Copying in Gospels

[Zzyzx]

.
There is strong evidence that Gospel writers (whoever they may have been) copied from one another or from another source. ONE example:

Matthew 19:13-14 New International Version (NIV) The Little Children and Jesus

13 Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.�


Mark 10:13-New International Version (NIV) The Little Children and Jesus

13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.


Luke 18:15-16 New International Version (NIV) The Little Children and Jesus

15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

1. Would you conclude that copying was involved? OR is it coincidence that the same words were used by three different writers?

2. Does it matter if Gospel writers copied each other or another source? How and why?

[bjs]

1. Would you conclude that copying was involved?

Of course. Christians have been writing about copying in the Gospels since at least the third century. The author of Luke explicitly says that he copied from other sources in his introduction.

2. Does it matter if Gospel writers copied each other or another source? How and why?

Matter in what sense? What argument are you trying to make?

[Divine Insight]

It's my understanding that scholars have recognize and acknowledged that the gospels of Matthew and Luke are indeed a retelling of the original rumors of Mark with additional information added.

It is also my understanding that many scholars view the writings of Matthew to have been specifically aimed at trying to convert strict orthodox Jews to Christianity.

There are some important things to know about the gospel of Matthew.

1. Matthew is the only author of gospels that claims that Jesus supported every jot and tittle of the Old Testament Law.

This is important since that claim actually contradicts quite a bit of what Jesus supposedly taught otherwise. In fact, Mathew himself has Jesus rebuking many of the jots and tittles of the Old Testament laws. This is because he was copying from Mark and Mark already had Jesus rebuking these things.

2. Matthew is the only author of gospels that claims that old dead saints physically climbed out of their graves.

A second important thing to notice about Matthew's writings is that he is the only author of gospels that claims that saints were physically raised from their graves and went into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there. Since no one else has ever mentioned this event it's reasonable to conclude that Matthew either made it up himself, or included other rumors that were floating around at the time.

Luke's gospel also includes many things that are neither in the writings of Mark or Matthew. However Luke's writings came after Matthews so it is possible that Luke was aware of what Matthew had written.

It's my personal conclusion that this is concrete evidence that the Gospels were indeed the result of human superstitious rumors evolving.

The book of John which came later appears to have been an attempt by an entire church body (not one person named John) to take the original rumors of Mark, Mathew and Luke (and possibly other rumors as well) and organize them into a consistent overall theology). By the time the Gospel of John was written it was apparently well-established in this religious movement that worshiping Jesus as the virgin born Son of God had become the centerfold of Christianity. And refusing to do so would result in the condemnation of the heathens who refused to support this theology.

Obviously this attempt was quite successful as they have convinced people by the billions to believe in, follow, and financially support this religion for centuries after having created this religion.

A religion that was clearly not even the intent of their original Jesus character.

We might ask why more scholars didn't speak out against this religion. And the answer to that is quite simple. The religion became a political weapon to use to keep people in line and was therefore supported by Kings and authoritarians for centuries to follow. For much of that time to publicly question the validity of the religion or to suggest that it might not be true would result in severe social chastisement or far worse at the hands of the authorities. People were jailed, tortured, and often killed for speaking out against the validity of this religion.

In fact, this fear of social and/or governmental chastisement for even suggesting that the religion might not be true was still going strong in the days of Isaac Newton, only a few centuries ago. So for almost an entire 2000 years it was considered serious blaspheme to even merely question the religion, never mind actually renouncing its validity directly. This was of course dependent on geographical locations throughout history.

Ironically, even today this religion is used by its official leaders and many of its followers to belittle and/or degrade the credibility and moral integrity of anyone who rejects it outright as an obvious fallacy created via superstitions and a desire of men to use religious authority to rule over others in the name of an invisible God.

Even in this 21st century atheists are considered the most untrustworthy people in cultures that are mainly Christian believers.

