April 1ã¢â“14 Matthew 16ã¢â“17 Mark 8ã¢â“9 Luke 9 ââåthou Art the Christã¢ââ

Please Assistance Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (As in Criminal Justice, BS in Faith, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored ninety-two books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

The reliability of the Gospels has long been questioned because of pseudo-scholarship. Were the Gospel writers plagiarists? Did the synoptic Gospel (Matthew, Mark & Luke) writers but copy from one another? Is there a document called Q? Was the Gospel of Marker written start? Are the Gospels authentic and reliable?

"The gospels must at present be seen as the consequence of early Christian mythmaking. Q forces the event, for it documents an earlier history that does not concur with the narrative gospel accounts."^[1] – Burton L. Mack, retired professor of New Testament studies.

Burton Fifty. Mack is non solitary in his thinking, it has become very common amidst Bible scholars to question the reliability of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that is, the Bible'due south historical accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. Why accept some Bible scholars viewed the Gospels as myths? Should their views crusade united states to have doubts every bit to the trustworthiness and the truthfulness of the Gospels? Beneath we will examine some of the testify.

The Reliability of the Gospels Begin to Be Questioned

From the shut of the starting time century C.E.[2] to the 18^th century, the reliability of the Gospels was never really brought into question. However, one time nosotros enter the so-chosen period of enlightenment, especially from the xix^thursday century onward, some Bible scholars viewed the Gospels not as the inspired, fully inerrant Word of God just rather as the word of human, and a jumbled word at that. In add-on, they determined that the Gospels were non written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, proverb the Gospels were written after the apostles, denying that the writers of the Gospels had any firsthand knowledge of Jesus; therefore, for these Bible critics such men were unable to offer a record of reliable history. Moreover, these liberal Bible scholars came to the conclusion that the similarities in structure and content in the synoptic (similar view) Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), suggests that the evangelists copied extensively from i other. Further, the liberal Bible critics have rejected that the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection ever occurred as recorded in the Gospels. Lastly, some take even gone and then far as to reject the historicity of Jesus himself.

Philosophical rationalism establish its beginnings in René Descartes (1596 –1650), Thomas Hobbes (1588 –1679), Baruch Spinoza (1632 –77), and John Locke (1632 –1704). Theological rationalism, withal, was directly linked to three chief sources: Christian von Wolff (1679 –1754), Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694 –1768), and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729 –81). Wolff attempted to necktie biblical revelation into natural revelation, while Reimarus made natural revelation the source of Christianity. Lessing added to this new prepare of problems by arguing that the contingent truths of history could never be a proof for the necessary truths of reason. Thus, to these men tin exist traced much of what later developed in liberal Christianity, including the destructive form of biblical criticism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Accordingly, "biblical criticism" came to mean non simply the scientific investigation of biblical documents but a method that causeless from the first the critic's right to pass judgment on the truth claims of the Bible. Thus, for example, to translate the Bible historically meant almost by definition to acknowledge that it contains contradictions; indeed, one of the standard textbooks on the subject but assumes that any approach is unhistorical that does non accept those contradictions.[three] In curt, assent to the view that the Bible was non totally reliable became one of the operating principles of the "historical-critical method."

Anyone who was theologically committed to the traditional view of inspiration obviously could not do "criticism" in this sense. Subsequent developments, all the same, created further complications. The formulations of and so-called higher criticism regarding the historical origins of biblical documents tended more and more to denigrate the religious value of the Bible. By the kickoff of the twentieth century, "conservative" and "liberal" approaches had get most totally polarized, though the onetime continued to make extensive use of disquisitional studies insofar equally these could be integrated into the framework of theological orthodoxy.^[iv]

College criticism (historical-critical method) is a term used to describe the study of the Bible with the objective of finding out details such as the authorship, source fabric, and time of the composition of each book. Higher criticism of the Bible got started in earnest during the 18th and 19th centuries. Historical criticism, also known equally thehistorical-critical method orcollege criticism, is now known as biblicalcriticism. Some forms of biblical criticism are source criticism, grade criticism, tradition-historical criticism, redaction criticism, structural criticism, reader-response criticism, feminist criticism, amongst several others.

Meet Likewise WHO WERE CHRISTIANITY'Due south Commencement TO THIRD CENTURIES NON-CHRISTIAN WITNESSES FOR THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS CHRIST?

Eta Linnemann writes, "In the academic community, the confirmed results of scientific investigation are considered the touchstone of intellectual inquiry. Indeed, society at big has come to respect all claims offered under the rubric of 'science.' As a 'scientific theology,' the historical-critical method has come to boss the field of biblical criticism in Federal republic of germany and is championed in seminaries and universities around the earth." InHistorical Criticism of the Bible Eta Linnemann tells how modern Bible scholarship has drifted far from the truth, and why its assumptions are nonetheless so influential and thereby inherently dangerous. Those who practise the interpretive methods of biblical criticism evidenced by their writings and words that one does not have to believe that the Bible is the fully inerrant, inspired Word of God. Biblical criticism is extremely flawed, and its attack on the Bible has stumbled much of Christianity into believing that the Bible is non the fully inerrant Word of God but rather it, the Bible, is full of errors, mistakes, and contradictions.

