Which gospel hypothesis do you hold to?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Greektim, Sep 28, 2013.

?

Which gospel hypothesis is yours?

  1. 1/2 (or even 4) source Oxford hypothesis; Markan priority

    33.3%
  2. Griesbach theory or some variant; Matthaen priority

    8.3%
  3. Jerusalem school hypothesis; Lukan priority

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Literary independence

    58.3%
  1. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    I lean more and more to Markan priority, although I have had huge influence from the Matthew priority perspective. What about you?
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    I do not believe that similarities prove and reliance from one gospel to the to the other. Some people over think these things.
     
  3. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    Why not all of them?
     
  4. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    As a non-seminary trained lay person, I have absolutely no idea of what any thing in the poll is! :BangHead:
     
  5. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    GT, do you have a link to compare and contrast these.....such as gospel hypotheses for dummies?
     
  6. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,933
    Likes Received:
    369
    I believe that the Gospel’s do have one source (the Holy Spirit).

    So while I wouldn’t discount either of the two views of priority as impossible - I do not see evidence that they are necessary. This is speculation and, IMHO, does not warrant a working hypothesis.
     
  7. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 you:praying:
     
  8. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    Oh, this thread makes sense now. Thanks! :)
     
  9. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your welcome:thumbs:

    peace to you:praying:
     
  10. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  11. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    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.
     
  12. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #12 canadyjd, Sep 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2013
  13. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    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. :)
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I feel that that Peter, Matthew and later, Luke, all used some similar source materials - like the Logia (oral) or "Q" (lost documents). I always put Peter (Mark wrote down what Peter preached) as primary, with Matthew and Luke borrowing from it and expanding (in different directions) that short Gospel summary.

    Matthew enriched it with more "sermon" material and obvious Jewish flavoring; Luke with more "stories" and obvious Goyim flavoring as he did later with part two (Acts).

    Just last Sunday I concluded "Matthew" an exposition that brought in all of the other Gospels as applicable, esp where Matthew left gaping holes. 196 messages, but it would be the Life of Christ rather than just Matthew. I do love the Gospels! :love2:
     
  15. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    I'm not surprised the literary independence view is the most popular here. Fundamentalist have a problem w/ literary dependence when concerning the gospel accounts. But I think it is very unrealistic. I might go so far as to say that it is so probable that the synoptics were dependent on one another that to think otherwise is stretching the bounds of normal reasoning.
     
  17. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,933
    Likes Received:
    369
    I have no problem with literary dependence, and I don't gather that most here do. If Scripture is correct and the things written were brought to mind by the Holy Spirit, then I don't see the necessity of dependence. But that doesn't rule out a common literary source - it just makes it non-relevant.
     
  18. MNJacob

    MNJacob
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
    #19 MNJacob, Sep 30, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2013
  19. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...