It was an extremely powerful scheme to be sure. And of course, this is apparently the nature of this entire religion. Because this very same thing holds true for Islam as well. So it clearly isn't based on Jesus. This is just the kind of religious oppression this entire Abrahamic mythology has created. It's an extremely oppressive religion. It only pretends to be uplifting and positive, but reserves those benefits to its dedicated followers. Even though in truth those followers are actually being oppressed and controlled by this religion in terms of what they are taught to believe and think.

How it ever became such a powerful political tools (and still is used for that today), I used to say that I'll never know. But now I understand. People simply don't want to be socially chastised and they also tend to actually believe that there is an actual God behind it that will indeed chastise them in the most horrific way imaginable if they don't believe in this theology. That's the real thing that has kept it alive.

Believers, have convinced themselves that it's not fear that keeps them devoted to this God but rather love. But in truth nothing is more transparently ridiculous.

[1213]

...

1. Would you conclude that copying was involved? OR is it coincidence that the same words were used by three different writers?

2. Does it matter if Gospel writers copied each other or another source? How and why?

So, if there would be a crime and ten witnesses of the crime and 6 of them would say exact same thing about what the criminal said, it would mean the witnesses copied each other? Is it not possible that the witness just knew what the criminal had said?

I don’t think the original testimonies are copied, they are from sources that had witnessed what happened, or what was said.

[dio9]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

it is common knowledge Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Yes they did copy the sayings of Jesus. Its only too bad we don't have more sayings of Jesus.

But wait there are more sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas who many regard as the Q source . These three Gospels are known as the synoptic Gospels, translated as , with one eye. Because they are pretty much the same except for some interestingly different sayings of Jesus. So scholars say Matthew and specially Luke must have had some other source of sayings. These different collection of sayings were probably lost in time. They call them the Matthew source and the Luke source.
This is for me is the kind of stuff that makes bible study so interesting. The more you look into it the more interesting it gets.
Perhaps that is why so many atheists post here, it is such a damn interesting topic.

[ElCodeMonkey]

I think it's interesting to question. If they're copying, why change the words at all? Matthew said Kingdom of Heaven while Mark and Luke said Kingdom of God. Why change it? The setup to the quote was also stated somewhat differently. Wouldn't copying be the same? If copying, why not copy all the stories? Why some, not others, and why add? There must be a value judgement in all this copying. That, or it wasn't copying and there just happened to be overlap.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Since this is indeed a spin off of the conversation you, and I were having, I will simply copy my response here, that you have not responded to as of yet.

Readers who are unaware need to keep in mind that "Zzyzx" is the one who came up with the "club membership" idea, and although I agree with this analogy, I certainly pressed him on it, as to how he would have come to the conclusion that all these authors would have been members of the same club, at the same time in history, with the same exact club president.

So again, the "club membership" is the idea of "Zzyzx" and I am just going with his idea to make things clear. Here is, and was my response to the coping idea,

Their texts contain extensive passages that are word-for-word -- suggesting to those with more than 'half a mind' that some copying was involved.

Oh really? Well let's think about this a little more closely. If these authors were indeed club members as you suggest, then you do realize there are a number of clubs who have certain rites, and the members of these clubs are expected to be able to recite these rites word for word to become members?

Moreover, when we begin to think about these authors as being club members, with the same club president whom they all seemed to dearly admire, and if they truly were under the impression that this club president did indeed perform feats such as walking on water, then they more than likely would have spent as much time with him as they possibly could, hanging on every word he would have to say, which would mean they all would be spending much time together.

The evidence suggests that this would have been some 3 years that all these men would have been members of this club, spending day, after day, following, and listening to this club president, which would be a lot of time to continue to hear this president speak.

Next, let us also consider the number of things we can all more than likely recite almost word for word, depending on what club we may be members of. As an example, being a citizen of the U.S. I can recite the Pledge of Allegiance, word for word, along with the National Anthem, and also the Preamble to the Constitution.

I was also brought up in Church, and there are a good number of things I can recite absolutely word for word. Things like the, Lord's prayer, John 3:16, The 23rd Psalm, along with any number of other passages, along with things such as the Apostle's, and Nicene Creeds.