The historical-critical method teaches that much of the Bible was composed of fable and myth. Some have even gone so far every bit to merits that Jesus never existed. Instead of existence designated the Word of God, the Bible was said by these Bible scholars to be the word of man. The historical-critical method of estimation is taught in almost all seminaries. Today, the genuinely bourgeois Bible scholars and pastors are making it known that modern-24-hour interval historical-critical method of interpretation is exposed every bit just another attack on the Bible. 'Liberalism, strong in influence in the 19th century, has continued into the 20^thursday and 21^st centuries. It views the Bible as a human book not given by divine inspiration, and information technology teaches that supernatural elements in the Bible can be explained rationally.' (Zuck 1991, 53) Biblical criticism is pseudo-scholarship and has done goose egg more weaken and demoralize people's assurance in the Bible as being the inspired and fully inerrant Word of God and is destructive in its very nature.

Grammatical-Historical Estimation

The grammatical-historical method is a method, which attempts to ascertain what the author meant by the words that he used, which should have been understood by his original readers. (Stein 1994, 38-9) Information technology was the primary method of estimation when college criticism's Historical-Disquisitional Method was in its infancy back in the xix^th century (Milton Terry), and remains the only method of interpretation for true conservative scholarship in the after 20^th century into the 21^st century.

Grammatical Aspect

When we speak of interpreting the Bible grammatically, nosotros are referring to the process of seeking to determine its pregnant by ascertaining four things: (a) the meaning of words (lexicology), (b) the form of words (morphology), (c) the function of words (parts of speech), and (d) the relationships of words (syntax). In the meaning of words (lexicology), we are concerned with (a) etymology, how words are derived and adult, (b) usage how words are used by the same and other authors, (c) synonyms and antonyms -how similar and opposite words are used, and (d) context-how words are used in diverse contexts.

Who Wrote the Gospels Found in the New Attestation of Our Bibles and How Do We Know?

In discussing the form of words (morphology), we are looking at how words are structured and how that affects their meaning. For example, the discussion eat means something dissimilar from ate, though the same letters are used. The give-and-take role changes meaning when the letter "s" is added to it to brand the word parts. The part of words (parts of spoken communication) considers what the diverse forms practise. These include attending to subjects, verbs, objects, nouns, and others, as will exist discussed later. The relationships of words (syntax) are the way words are related or put together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences. (Zuck 1991, 100-101)

Historical Attribute

By "historical" they meant the setting in which the Bible books were written and the circumstances involved in the writing. … taking into consideration the circumstances of the writings and the cultural environment.

The context in which a given Scripture passage is written influences how that passage is to be understood. Context includes several things:

• the verse(south) immediately before and after a passage
• the paragraph and book in which the verses occur
• the impunity in which it was written
• the bulletin of the entire Bible
• the historical-cultural environment of that time when it was written.
• (Zuck 1991, 77)

Some of the truly bourgeois scholars who have remained faithful to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation are Bernard Ramm, Harold Lindsell, Gleason L. Archer, Robert L. Thomas, Norman L. Geisler, Thomas Howe, Roy, B. Zuck, David F. Farnell, among other select ones. Such ones are referred to as "fundamentalist Protestants," every bit though fundamentalism is at present a dirty discussion. Some modern-day scholar believes that they can dip their anxiety in the puddle of higher criticism, suggesting that they tin utilize certain aspects of these forms of criticisms, without catastrophe up doing any harm to the trustworthiness of the text, to inerrancy. This is very naïve, equally some of them cease upwards swimming in the deep end of higher criticism, while others walk forth the edges of the deep end.

Hither is just x of the "tip-of-the-iceberg" of the things that these scholars would agree with:

• Matthew, not Jesus, Created the Sermon on the Mount.
• The commissioning of the Twelve in Matthew x is a group of instructions compiled and organized by Matthew, not spoken by Jesus on a unmarried occasion.
• The parable accounts of Matthew 13 and Mark iv are anthologies of parables that Jesus uttered on separate occasions.
• Jesus did not preach the Olivet Discourse in its entirety, as establish in the of the gospel accounts.
• Jesus gave his teaching on divorce and remarriage without the exception clauses institute in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
• In Matthew xix:xvi-17, Matthew changed the words of Jesus and the rich man to obtain a different emphasis or to avert a theological problem involved in the wording of Marker'due south and Luke's accounts of the aforementioned result.
• The scribes and the Pharisees were, in reality, decent people whom Matthew painted in an entirely negative lite because of his personal bias against them.
• The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew i and Luke 3 are figures of speech and not accurate records of Jesus' concrete/and or legal lineage.
• The magi who, according to Matthew 2, visited the child Jesus after his birth are fictional, non real characters.
• Jesus uttered only iii or iv of the viii or nine beatitudes in Matthew five:3-12^[v]

The Original Meaning

The objective of the exegete in his utilize of the grammatical-historical method of estimation is to detect what the author meant by the words that he used, as should have been understood by his originally intended audition. Each and every text has ane single significant. Milton South. Terry wrote, "A key principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have merely one significance in one and the same connectedness. The moment we neglect this principle we migrate out upon a sea of dubiety and conjecture." (Terry 1883, 205)

Were the Gospel Writers Plagiarists?

