Featured Which gospel hypothesis do you hold to?

I do not believe that similarities prove and reliance from one gospel to the to the other. Some people over think these things.

 

Why not all of them?

 

As a non-seminary trained lay person, I have absolutely no idea of what any thing in the poll is! :BangHead:

 

GT, do you have a link to compare and contrast these.....such as gospel hypotheses for dummies?

 

For those who haven't heard of this discussion before I'll give you my best understanding of the issue.

Three of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) follow a very similar pattern in the telling of the Ministry of Jesus Christ. They are the synoptic gospels ("see-together").

Entire sections of some passages are repeated word for word. This has lead scholars to speculate that one to the gospels has a "priority" or that it was written first and that the other two writers used that document as a source for their own account.

Luke (the only gentile writer) states in his own gospel that he investigated the accounts of the apostles. He was an associate of Paul (the beloved Physician). He wasn't an eye-witness to Jesus, as far as scripture says, therefore, I believe Luke can be ruled out as having priority (written first).

Mark was not an apostle. He was a relative of Barnabus (cousin?) and an associate of Peter, if I remember my church history correctly. Mark may have been an eye-witness of the ministry of Jesus and may be referring to himself when mentions the young man who fled naked at the arrest of Jesus. Some believe Mark is writing Peter's account.

Matthew (Levi) is said to have written an account in Aramaic or Hebrew prior to writing (translating?) into the Greek.

Another theory is the "Q" theory, which simply refers to an unknown source document used by all, or perhaps an oral history passed down by the apostles and their associates.

I tend to favor the common oral history, which makes the most since to me. That explains the similarities and the variations as well.

Of course, as someone else has already stated, Holy Spirit produced it all, whatever scholars say.

peace to youraying:

 

Oh, this thread makes sense now. Thanks!

 

Your welcome:thumbs:

peace to youraying:

 

Thanks for sharing CanadyJD, now I understand the discussion. I have heard and read a very little about Q and such. I don't have enough knowledge to speak intelligently, from what I have read, at present I would probably go with a combination of some Q and oral tradition as sources. Have you ever read the didache, one of the earliest christian documents?

 

From what I have read and heard, I agree with the early church fathers who placed the synoptics in their order, so I guess I must say Matthew came first, but as far as Matthew being a source for Luke and Mark and any other stance of there being one source for the others, I'm not sure about that. If it is so, I see no issue with this though. I don't believe there was a "O" source.

 

I think I've have read parts of it, at least. If I remember correctly, late 1st century or early 2nd century short profession of vital doctrine. Doesn't it say that Jesus spent three days in hell before His resurrection? I'll have to look it up....

.....OK, I've looked it up. I read Lightfoots translation. It was a little longer than I remember, and I didn't see anything about the three days in hell.

It looked like very practical advice for living and had generous references to scripture.

 

Here is a source:

http://www.academia.edu/968395/Clement_of_Alexandria_on_the_Order_of_the_Gospels

http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.c...-views-of-the-origin-of-the-synoptic-gospels/

http://www.theologywebsite.com/nt/synoptic.shtml

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=D85HqBIRCr5PMsIjXQNmWw&bvm=bv.53217764,d.aWM

The last one is a link to a MS Word Doc

 

I'm a Markan priority guy. Q is likely a non-literary (i.e. informal oral tradition) that was the basis of the earliest kergyma prior to the authoring of the Gospels, Mark was formed around that tradition and given exposition by Peter as he dictated the Gospel to Mark.

 

I appreciate your passion for the gospel, and seeing the "whole". Understanding the whole, in context, gives clearer meaning to individual passages and allows us to avoid reading doctrine into passages that don't support it.

 

I have always imagined all four around a campfire, recalling a common story, adding the details that struck each of them as remarkable, independent, intertwined and inspired.

Logically, it would seem that Matthew would be first, clearly identifying to the earliest church, which was composed almost exclusively of Jews, that Jesus was the Christ, the one foretold. Mark recording Peter's recollections. Luke verifying the facts and writing for a growing church that was primarily Greek in common language, with John clearly establishing that Jesus was not only the Christ but the Incarnate Son.

There is only one Gospel. According to the Holy Spirit, and written (according to/ Kata..) Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

I don't believe there was that much cooperation among the gospel writers, and I certainly don't think, given the scattering of Jerusalem believers, there was ever anything resembling your "campfire meeting" that took place.

Matthew writes of Jesus as King.
Mark writes of Jesus as the Son of man.
Luke writes of Jesus as Servant.
John writes of Jesus as the Son of God.

Their emphases, despite the similarities in Matthew and Mark in particular, are completely different. Matthew and Mark would appear to be similar on the surface because Mark, as you accurately state, retells Peter's recollections of his discipleship under Jesus, as did Matthew.

Luke writes from the aspect of an investigative reporter, and it is quite obvious he went to find as many people as he could who personally observed Jesus' ministry, including his mother Mary, and many of those in his account such as Zaccheus, the people of Capernaum, and others.

John writes from a lifetime perspective of ministry, and with the time given him by his deportation to Patmos, was able to look back not only on his time as a very young man in Jesus' company, but the impact of the events he depicts in his gospel on his perceptions of Who Jesus really is.

There was no cooperation. The gospels are four distinct works.