Moreover, although I may not be able to recite all the Biblical stories word for word, I have heard, and read them so many times, I could write them down, or tell them in such a way as for it to be known, that I know them very well, and I am sure some parts would indeed be word for word.

Let us also keep in mind, the evidence also suggests, that after the death of their president, these members were said to continue to spend much time together, and were also said to be going around together, preaching about their president that was crucified.

With this being the case, they more than likely told, and heard the same stories, over, and over, as they discussed with each other, and told, and overheard these stories, as they were told to others.

Therefore, at the time these men sit down to write, these stories would be etched into their memory, to the point it would not be very hard to imagine, there would be many things that would almost be, word, for word.

I could continue on, and on, about how it really makes no sense for these men to have a copy of one of the others writings, and only copy portions, instead of simply copying the whole. In other words, why would they copy this portion, and that portion, along with adding, or subtracting, and this would simply be the beginning.

I would also point out that the author of the 2 letters to Theophilus, tells Theophilus exactly how he obtained his information, and he never mentions having a copy of what another may have wrote. Moreover, in the second letter, this author begins to use the words, "we" and "us" as if he is actually present to witness the events.

Another thing to consider would be the fact that, copies would be hard to come by at that time. In other words, it is not like they would have had a "Kinkos" on every corner where they could walk in and make copies. Rather, making copies would have been a painstaking process.

With this being the case, the original would more than likely be in the possession of the intended audience, and if there were any copies at all, there surely could not have been all that many at that point, meaning that all these men, would not have had the luxury of having their very own copy.

With all this being said, it is very easy to simply throw out the idea that "there must have been copying going on", but when you really begin to think about it, it don't add up, and it is surely not a given, as many seem to think.

END OF MY RESPONSE

So then, is it really the most reasonable conclusion that there must, and had to be coping going on? Or, would there be much more to consider?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

1. Would you conclude that copying was involved? OR is it coincidence that the same words were used by three different writers?

2. Does it matter if Gospel writers copied each other or another source? How and why?

First of all, we should say that this is not "news". Biblical scholars have been aware of this since the late 18th c.

Second, this only appears as "important" to folks who are not familiar with academics in general, and least of all with history.

Most internet dabblers who make a big point out of this have been out of touch with the whole topic: perhaps there out somewhere chopping wood, I don't know.

It is a bit tragic: its like Galileo bragging to 1970's Americans saying, "Ha, the earth spins round the Sun!" and they are like, "Uh, we just landed on the moon".

So, yes, there was some copying amongst the gospel writers...? There is copying amongst ALL history writers?


Why is this a big deal?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 8 by liamconnor]

First of all, we should say that this is not "news". Biblical scholars have been aware of this since the late 18th c.

Oh really? Well exactly what have they been aware of? Is it that the writers report much of the same things? Or, is it that it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these authors did in fact have a copy of one of the others, and used these copies for a source?

Second, this only appears as "important" to folks who are not familiar with academics in general, and least of all with history.

I assure you that I am fully aware of these things, and I am fully aware that neither have demonstrated in the least, that there was copying involved.

Most internet dabblers who make a big point out of this have been out of touch with the whole topic: perhaps there out somewhere chopping wood, I don't know.

Or, it could be that those who grab ahold of these type of theories, simply defer to the "academics" as opposed to actually investigating these things themselves, to determine what the evidence actually is?

It is a bit tragic: its like Galileo bragging to 1970's Americans saying, "Ha, the earth spins round the Sun!" and they are like, "Uh, we just landed on the moon".

What is "tragic" is the fact that there are those who are under the impression that the evidence for the gospel writers copying each other, would be on the same level as the evidence for "the earth spinning around the sun."

So, yes, there was some copying amongst the gospel writers...?

Exactly how have you determined this to be a fact?

Why is this a big deal?

The "big deal" is the fact that you have made a positive assertion, and now own the burden to demonstrate how this assertion of yours, would be a fact.