The So-called Synoptic Problem: The early church fathers believed Matthew penned his Gospel first with Luke and Mark post-obit in that order.[6] Further, it is possible Mark and Luke were likely aware of Matthew's Gospel, yet the early Church Fathers give no inclination information technology was used equally a source for their Gospels. Rather, their writings reveal all four gospels were written independently. Inasmuch as John penned his Gospel in 98 CE, it was assumed he also was enlightened of the other three gospels just was moved to supplement and not encompass the same cloth a fourth fourth dimension. This impression would stay intact for 1,700 years.

The synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as such because they are similar when compared to the Gospel of John. They are similar in view, the material covered and fifty-fifty similar diction.  The word synoptic can be broken downward into syn-, meaning "together with," and "optic," pregnant "see," giving us "seeing together."[seven] Matthew's Gospel is over 90 percent similar in its content to Mark. Of Marking, 601 of his 606 verses are found in Matthew while Luke'southward Gospel is well-nigh 50 percent similar in its content to Marker. The Gospel of Mark is only near 7 per centum unique to itself while Matthew contains 42 per centum that is feature to information technology solitary with Luke coming in with 59 per centum that is unique to itself, and the Gospel of John has 92 percent that is characteristic to itself.

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812)

The synoptic question got its first in earnest in 1774 when Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) issued his Synopsis of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke with the passages laid out in respective columns for straightforward assessment. From that day, they accept been referred to as the "synoptic," or similar view Gospels. Griesbach did non doubt the Gospels were penned by the four authors, even though these names were not added to them until the second century C.E. Moreover, Griesbach felt "the apostles were fitted through the Holy Spirit to both understand and transmit the doctrine without danger of fault."[8]

First, we must requite context to  the Griesbach quote above, "the apostles were fitted through the Holy Spirit to both empathise and transmit the doctrine without danger of mistake." Without context, one might think Griesbach believed in absolute or full inerrancy. He did simply merely for the apostles, and so for case, the Gospel of John and Matthew would be without error just the Gospels Mark and Luke could err. Dr. F. David Farnell writes, "Griesbach believed that only those Gospel writers who were apostles were inspired (i.due east., Matthew and John). This automatically left the decision that Marking and Luke were uninspired accounts. The apostles, Griesbach posits, were non inspired in the act of writing merely were given a i-fourth dimension gift of inspiration at Pentecost that afterward ward enabled them to understand and transmit doctrine but not inerrantly. Thus, Griesbach rejected the orthodox approach of plenary, nary, exact inspiration. His unorthodox views of inspiration caused him to believe that the NT writers often err. Therefore, one could not harmonize the Gospel accounts. Griesbach's view of the Gospel of John was highly skeptical in terms of its chronological reliability, and he omitted it from his synopsis. Accordingly, John must be separated from the synoptics. Griesbach's separation of the first 3 Gospels from the fourth (i.e., John's Gospel) gave rising to the classification of the old as the 'Synoptic Gospels,' a term that was coined in German man by Griesbach. His historical skepticism led him to develop a "synopsis" rather than pursuing development of a traditional 'harmony' because he rejected harmonization. Under this approach, the churchly book of Matthew became the Gospel that the nonapostles, Luke and Mark, used in writing their Gospels." – Thomas L Robert. 3 Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels.

After Griesbach obtained his master's degree when he was 23, he traveled Europe, visiting one library later some other examining manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The results of this enquiry were published in 1774 and 1775, as well equally his Greek text (in later editions). His Greek text was used by a number of Bible translators that included Archbishop Newcome, Abner Kneeland, Samuel Sharpe, Edgar Taylor, and Benjamin Wilson.

The Emphatic Diaglott is a diaglott, or two-language polyglot translation, of the New Testament past Benjamin Wilson, first published in 1864. It is an interlinear translation with the original Greek text and a word-for-word English translation in the left column, and a full English translation in the right column. It is based on the interlinear translation, the renderings of eminent critics, and various readings of the Codex Vaticanus. It includes illustrative and explanatory footnotes, references, and an alphabetical appendix. The Greek text is that of Johann Jakob Griesbach. The English text uses "Jehovah" for the divine proper name a number of times where the New Testament writers used "Ancient Greek:κύριος, romanized: kýrios" (Kyrios, the Lord) when quoting Hebrew scriptures. For case, at Luke 20:42-43 it reads: "For David himself says in the volume of Psalms, Jehovah said to my Lord, sit down grand at my Right hand, 'till I put thine enemies underneath thy anxiety", where Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1.

