was there even a Common Source For First 3 Gospels?

[DaChaser1]

Were they written with sources common to all 3? Or were they composed with each writer doing indivually his research and recording of events down?

 

[Greektim]

Were they written with sources common to all 3? Or were they composed with each writer doing indivually his research and recording of events down?

I am reading the dissertation version on my nook of the progressive publication of Matthew view (you can get it at SATS website). I find it very intriguing. Being influenced by David Black, I find his 4-fold gospel hypothesis convincing. But this theory actually answers some really good questions including the Hebrew version of Matthew.

The theory is basically that Matthew was published at the same time as Luke. But Matthew had written many short stories in Hebrew which he later put into a highly organized and stylized gospel account. Luke, under Pauline authority, was gathering apostolic data including Matthew's proto account writings. Thus, it accounts for the similarities between the two (getting rid of the need for Q) as well as accords w/ the early church view of Matthaen priority. I know there are many difficulties with this view, but it also answers questions as well.

At this point, I like how Black explains the purpose of Mark from Peter's standpoint as well as Powers (writer of the view above) which is simple and easy to understand.

So if this view is correct, then yes, Matthew is the common source for the synoptics.

 

[preachinjesus]

Were they written with sources common to all 3? Or were they composed with each writer doing indivually his research and recording of events down?

It seems pretty clear there was a pre-existing tradition from which the Synoptic authors drew some of their content. Given the diversity of so much of the Synoptics, yet odd unity at certain points, this is a reasonable suggestion.

Though I am not convinced of an actual Q document, there does seem to be something at play here when it comes to their common stories. Particularly interesting is how Luke, the only non-disciple source (Peter is likely the author to his secretary Mark) yet had many similar stories which seem unlikely to be so consistent given his uniquely different situation.

This is a good question.

 

[jonathan.borland]

It is definitely a problem. One of the biggest problems for those who hold to Matthean priority (the universal view of the early church) is the many places (too many to count) where Mark's diction is much worse than Matthew's. Just read Matthew's gospel all the way through in Greek and then do the same for Mark and you'll know what I mean. The question being, why would anyone make his source less grammatically smooth? Wouldn't the opposite be the case?

Playing on this, Theodor Zahn proposed that Mark was using the Hebrew Matthew and translating it the best he could. Later the Hebrew Matthew received a proper translation (I would say by Matthew himself) and the awesome Koine of Greek Matthew was born. You have others (Robert Gundry) who say that "in the Hebrew dialect" merely refers to the Hebrew style, namely accounting for all the weird features or "discrepancies."

About the weird discrepancies. Just off the top of my head, you have Herod wanting to kill John but not, because he feared the crowd which took him as a prophet, whereas in Mark you have Herodias wanting to kill John but Herod not doing so because he feared John and took him for a righteous and holy man, and actually "heard him gladly."

You also have weird stuff like so-called "coupling" in Matthew. You have two different demoniacs in Mark (one at the temple and one at Gadara), whereas in Matthew he bunches both together and puts them at Gadara. You have two different blind men in Mark but in Matthew he puts them together. You have two different messages in Mark with regard to Jairus (Jairus says his daughter is dying and later after the woman is healed you have a messenger coming and saying that the daughter has died), whereas in Matthew you have only one message, it is by Jairus and before the healing of the woman's issue of blood, and it is that the daughter has already died. You have the withered vine with two separate incidents in Mark (Jesus curses it and later it withers), whereas in Matthew it is cursed and withers at the same incident, etc., etc.

So even if Mark used Hebrew Matthew, he had to make a more precise account, and historically this precise account came from Peter. But Mark himself was obviously an eye-witness of some events (Mark 14:51-52), so he didn't need Peter for everything!

 

[DaChaser1]

I am reading the dissertation version on my nook of the progressive publication of Matthew view (you can get it at SATS website). I find it very intriguing. Being influenced by David Black, I find his 4-fold gospel hypothesis convincing. But this theory actually answers some really good questions including the Hebrew version of Matthew.

The theory is basically that Matthew was published at the same time as Luke. But Matthew had written many short stories in Hebrew which he later put into a highly organized and stylized gospel account. Luke, under Pauline authority, was gathering apostolic data including Matthew's proto account writings. Thus, it accounts for the similarities between the two (getting rid of the need for Q) as well as accords w/ the early church view of Matthaen priority. I know there are many difficulties with this view, but it also answers questions as well.

At this point, I like how Black explains the purpose of Mark from Peter's standpoint as well as Powers (writer of the view above) which is simple and easy to understand.

So if this view is correct, then yes, Matthew is the common source for the synoptics.

so matthew would have been "editing" his Gospel, making a short form that eventually grew into the current long form that we have now as the bibical text?

Would have wriiten earliest forms Aramiac perhapes, than revised later on into present form?

Wonder if there was a "central hub" that was collection base for the Gospels to be gathered and spread around for comparison sake?

 

[DaChaser1]

It is definitely a problem. One of the biggest problems for those who hold to Matthean priority (the universal view of the early church) is the many places (too many to count) where Mark's diction is much worse than Matthew's. Just read Matthew's gospel all the way through in Greek and then do the same for Mark and you'll know what I mean. The question being, why would anyone make his source less grammatically smooth? Wouldn't the opposite be the case?

