For the past 200 or so years this debate has taken many forms. Evidence suggests that the first three gospels rely heavily on each other for material content. This is not even up for debate anymore, it is undeniable. However, which one came first and who relied on whom is still a heated topic on many an occasion, as it affects not only the dating of the documents, but also the reliability of the accounts.

I believe it should be an important focus for anyone who puts emphasis on the life of Jesus according to the gospel teachings. For myself, it raises many questions concerning the validity of the information contained within the text. The most commonly asked questions raised as a result of this 'problem' are indeed problematic to anyone who hold the material with a high value. The best description I have seen written for the 'weight' of this problem is as follows:



The synoptic problem is the cornerstone of historical critical scholarship of the gospels. As a result, one's solution to the synoptic problem will influence one's exegesis, redaction criticism, and form criticism of the gospels as well as affect the quest for the historical Jesus, early church history, and even the text of the gospels.



There have been many proposed solutions to this problem, however, most fall somewhere under these four categories...

1.) Markan priority hypothesis: Mark was first and copied by both Matthew and Luke.

2.) Matthean priority hypothesis: Matthew was first and was copied by Mark who was copied by Luke.

3.) Lukan priority hypothesis: Luke was first and was copied by Mark who was copied by Matthew.

4.) Griesbach hypothesis: Mark, who was third, combined and conflated Matthew and Luke.

In case you would like an excellent general overall and seemingly unbiased look which encompasses laying out the problem completely, and regards most all notable aspects and/or theories, along with which scholar(s) proposed them, I have attached this website for reference:

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/


If the 'investigation' into what seems to be one of the most problematic of scriptural issues is of interest, lets conversate!!

you lost me at the first few words....

i stopped at 200........

If you look at each scripture they all say that Abraham began their religion, so if the same man began all three religions then in fact they are all the same, just transposed into different languages, and when each language is transposed into the other two languages small discrepancies in the translation became the major differences in the three religions.

The 'synoptic problem' is the common name which describes the issues surrounding the literary interrelationship(s) between the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke... Namely they can be arranged in a three column chart of sorts(synopsis) which questions the validity of the content and of the authenticity of authorship. It is obvious that they share much information, even word for word in some cases... It has been dubbed the synoptic problem...

Gets really deep...

I thought you were talking about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity... my bad

Not a problem young man...

Any cop will tell you that each witness will remember different details. The fact that one recalls a detail that other's don't does not disqualify that testamony. Unless the testamony of one person contradicts the testamony of others, there is no problem. So I find no reason to believe that any of the gospels are copied from another.

Creative, there are some people we are inquisitive about such things. And there are some who are inquisitive and open minded.

And lo & behold, there are even some who are inquisitive, open minded and are willing to take the time to think their way through writing that requires they learn some new vocabulary.

With these you may find a conversation.

Then there are those, whose only desire is to further thier 'perception' of knowledge by confining their questions to those that can only be answered in accordance with the doctrine they confine themselves to.

Discussions in these forums has led me back to a theory I was attempting to dispell. For some there is a need that runs so deep, that the only way to satisfy it is to find all the answers in something simple and coprehensible. This need can only be sufficed through belief.

Of course some choose to think there is intellect behind such belief, and so they wrap thier need in a web of self deceit, and use all manner of irrational logic to reveal the ideal they believe defends their intellect, the Bible.

Their ego is satisfied because only they have the ability to comprehend and interpret the 'simplicity' and 'beauty' of the book, while others find it too complex to rationalize.

Personally, I don't care which story came first, it would add nothing to the relavency that the Bible holds as a whole to 'believers'. And such studies, no matter the outcome, will never stop people from believing in mythologies in which 'other worldly' entity/s have all the answers, and all the love that seems to be unfulfilled in the 'needs'. There are those who MUST believe they are not only cared for, but are 'individually' capable of proving their worth for that love.

Good luck, I'll just watch a while.

Redykeulous,

I think you are right, if anyone disagrees with you or creativesoul, that person must be closed minded and indoctrinated.

Honestly, I can't understand why there is much debate on this issue. Read the first five verses from Luke...

Luke 1:1-4


Luke compiled his Gospel from the accounts (possibly also written accounts) of others. I don't believe in Q, because there is no support for that hyposthesis. I don't see any problem with Luke having taken from Mark. Maybe Matthew did too. Or maybe they were all inspired by God so that the wording would be similar. This would work to bolster the faith of the Christians, while being plausibly denialable by non-Christians, so that it doesn't violate the need for faith. Either option is possible from my perspective.

It questions the authenticity of an entire religion's textual grounds spider... dating, editing, content...

What of the gnostics then... WHO decided they were not worthy and why... Papias?

We have NO written account of his...none

Then Eraneous(sp)? He who qouted Papias.

You are at least four steps removed from the actual generation at this point...

Remember the classroom sentence that changed completely while it was repeated with oral tradition around the room IN ONE DAY!

There are huge amounts of evidence, linguistically, and contextually that none of the authors were an eyewitness to anything that Jesus did.

Now in all fairness, people argue soundly on details in some cases...

The most widely accepted and well-documented chronological history of Christianity is from the Roman Catholic church which readily admits that there were at least 29 years of oral tradition...