For the start time in the disquisitional texts of the Greek New Attestation, in Griesbach'south text we find manuscript readings that were older than those that were used by Desiderius Erasmus in his Greek text of 1516 C.E. The significance of this enquiry is obvious from the following annotate: "Griesbach spent long hours in the attempt to find the best readings amid the many variants in the New Testament. His work laid the foundations of modern text criticism and he is, in no small measure, responsible for the secure New Testament text which we relish today."—J.J.Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776-1976, p. xi.

In 1776 Griesbach published his Synopsis of the Gospels Matthew, Marker, and Luke, having the text placed in parallel columns so that they could be easily compared. This is how they come to exist called the "synoptic" Gospels because they nowadays a "like view." Griesbach strongly believed that these Gospels had been written by the persons named. He believed that Matthew had personally witnessed the events he had recorded, and that "the apostles were fitted through the Holy Spirit to both sympathize and transmit the doctrine without danger of error." Bit once again, only the apostles were error free in the listen of Griesbach, non Marker an Luke.

From his studies, Griesbach had determined that the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the second by had been written by Luke and the tertiary past Marking. However, even during the lifetime of Griesbach, some believed that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, e.chiliad., G. Due south. Storr. This theory has since achieved popular back up, together with the thought that the source behind the Gospels was an unknown lost document named 'Q.' Scholars have since added other strands, sources, and theories, and its analysis and report have occupied numerous books and many thousands of manufactures. So important has it become for many theologians that it has even taken on the nature of "an article of organized religion." As a result, Griesbach has been cast bated and frequently he is harshly criticized.

The Synoptic Trouble: Four Views by Stanley E. Porter  and Bryan R. Dyer  | Jul xix, 2016

Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels past Robert L. Thomas  | November xxx, 2002

Is There A Synoptic Trouble?: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First 3 Gospels byEta Linnemannand Robert W. Yarbrough  | May 6, 2020 [Reprint of 1992]

The "problem" we speak of herein is a literary dependency. Are they so similar they were excessively dependent on one another? Are Matthew, Marking, and Luke plagiarists? One must ask each author where he got his fabric for what he wrote. Information technology does no damage to one's faith to ask these questions every bit we will get no further than the evidence volition allow, unlike higher criticism.

The Hypothetical Q Document (30 – 65 CE)

The story of Q (German Quelle "source") dates to over 120 years ago. Information technology originates as role of what is known every bit the "two-source" theory of gospel origins. As history reports, the 1800s could be known as the period of ignorance, not the menstruum of enlightenment. Nevertheless, during this fourth dimension it was decided that the gospels were not historically dependable. According to the Q Document theory, early on there were oral sayings and deeds of Jesus that were not written (agrapha, "not written). Several examples of these supposed agrapha were found in the writings of second-century Church Fathers. It is the hypothetical Q Document, which is allegedly a collection of these oral sayings and deeds that were written. These writings served as the source for Mark's Gospel and by extension Matthew and Luke. It is also argued that Matthew and Luke did not pen their gospels from memory, or the memories of others, but instead by using the dual sources of Mark and this hypothetical document chosen Q.

Some plant the Q document by looking to the verses in Matthew and Luke that are similar to each other, yet do not announced in the Gospel of Mark. There is merely one pocket-sized problem with this theory: the so-called Q certificate is non in existence, and as far as testify goes, there is none to show that information technology e'er existed. For example, it has never been quoted past any of the Church Fathers. One would non know this by listening to the seemingly factual manner the higher critics present their hypothetical certificate. The expressions below bring to life a nonexistent certificate:

• "Q originally played a critical function";
• "Q demonstrates";
• "Q forces the effect";
• "Q calls into question";
• "Q is the most important text we have"; and
• "Q tells the states."[9]
• James Thousand. Robinson, professor of religion, states: "Q is surely the most important Christian text that we have."

Scholars as B. F. Westcott (1825-1901), Theodor Zahn (1883-1933) and Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938) rejected this "2-source" theory, with the latter 2 being German language. As with most other damage done to the Bible's validity, it started with German language scholarship and was soaked up by other bookish scholars. Eta Linnemann, who studied nether Bultmann and Fuchs, supported the ii-source hypothesis. Somewhen, she did her ain extensive re-evaluation, which contributed to her break with historical-disquisitional scholarship, as well as her taking up the Independence View. She expresses her strong disapproval of the position today's seminary students find themselves in if they prefer the Independent View:

"What student in seminar discussion is going to risk being labeled as uncritical and hopelessly behind the times by raising the possibility that the 3 Gospels are equally original, in keeping with their ain claims and early church tradition?"[10] . . . "I am shocked when I look at the books of my quondam colleagues, which I used to concur in the highest esteem and examine the justification for their position. Instead of proof, I detect merely assertions. Instead of arguments, there is simply round reasoning."[eleven]

What are the Facts Near Q?

