Did Jesus really wash his disciples feet?Christian apologists like to make a point of the gospels being written by eye witnesses and that being written close to the original events makes then less likely to be polluted by the passage of time. The issue with this is that we don't know who wrote any of the gospels. That aside, using the logic that earlier is better, we should expect to see progression of the story, we should expect to see addition of details in the later accounts.Mark's account of the last supper is in chapter 14.A couple of things stand out in this passage, firstly, there is mention of the Festival of unleavened bread, it starts on the 15th day of Nissan, the day after Passover. How come they haven't had Passover yet? Why are they only now preparing for it? This seems odd.It has the very familiar account of Jesus predicting his betrayal, and the breaking of bread. Judas is not identified, even though the preceding passage is about judas agreeing the betrayal.Matthews's account of the last supper is in chapter 26.Matthew is almost identical to Mark. The same details, the same phrases and the same order. Some scholars do say that Matthew copied from Mark, and reading this I can see why. Notice too the extra detail. Verse 15 has the extra detail of Judas asking and Jesus responding. Reading this, and knowing that Matthew was written after Mark, and probably copied from Mark, this verse does indeed feel like a later addition, a piece of conversation that never happened but was inserted for the benefit of readers with a short memory.Luke's account of the last supper is in chapter 22.A new fact, but it's wrong. The festival of Unleavened bread is not the same as the Passover. It's almost as if this was written by someone who was not a practising jew, or who didn't pay attention to detail.This time, instead of just instructing his disciples, Jesus now instructs a specific pair. The story is evolving.Notice how this account has the bread and wine being shared out twice, and the part about betrayal isn't there.Even as an English translation, this version is more awkward to read, it doesn't flow and feels like it's had cuts and edits. Weird.The bit about swords, is plain odd. As if the next bit of the chapter requires a sword, and the editor realised that no one had one so they had to explain the presence of a sword so that the incident on the mount of Olives made sense.We also lost the singing of hymns.Then finally we get to John's account of the last supper, which is in chapter 13.This version feels a whole lot darker than the previous three. It's very different. As though it has had a longer period of time to evolve before getting written down.Little details like sending the disciples to find the room are lost, along with bigger details like the breaking of bread and sharing of wine. Instead there is a version of the judas scene, with judas now leaving the meal.What's odd for me is the rest of the chapter is Jesus preaching and interacting with the disciples, this goes on for so long that it extends into the next chapter, don't worry, I won't be reading it all, but there is a bit I want to draw attention to. Chapter 14, verse 22, Judas asks a question. But Judas has already left. Ah, this bit in parenthesis saying not Judas Iscariot. Did a later editor have an oh shit moment and hurriedly cover up the mistake. This is exactly what I'd expect from narratives that evolve over time, been subject to multiple embellishments from multiple contributors. I know that apologists have an explanation for this, and they have to explain it because on face value it is a problem, there is no other disciple called Judas. Invent an explanation they must. Any explanation is better than admitting it is fiction.The four versions evolve, progress, get darker and show clear signs of editing and embellishment. This is why I can't believe the bible is true and why I can't take Christianity seriously.