Christianity is based on hearsay...

The message, I feel, is much less disturbed in the gnostics and in the Namid findings... and it is completely of the gnosis variety...

Explain that logic to me...

A Jewish teacher, Jesus, taught Greek philosophy? If that makes more sense to you, who am I to argue with you. But it makes no sense to me and oh....every ligitamate historian.

By the way, if you go to Israel, every year they have a contest to see who can repeat the Torah word for word. People can learn the Bible word for word, it's not impossible. John died in 90 AD, he was a first hand witness. His Gospel is believed to have been written around 70 AD. But a Gnostic document, which contradicts all books of the Bible and itself is more accurate than the books of the NT? Really?

You are confusing many issues all at once...

The editing process is undeniable...

The people in charge wanted Jesus's teachings to match the old testament... so they made them match with... and discounted all that did not...

Have you read the gospel of Thomas spider?

Or Mary?

Gnosis is more along the lines of the 'wisdom' apsects taught in Taoism, ... what is within one already... do you dispute the notion that Jesus taught such things? That the kingdom of God is within... the lamp of the body... the overflow of the heart?

Come one spider... step outside the contextual prison of Judaism and into the light of what is within us...

STOP TRYING TO CONVERT ME! SOB... SOB... SOB... WHY DO YOU PEOPLE PERSECUTE ME!!!???!!!

Sorry, I always wanted to do that, so many around here have SO much fun posting that.

Gospel of Mary...teaches that humans can attain perfection through themselves. This contradicts the OT and NT writings.

Gospel of Thomas is a bunch of sayings, which are attributed to Jesus. I haven't read them all, but according to a Gnostic website I read a few months ago, "All verses stand alone and shouldn't be compared to other verses in this book or in the Bible". The Bible teaches that the Word is interpreted by the word. Any book that contradicts this clearly does not belong in the Bible.

No conversion attempts I assure you...

Ah... the bibles authors taught that everything should match up, and the believers who have complied it throughout the ages did a fairly good job of contexual arrangement...

I really like how Moses has been credited with describing the events which surround his own death... curious... indeed!

I am just sharing what I have picked up from Christianity... a cleansing of the vessel, as it were...

So... so many parables and sayings could very well be read in a new 'light' if one understands what is within...

Just a few attributions which have contexually 'survived' through the ages, as a result of 'let he who have ears, etc.'...





"Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me."

"The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."

"Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'..."

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you lose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

"For whoever exhalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be exhalted."

"And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; Do not worry about it...But seek his kingdom and these things will be given to you as well."

"But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by perserverence produce a good crop."

"I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

"The kingdom of God does not come from your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is.', or 'There it is.' because the kingdom of God is within you."






Undoubtedly edited... however... where does it point?

Not outside... inside...


I just think the editors got it all wrong as a result of the majority of thinking at the time...

Also curious is the changing any word in the bible notion... Hah!!!

I'm being a little slow today...what part of your post shows that any of that was edited?

Also, Moses wrote the Torah, according to Jewish tradition. The Bible indicates that at least to some degree that Moses did write the books. But Moses had a diciple (Joshua), who was appointed by God to finish what Moses started, is it a strech to assume that Joshua finished the book of Deuteronomy? It's only Chapter 34 that you are questioning and it's a short chapter. Do you think that Joshua wouldn't have been able to write that chapter?

Of course another author wrote that part spider...

You are not seriously questioning my claim of editing, simply because I have not run down the long list of compilation 'hiccups' in that post are you?

Is it really necessary to elaborate?

We both know that those those words were not only an oral tradition outside of the Torah at that time, but were also legitimately questioned without a definitive solution as to authorship... is that not enough?

Don't assume what I do or do not know. How is a list of quotes proving anything? This is a standard "Burden of Proof" fallacy with a good helping of shotgun argumentation. WHAT DO YOU QUESTION? You don't tell me, you simply state that I ready know. Do you see the problem? It's intellectually lazy to throw a bunch of crap on the screen and demand that I figure out what you mean by it. If you want to have this conversation, then take a couple scriptures and show me what you are trying to prove.

Ok...

The texts went through a word of mouth period of time as admitted by the authority of the Roman Catholic church. Let us not forget who kept all the Christian records at the time...

Note the questioning of the dates of this 'oral tradition' period. If there is any bias, it would be towards the promotion of the shortest period that the church deems possible.

The Roman Catholic church... 'oral tradition'

Here is the relevant chronology excerpt from this Catholic website: http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/chron.html


36?-65? Period of oral tradition in Christianity between the time of Jesus and the time
the first gospel (Mark) is written, original Christians disperse throughout
Judea and Samaria (Acts 8,1ff), Peter leads the new Christian Church,
moves the Church headquarters to Rome



Now for one to suggest that not a word changed in 29 years of 'oral tradition' is absurd, in any logical argument.

Logic, spider, does not serve to support Christianity's claim concerning the contexual legitimacy of the gospels.

If one word can change, so can many...

Hearsay is not a valid proof of anything.

Discredited by the authoritative church none-the-less.




As the burden of proof, my friend, now falls on you.

Christianity is based on hearsay.