No Church Male parent or early source makes a reference to such a source. If the Q Document was distributed so widely that Mark, Matthew, and Luke had copies, why exercise we not even take a fragment? Paul in all likelihood did not know of the Gospel of Matthew and definitely not Mark and Luke. In that location is no reason why he would non have been aware of such a certificate that is claimed to take affected and played a very influential role on the start of Christianity and existed before he became a Christian. But Paul is dead silent on the Q Document. The Independent View stood as the ascendant understanding until the era of enlightenment when the philosophical giants, such as Grotius (1593-1645), Kant (1724-1804), Reimarus 1694-1768), Spinoza (1632-1677), and Tindal (1656-1733) brought u.s. errancy of Scripture, Biblical criticism, and their views on the origins of the Synoptic Gospels, Two-Source Hypothesis.[12]

Papias (c. 110 CE) states:

(3) I will non hesitate to set down for you . . . everything I advisedly learned and then from the elders and advisedly remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For different most people I did not enjoy those who accept a great bargain to say, just those who teach the truth. Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else's commandments, but those who retrieve the commandments given by the Lord to the religion and proceeding from the truth itself. (4) And if by hazard someone who had been a follower of the elders should come my way, I inquired virtually the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples.[13]

(15) And the Elder used to say this: "Marking, having get Peter'due south interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in guild, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, just later on, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed merely had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently, Mark did cipher wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one business not to omit anything which he heard or to make whatsoever false argument in them." Such, then, is the account given by Papias with respect to Marker. (16) Simply with respect to Matthew, the following was said: And so Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew linguistic communication and each person interpreted them as best he could.[14]

Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic Bible scholar who has spent much of his career misleading the masses about the early on text of the Greek New Attestation, states about Papias:

At that place's an fifty-fifty bigger problem with taking Papias at his word when he indicates that Marking'southward Gospel is based on an bystander study of Peter: virtually everything else that Papias says is widely, and rightly, discounted by scholars as pious imagination rather than historical fact.[15]

It is true Papias exaggerated and expanded the death of Judas Iscariot based on Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:xviii. However, much of what nosotros read on Papias is found in the New Testament, whether 1 likes information technology or not. Other aspects of Papias concerning Gospel writers receive validation past other writers, such equally Irenaeus who lived soon thereafter and would accept had firsthand information. Many of these renowned Church building Fathers had access to Papias and other sources that validate the truthfulness of Papias' message. In short, if we discounted all things Papias said because he exaggerated or tried to explain Judas Iscariot's decease, we would disbelieve every argument Ehrman has ever made based on the same principles. Ehrman has been found guilty of misrepresenting numbers on many occasions for the sole purpose of manipulating the information in an attempt to deceive.[xvi]

The Gospel of Matthew proved the most influential up until the time of Irenaeus (c. 180 CE). If there was a Q document and Marking was written beginning, with Matthew and Luke only copying from Marker and Q, why had Matthew get the nearly pop among the congregations? Moreover, why were the early congregations united in Matthew'southward Gospel as beingness written first, giving him start place in the canon? We will look at just ane case in Clement of Alexandria. Information technology is Eusebius, the fourth-century Church historian, who tells the tradition that Mark is one of the founders of the Alexandrian congregation: a congregation that Cloudless would after lead. Eusebius besides informs usa that Clement wrote of "a tradition of archaic elders," who gave him the order of the Gospels equally Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, being written in that gild. Being that Mark was i of the founders, and Clement placed him as the third Gospel writer, gives fifty-fifty more than acceptance to Clement's words, equally it would exist tempting to identify your founding leader in the starting time place.

Is There Literary Dependence Plant Within the Synoptic Gospels?

Over again, going back to the show of the Church Fathers, none of them addressed literary dependence, fifty-fifty when the opportunity presented itself. The in-depth answer is found in a publication by Eta Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? In short, she found absolutely no evidence that either "Matthew or Luke were literary dependent on Mark." At the end of this investigation, null negates the fact they were composed independently of i another.[17] She is joined past many prominent scholars, who have viewed the evidence, and find independence to exist the preferred option: Louis Berkhof, Henry C. Thiessen, Robert G. Gromacki, Merrill C. Tenney, Jacob Von Bruggen, John G. Rist, John Wenham, and Bo Reicke. While listing globe-renowned scholars does not in and of itself prove annihilation, it lends credence to the Independent View.

