Featured Which gospel hypothesis do you hold to?

I seem to remember a book that made some statement about 'all' scripture being God-Breathed. Does all mean all (here) or a part of the whole j/k

Either God inspired them to write what they wrote for His purpose and to explain aspects the other writer did not elaborate on, or they just copied some important pieces from a source document for, what... cause they forgot or might forget, or didn't think about it, or they were potentially afraid of not getting their story straight??

For me, I might go so far as to say that it is so improbable that the synoptics were dependent on one another that to think otherwise is stretching the bounds of clear biblical understanding and reasoning.

I have a couple reasons for this. One, no document (the bible gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) references anothers work or beliefs like we can see elsewhere. ie. like Peter speaking of Paul (in 2 Peter) "...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you". Now, I also acknowledge this was not something consistantly done. However even referencing another letter that was sent out, or other statements made, while not always acknowledging the writer at times would state about it being written or known, etc..Yet, based on this alone I also acknowledge this is not proof enough there wasn't one. However we also have NO documentation from the early church fathers, not the apostles of any such 'source' or 'Q' document which was the original work from which the others derived their gospel works from. In fact Luke 1:1–4 tells us,

You can note for yourself that Luke states others have set down to the task to write down what has been done, BUT he was writting his own account after he had carefully investigested everything from the beginning.

So my point here is that while there were other documents regarding these things, this does not mean the gospels were dependent upon these other documents to compose their own and in fact we see that Luke acknowledges others have done such, but he is not using them to write what he is putting to pen.

The second, you would need to remove the Holy Spirit from the equation (who will bring all things back to their rememberance, and lead them into all truth) because He is the one who directs them in writting these. And while He could have easily brought to their minds portions of an original document, it needs be remember that most of these men had first hand knowledge of the events in question (or like Luke, were able to speak with those who did have first hand knowledge) because they were there. In addition we have to note it was the Spirit of God who was guiding the writtings, even for Luke, so why the need to presume a source document??

The source doc argument is an argument from silence, however scripture written through the inspiration of God, well that is more reasonable, logical, and biblical. At least that is my summation.

Thirdly, as I stated above, you would also have to remove the fact they were either all first hand witnesses or had access to first hand witnesses, to the events in question and thus have first hand knowledge of it. And thus each is written from a different perspective and noting different aspects to the events that each found important to the reason for their account of writting the Gospel to reveal a different revelation though similar revelation of the God-Man, Christ Jesus .

Ultimately, the explanation as to why the Synoptic Gospels are so similar falls back to the fact they are all inspired by the same Holy Spirit, and are all written by people who either witnessed or were told about the same events by eye-witnesses. If this is true, why would we not expect their accounts to be very similar to one another?

Thus, in my opinion, based on the 3 points above it is only logical to note there not only does not need to be a source document (except the mind of God via the Holy Spirit) but it goes beyond the bounds of reason to presume there needed to be one.

 

Part of the literary independence view arises from having never really thought about the whole process of inscripturation from inspiration to authorship.

I know that in my own conservative church upbringing this issue was never broached and we were pretty well left with the understanding that the Gospels were independent stories of the same account. Not until I got to my undergraduate Bible courses was this even mentioned.

Maybe, and this isn't a slight, fundamentalist appropriate a more fideist view of how the Bible was authored as opposed to a organic process that utilized multiple perspectives over a generation (or two.)

In the Synoptics (because John's Gospel doesn't really matter in this discussion) it seems obvious there is some literary dependence. How we get there is all about our process I suppose.

 

There are two extremes of thought processes in this world. There are the anti-intellectuals who refuse to engage with others or have discussions on doctrine and usually end up with a view of scripture that leads to weird things like snake handling.

Then there are those who seem to think that if ones thought process is not beholden to every academic scholar debate then the resulting view is not reasonable.

These two extremes do not ever promote any kind of "reasonable" discussion.

Again similarities in the synoptics is a weak argument for dependence at best.

And to suggest other views are not reasonable can only be a result of one wanting to poke a finger in the eye of those who do not hold ones particular view. And is immature.

 

From link I posted "somewhere else", they all run together in my confused brain.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/men-moved-by-the-holy-spirit-spoke-from-god

 

The hallmark of theology is that it produces confusion on a higher level.

One word I did not see in this excellent and thoughtful thread is "compiler." While the Holy Spirit inspired "every word" that does not rule out the authors "compiling" sections of their gospel from prior sources, including this part and leaving that out, at the direction of the Holy Spirit. We know what we know, from what the Gospels say about themselves, and to add to that meager reservoir of information seems needless.

 

If I and another man are witnesses of the same events, and we write accounts thereof, there is bound to be some similarities and differences depending upon our points of view. But no similarity and no difference would be the indication of a shared literary source.

A shared literary source as an explanation is only necessary if it is assumed the Gospels were not written by the traditional authors and several decades after their deaths.

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.

Mark learned from Peter, and Luke drew from a plethora of sources.