other. Each Gospel writer addressed different audiences, cultures, and spiritual needs. Mark emphasizes action and suffering discipleship. Matthew emphasizes fulfillment of prophecy and the kingdom. Luke emphasizes universality and compassion. John emphasizes spiritual revelation and divine identity. Rather than weakening the testimony, these differences create a fuller multidimensional portrait of Christ.
An important caution should also be mentioned. Cayce’s readings are not accepted as authoritative doctrine by most Christian denominations. Many believers would disagree strongly with some of these claims, especially regarding authorship. Traditional Christianity generally holds that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John substantially wrote or directly authorized the Gospels bearing their names. Historical scholarship itself remains divided on many details. Therefore, this reading should be approached as a spiritual-historical interpretation rather than established historical fact.
Yet the reading raises an important spiritual principle: truth often comes through a process. Revelation moves through people, communities, memory, suffering, and history. The Gospel story survived because generations preserved it faithfully under immense pressure. Whether one fully accepts Cayce’s claims or not, the reading ultimately points back toward the enduring power of the message itself — the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The reading invites readers not merely to debate authorship, but to seek the transforming spiritual reality behind the text itself.
READING 1598-2
(Q) I am writing a book. Can you help me, from the hall of records? Who actually wrote the four Gospels? In what order? and when were they written?
(A) These as we find may BEST be determined by the investigations of the records as related to same; that is, to satisfy self as to its claim - or a physical record - in the Vatican's own libraries. These will be accessible, or made accessible, if there is the seeking, during this present year.
As we find, this will be the manner in which these are indicated; but VERIFY same for self's OWN understanding, as well as self's satisfaction:
MARK was first dictated, greatly by Peter; and this in those periods just before Peter was carried to Rome.
The next was MATTHEW, written by the one whose name it bears - AS for the SPECIFIC reasons - to those who were scattered into the upper portions of Palestine and through Laodicea. This was written something like thirty-three to four years later than MARK; and while this body - that wrote same - was in exile.
LUKE was written by Lucius, rather than Luke; though a companion with Luke during those activities of Paul; and written, of course, unto those of the faith under the Roman INFLUENCE - not to the Roman peoples but to the provinces ruled BY the Romans! and it was from those sources that the very changes were made, as to the differences in that given by MARK and MATTHEW.
JOHN was written by several; not by the John who was the beloved, but the John who REPRESENTED or who was the scribe FOR John the beloved; and - as much of same - was written much later. Portions of it were written at different times and combined some fifty years after the Crucifixion.
No comments:
Post a Comment