This chapter does not extensively investigate the evidence for or confronting the dependence of either Matthew, Luke, or Marker and the so-called Q document. The all-time we tin offer is a summary of Linnemann's conclusions. The final analysis in determining the corporeality of dependence, the findings are there is no dependency. Marker contains 116 passages, of which forty (3635 words, 32.28 percentage), are non found in Matthew or Luke. Of the 76 passages that remain, 7,625 words, or 67.72 percent, occur in Matthew and Luke. Taking these 7,625 words, we find in that location are simply i,539 words (20.xix percent) completely identical in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In Matthew and Mark lone, nosotros discover just one,640 words (21.51 percent) are completely identical. In Mark and Luke lonely, information technology is a mere 877 words (xi.5 pct). In Matthew and Luke, it is 381 words (5 percent).

There are words that are basic, and not relevant to literary dependency. In Biblical Greek, the definite article "the" is the just article, and it plays a large function, far different and more extensive than English. The definite article "the" is found in the Greek New Testament as the most often occurring, 19,870 times, with the Greek word και "and" coming in second at 9,153 times. If we remove the basic words of the article, και, and pronouns the pct falls drastically. Looking at our ane,539 identical words, we detect the basic words of Matthew and Mark to exist 530 (32.32 percent), with Mark and Luke having 286 words that are bones (32.61 per centum), and Matthew and Luke at 91 words (23.88 percent).

Thus, we only notice 970 words of importance in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In other words, a mere 12.72 percent of the vii,695 words have any bearing on the synoptic passages. These commonalities do non consider there are another iii,635 words, or 32.28 percent, of Marker that are not found in Matthew or Luke.[xviii]

The Gospels are completely reliable. They contain trustworthy historical accounts of eyewitnesses. They are built on thorough research. They the reader many fascinating facts about the life of the historical Jesus Christ. Therefore, like young Timothy, we practise well to pay close attending to Paul's words:

2 Timothy iii:14-17 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

¹⁴ You, however, continue in the things you lot have learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you lot take learned them, ^fifteen  and that from infancy[19] you have known the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through trust[xx] in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is inspired by God and assisting for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ¹⁷ so that the man of God may be fully competent, equipped for every good piece of work."

This includes the four Gospels.

We must note that nosotros cannot be for absolute inerrancy, the infallibility of Scripture, the inspiration of Scripture and at the same time speak of literary dependence or literary collaboration. Why? Because there is going to exist a time when you accept to explain changes that were made past one writer who was dependant on the other (source) author, changes that crusade some historical discrepancy between the Gospel that made the change and the source Gospel. That situation will arise any time yous effort to propose literary dependence or literary collaboration between two synoptic authors.

The 'source document' idea, the Q certificate, the literary dependence or collaboration theory has destroyed the faith of many Christians in their view of inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Bible. (two Tim. three:16-17) This tendency is not new, for the campaigner Paul told Timothy "Equally I urged y'all when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus and then that yous may accuse certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attending to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than God's program that is by organized religion."—1 Tim. one:three-4.

Dr. Norman L. Geisler

The Literary Background of the Gospels

There are two principal questions concerning the literary groundwork of the Gospels: Why are there 4 Gospels? Why are three of them so like (Matthew, Marking, and Luke) and one (John) so unlike?

Earlier this is answered in more item, it will be helpful to look at the differences betwixt the Synoptic Gospels and the autoptic Gospel. The following contrast will help generalize and summarize the differences:

Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)	Autoptic Gospel (John)
public ministry building	private ministry
Galilean ministry	Judean ministry
parables	no parables
human side	divine side
earthly aspect	heavenly attribute
synoptical	supplementary
official	personal

The Synoptic Problem

Let's deal with the synoptic trouble. Why exercise the offset three Gospels view the ministry building of Christ from the same general perspective? To be more specific: Why are they so like in content? And why are there marked differences between them? A whole host of subsidiary questions are involved here: Who wrote first? Who is depending on whom? What sources did each writer have?

The Bones Data of the Gospels

Book	Peculiarities	Coincidences
Matthew	42%	58%
Mark	7%	93%
Luke	59%	41%
John	92%	8%

This chart is attributed to Bishop Westcott. Reprinted from William Graham Scroggie, Guide to the Gospels (Thousand Rapids: Kregel, 1995), 189.

Only 50–55 verses are unique to Marker. Matthew has 1,068 verses; 500 are mutual with Mark. Luke has ane,149 verses; 320 are common with Mark. Mark has 661 verses; 50–55 are not in Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke have 250 verses in common that are non in Marking. Luke has 580 verses peculiar to itself (which have a Gentile tone). Matthew has 300 verses peculiar to itself (which accept a Jewish tone).

Some Proposed Solutions

Numerous theories accept been put along to solve the synoptic problem. Some are held by liberal scholars, some by evangelicals, and some by both (at least in part).

The One-Source Theory (Urevangelium)

This theory proposes one archaic Gospel from which all iii Synoptics drew information. Appropriately, the similarities are due to one mutual source, and the differences upshot from the private author's theme, interests, and fashion.

