Are the Gospels independent sources?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDefaultMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheDefaultMan

Guest
I’ve heard many apologists say that the Gospels are independent accounts/sources of Jesus’ life. This youtuber named “Paulogia” made a video and raised some interesting points on how the Gospel of Mark was the main source where all other gospel books derived their information, meaning that the gospels weren’t actually independent of one another. What are your guys’ thoughts?

 
TheDefaultMan said:
I’ve heard many apologists say that the Gospels are independent accounts/sources of Jesus’ life. This youtuber named “Paulogia” made a video and raised some interesting points on how the Gospel of Mark was the main source where all other gospel books derived their information, meaning that the gospels weren’t actually independent of one another. What are your guys’ thoughts?
Click to expand...
http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-matthew-first-gospel.htm
 
Many theologians believe that the “synoptic gospels” (Matthew, Mark, & Luke) may have come from a single source as far as the structure is concerned, and that hypothetical source is called “Proto-Matthew” or “Aramaic Matthew”. However, even if true, the details between these three gospels often don’t match word for word.

The Gospel of John, otoh, is quite different in tone and in some details, plus it has a very late writing vis-a-vis the synoptics.
 
The gospels are not independent sources, though each evangelist uses at least one source that is different from what the other gospels used. You can read parallel passages in Mt, Mk and Lk and see that they came from a common source. John also have passages that are from the same source as one of the other gospels, eg John 12:1-9 and Mk 14:1-9.

Most scholars think Mark is the first, with Matthew and Luke repeatinf a lot of Mark as well as adding other materials.
 
While all three synoptic gospels share a core narrative, which you would expect if they are reporting on a historical event, they are not identical, and thus represent independent witnesses. Even in areas where the narrative of a specific parable or event is nearly identical in verbiage, these are still independent witnesses. Keep in mind how things were orally passed down in those days. Christ frequently used pithy parables our statements easily remembered, and repeated from place to place in his teaching. Early Christians formed credal statements, hymns, and sayings in order to faithfully recall Christ’s ministry. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the Synoptics share verbiage in places where they recount the same events or teachings. There are significant differences though in chronology, emphasis, and content in all three gospels that demonstrate these guys aren’t merely plagiarizing one another.
 
They are not independent since all four are inspired by the same Holy Spirit, by which the authors “consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more.” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11).

Even ignoring that (which shouldn’t be done), the four authors would either have each been eye witnesses or working from the common tradition of eye witnesses.

Their single source is what we call Tradition and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

They are independent in the sense that the four Gospels are clearly not just straight copies of one another.

St. John Chrysostom:
But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.

But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He has given commandments tending to salvation, that He has brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.

And if among the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble you. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them has also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200101.htm
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top