Playing on this, Theodor Zahn proposed that Mark was using the Hebrew Matthew and translating it the best he could. Later the Hebrew Matthew received a proper translation (I would say by Matthew himself) and the awesome Koine of Greek Matthew was born. You have others (Robert Gundry) who say that "in the Hebrew dialect" merely refers to the Hebrew style, namely accounting for all the weird features or "discrepancies."

About the weird discrepancies. Just off the top of my head, you have Herod wanting to kill John but not, because he feared the crowd which took him as a prophet, whereas in Mark you have Herodias wanting to kill John but Herod not doing so because he feared John and took him for a righteous and holy man, and actually "heard him gladly."

You also have weird stuff like so-called "coupling" in Matthew. You have two different demoniacs in Mark (one at the temple and one at Gadara), whereas in Matthew he bunches both together and puts them at Gadara. You have two different blind men in Mark but in Matthew he puts them together. You have two different messages in Mark with regard to Jairus (Jairus says his daughter is dying and later after the woman is healed you have a messenger coming and saying that the daughter has died), whereas in Matthew you have only one message, it is by Jairus and before the healing of the woman's issue of blood, and it is that the daughter has already died. You have the withered vine with two separate incidents in Mark (Jesus curses it and later it withers), whereas in Matthew it is cursed and withers at the same incident, etc., etc.

So even if Mark used Hebrew Matthew, he had to make a more precise account, and historically this precise account came from Peter. But Mark himself was obviously an eye-witness of some events (Mark 14:51-52), so he didn't need Peter for everything!

think a lot hinges on just how much dpendancy the authors with each other ...

Interesting on how the Lord used say Luke to research and do a Gospel, and yet also had some interconnection with other two authors matthew/mark...

 

[John of Japan]

Were they written with sources common to all 3? Or were they composed with each writer doing indivually his research and recording of events down?

The common source was the Holy Spirit! My grandfather, John R. Rice, pointed out in his commentary on Luke and his book Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, that in Luke 1:3 anwqen can be translated "from above," referring to inspiration rather than a human source.

Regardless, while translating the Synoptics I noticed something. Uncle Miya and I revised my base translation of Matthew first, and then it was my practice to compare the Greek of the three Gospels and replace the Japanese in Mark and Luke with what we had already revised in Matthew, hoping to make their revision easier. (Alas, Uncle Miya never translates the same, even with his own previous translation in front of him. :BangHead

I learned that Luke's Greek for the same passage was often quite different in word order, or even syntax or semantics, when compared to Matthew and Mark. I'm convinced that while we may posit the same human source for Matthew and Mark (Peter maybe?), Luke is a separate problem with a separate human source.

 

[DaChaser1]

The common source was the Holy Spirit! My grandfather, John R. Rice, pointed out in his commentary on Luke and his book Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, that in Luke 1:3 anwqen can be translated "from above," referring to inspiration rather than a human source.

Regardless, while translating the Synoptics I noticed something. Uncle Miya and I revised my base translation of Matthew first, and then it was my practice to compare the Greek of the three Gospels and replace the Japanese in Mark and Luke with what we had already revised in Matthew, hoping to make their revision easier. (Alas, Uncle Miya never translates the same, even with his own previous translation in front of him. :BangHead

I learned that Luke's Greek for the same passage was often quite different in word order, or even syntax or semantics, when compared to Matthew and Mark. I'm convinced that while we may posit the same human source for Matthew and Mark (Peter maybe?), Luke is a separate problem with a separate human source.

So matthew might really had been the first Gospel wriiten, and that Mark might be retransaltion into Greek the Aramiac/Hebrew of peter, thus some of the differences between thiose 2 due to trying to beinto another language a mindset!

Luke seems to be a lot of eyewitnesses, such as Mother mary!

 

[jonathan.borland]

God is definitely the author! And that is the simple solution to the Synoptic Problem! Still we should have competent answers in response to critics' questions. We study in order that we may be approved workmen, and also that we might always have an answer for the hope within us. That includes giving good answers to the questions causing unbelief in others. The reliability of the Bible is still (as always) one of those battlegrounds.

 

[John of Japan]

So matthew might really had been the first Gospel wriiten, and that Mark might be retransaltion into Greek the Aramiac/Hebrew of peter, thus some of the differences between thiose 2 due to trying to beinto another language a mindset!

I don't have much of an opinion about which was first. The problem is not solvable with our current resources.

Luke seems to be a lot of eyewitnesses, such as Mother mary!

There were 12 apostles, 70-72 who were sent on a preaching mission by Jesus, and over 500 witnesses of the Resurrection. The human sources for the Gospels could have been any of 100 people. But God was the ultimate Author, so it would have been strange indeed if the human authors did not agree.

 

[John of Japan]

God is definitely the author! And that is the simple solution to the Synoptic Problem! Still we should have competent answers in response to critics' questions. We study in order that we may be approved workmen, and also that we might always have an answer for the hope within us. That includes giving good answers to the questions causing unbelief in others. The reliability of the Bible is still (as always) one of those battlegrounds.

Well said.

 

[DaChaser1]

Well said.

That is why Critics err, in that they fail to see that God produced the final product that we call the Bible today, by using men, but also by making sure all was done in a fashion that makes it the infallible and true word of God to us today!

basically, those with problems witht the Bible being preserved by God for us today usually have a bigger problem...

Many of them deny Jesus/Cross and the resurrection!