Figure iii.ane

1-Source Theory

Bug: (1) The disappearance of the original source is hard to explain. (2) The differences between the three Gospels are difficult to understand. (3) There is no tape or manuscripts of any such primitive Gospel.

Two-Certificate Theory

The two-document theory claims that the similarities between the 3 Gospels are due to Matthew and Luke following Mark in lodge and wording. And the differences are explained past positing a hypothetical common source called Q (from the German: quelle, meaning "source") from which Matthew and Luke'due south common material comes.

Effigy 3.two

Two-Document Theory

Problems: (1) Q is a purely hypothetical source. There are no manuscripts of it or citations from information technology. (2) It is inconceivable that Q does non have a Passion and a resurrection narrative! This is the heart of the gospel (see 1 Cor. xv:1–19). (3) The absence of Jesus'due south many miracles betrays an anti-supernatural bias.

Common-Use Theory

According to mutual-use theory, the similarities amidst the three Gospels are due to two Gospels using the class of the third (for example, Matthew and Luke using Marking). The differences issue from their own purpose and way of presentation.

Figure 3.3

Mutual-Use Theory

Issues: (one) All possible combinations have been held of who used whom, and this weakens the view. (2) This theory does not explain verses that are common to two only non in the third. (3) While stressing "literary identity," information technology neglects each writer's individuality.

Iv-Document Theory

The four-document theory contends that the similarities among the 3 Gospels result from the other two using Mark (from Rome AD sixty) and Q (from Antioch Ad 50). And the differences are due to 50—Proto Luke (from Caesarea), which accounts for material unique to Luke (AD 60) and K—from Jerusalem (Advertising 65), to account for material unique to Matthew.

Figure iii.iv

Four-Document Theory

Problems: (1) The theory is too complicated. (ii) Mark is reduced to a literary enigma. (3) It is contrary to the claim and early confirmation of the Gospel writers as eyewitnesses. (4) Q is a purely hypothetical document.

Fragment Theory

The fragment theory holds that various people wrote down sure episodes of the teachings and acts of Jesus, resulting in one teacher having a collection of sayings, another having a collection of miracles, and another the Passion narrative. The various Gospels are accounted for as these collections were compiled into their current form. Luke'due south prologue is used as a support of this theory (Luke 1:1–iv).

Effigy 3.5

Fragment Theory

Bug: This theory fails to account for the similarities of the Gospels. Further, it is hard to explicate away the disappearance of these "collections." This theory fares no better than theories involving a Q document (meet the class criticism theory below).

Oral Tradition Theory

The oral tradition theory proposes that the similarities in the Gospels issue from all the writers using a mutual cadre of fixed oral tradition, and the differences are due to private writers' choices to fit their different themes.

Figure 3.6

Oral Tradition Theory

Bug: (1) This theory does not account for the differences in the Gospels. (two) It neglects the role of the Gospel writers as eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4; John 19:35; 21:24; Acts 2:32; 4:nineteen–20; 10:39; 1 Cor. 15:three–eight; Heb. 2:3–4), supposing a later engagement.

Form Criticism Theory

According to this theory, the similarities in the Gospels result from all the writers using an original Q document from which they all copied. Meanwhile, the differences are due to the many different forms this information took in the early church. The information needs to exist stripped of its mythological form to get at the original core of truth.

Effigy 3.seven

Form Criticism Theory

Problems: (ane) Q is a purely hypothetical source. (2) The theory wrongly assumes late dates for the Gospels (AD 70–100). (3) It neglects the role of eyewitnesses. (four) It is contrary to data in the accepted books of Paul (1 and two Corinthians, Romans, Galatians), which were written early (AD 55–60) and provide the aforementioned basic facts about Christ every bit the Gospels.

Independent Eyewitness Records Theory

The independent eyewitness records view contends that the similarities in the Gospels result from a natural overlap of eyewitness testimony of the aforementioned events, and the differences are due to individual writers' different choices to fit their respective themes.

Figure 3.8

Contained Eyewitness Records Theory

Issues: This theory has difficulty accounting for the credible literary identity, merely (i) impact events result in vivid memories; (2) very little is really literarily identical—but about viii percent, which is easily memorized; (iii) the writers had supernaturally activated memories (John fourteen:26; sixteen:13); (four) the Gospel writers make a articulate distinction between their words and Jesus's words, as is evident in the editions of the Bible in which Jesus's words are printed in red; and (five) the verified historicity of Acts demonstrates the historical reliability of Dr. Luke and, thereby, the accuracy of the Gospel of Luke, which he also wrote (see Acts one:ane and Luke 1:iii).

The Rational Background for the Gospels

Often the question of why there are four Gospels is asked. At that place are at least 3 basic reasons—veracity, doxology, and universality. The first reason is clearly atoning.

Veracity

Multiple testimony confirms veracity. The Bible declares, "By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may exist established" (Matt. 18:xvi, from Deut. 19:15). Something as important as the entrance of God's Son into the earth demanded multiple witnesses. Usually two (or at the most three) would suffice, and four is more than than sufficient to confirm the incarnation.

Doxology

Simply the reason for four Gospels is not only theological, it is as well doxological (having to practise with God's glory). They present a fourfold manifestation of God's glory. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt amid united states of america, and we beheld His celebrity" (John 1:14), which in Ezekiel was manifested equally a panthera leo, ox, man, and eagle (Ezek. 1:ten). Each of these images corresponds to the theme of 1 of the Gospels: Matthew the Lion (the king of beasts), Mark the Ox (the servant of homo), Luke the Man, and John the Hawkeye (the heavenly 1).

Universality

The iv Gospels are targeted to anybody so that Christ is manifest to all. Matthew presents Christ as King to the Jews. Mark presents him every bit Servant to the Romans; Luke every bit Man to the Greeks; and John as God to the whole earth. In brusk, the iv Gospels manifest that the message of Christ is universal. The nautical chart below illustrates this point.

There are many reasons for four Gospels, not the least of which are veracity, doxology, and universality. Past multiple testimony and universal entreatment—to the Jews, Romans, Greeks, and the entire world—the Son of God was manifested in homo mankind. Deity entered the bloodstream of humanity; the Creator was born in a cowshed; the Main lay in a manger. As Paul put it, "Corking is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16).

The Gospels: A Fourfold Manifestation of Christ

	Matthew	Marking	Luke	John
Theme	King	Servant	Man	God
Presented to	Jews	Romans	Greeks	World
Ancestry	Abraham	(none)	Adam	God
Traced to	royalty	(none)	humanity	eternity
Symbol	Lion	Ox	Man	Hawkeye
Emphasis	taught	wrought	sought	thought
Provision	righteous	service	redemption	life
Key Poetry	21:5	10:45	19:10	x:10
Primal Word	sovereignty	ministry	humanity	deity
Savior	promised	powerful	perfect	personal

Norman Fifty. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the New Testament (One thousand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014), 35–42.

For a far deeper expect into the so-called Q Document, the sayings of Jesus, the synoptic problem, see …

Please Assist United states of america Go along These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Complimentary for All

$v.00

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / Estimation

Early on CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

TEENS-YOUTH-Adolescence-JUVENILE

CHRISTIAN LIVING

CHRISTIAN COMMENTARIES

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHURCH ISSUES, GROWTH, AND HISTORY

Apocalyptic-Eschatology [Terminate Times]

CHRISTIAN FICTION

^[1] Burton Fifty. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Volume of Q and Christian Origins (New York, NY: HarperOne, 1994), 10.

[2] B.C.E. means "before the Common Era," which is more than accurate than B.C. ("before Christ"). C.E. denotes "Common Era," ofttimes chosen A.D., for anno Domini, significant "in the year of our Lord."

[iii] W. Thou. Kümmel,The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1972), 29 –31 and throughout.

[four] Kaiser Jr., Walter C. Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Kindle Locations 5870-6111). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

[v] (Thomas and Farnell 1998)

[6] At times, Mark is found in 2d place.

[7] Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Groundwork and Message, 2nd ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 113.

[viii] Orchard, Bernard. J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Disquisitional Studies 1776-1976. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Printing, 2005.

[9] Eta Linnemann, Biblical Criticism on Trial: How Scientific is "Scientific Theology"? (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1990), twenty-21.

[10] Linnemann. Is At that place A Synoptic Trouble? Rethinking the Literary Dependance of the First Three Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Bakery Book Firm, 1992, 45.

[eleven] Ibid., 10

[12] Thomas, Robert L. Iii Views of the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. G Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002, 235-41.

[13] Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (M Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007), 735.

[14] Ibid., 739-41

[15] Ehrman, Bart D. Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. New York, NY: Oxford Academy Press, 2006.

[16] "Scholars differ significantly in their estimates — some say there are 200000 variants known, some say 300000, some say 400000 or more! . . . There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." (Ehrman 2005, 89-90) While the argument is truthful on the surface, it is very misleading to the lay churchgoer, as well as Ehrman's audience.

[17] Linnemann. Is There A Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependance of the Outset Three Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book Business firm, 1992, 155-91

[18] Eta Linnemann, Biblical Criticism on Trial: How Scientific is "Scientific Theology"? (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1990), 42-72.

[19] Brephos is the period of time when one is very immature–'babyhood (probably implying a time when a child is withal nursing), infancy.

[twenty] Pisteuo is "to believe to the extent of complete trust and reliance—'to believe in, to accept confidence in, to accept organized religion in, to trust, religion, trust.'

carringtonlickeply1959.blogspot.com

Source: https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2018/11/07/what-is-the-synoptic-problem-of-matthew-mark-and-luke-and-what-is-the-hypothetical-so-called-q-document/comment-page-1/

Share :