Everything I have read about the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke reminds me of college writing now and plagiarism; with this said, I could define the synoptic problem as plagiarism. You see the synoptic problem is very close relationships of the writings in these books, by these three. They are very similar in so many ways Mark writing first, then Matthew and Luke following with the same stories just changed up a bit. Kind of like a close plagiarism with quotes and some paraphrasing in other places. Each had very similar wording and order of events. With my studies over the last week and half, I was wondering if my thoughts were close; as a result, I started researching and it does seem others agree. As a large majority of scholars
…show more content…
One is externally evidence where the works are examined as traditional manuscripts and from other testimonies (Jones, n.d.). The other evidence is internal this examination involved researching the style of he works. They would breakdown these books both verbally and by the writer’s ideas in order to prove who the author really was. The early church fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Hierapolis, Pope Clement I, and Polycarp had plenty to say about the four gospels. Papias for instance stated that Mark had recorded everything he heard, just not in the order of Christ’s words or the things he had done (Goodnight, 2017). He did however, record everything truthfully and omitted nothing. Then, another example Ignatius wrote in his book ‘Against Heresies’ was that Matthew wrote the gospels of what he heard, from his own point of view and in doing so he helped build the foundation of the church. He goes on to compare the cherubim angels with four faces, to the four gospels, and the four covenants God made for man. He stated that the gospels after his research could not be more or less in numbers than they really were. In other words, I think, he is saying they are correct and should be listened to. The then adds to this stating “These things being so, all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain unlearned, and also audacious…” (Irenaeus, 180). Irenaeus was well known for his …show more content…
He instead, painted his own picture of Jesus from the facts he gathers, selecting the perfect ones, organizing them along with his own interruption; in turn, making them a complete and undivided narrative (“New Testament Of The Bible, n.d.). Luke had quite a unique ability as a writer and with this he had the longest and most appealing book of the New Testament. He wanted to use this book of his knowledge to make the Christian community one of harmony. He wanted all to be followers of Jesus and set out to do just this, with undisputed facts of Jesus’ life’s journeys and teachings. Luke truly felt if people knew Jesus as he did as kind, loving, charismatic, and as the wonderful man he was, they would love him as well and not believe the bad false claims against him. Luke wanted everyone to know Jesus and his love for all no matter race, wealth, sinners, or nonbelievers, he loved and tried to help them all. He had concern and compassion for the poor, he wanted no one hungry, and he was a very humble. He wanted all to follow in Jesus’ footsteps and if he got that word out maybe they
One is externally evidence where the works are examined as traditional manuscripts and from other testimonies (Jones, n.d.). The other evidence is internal this examination involved researching the style of he works. They would breakdown these books both verbally and by the writer’s ideas in order to prove who the author really was. The early church fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Hierapolis, Pope Clement I, and Polycarp had plenty to say about the four gospels. Papias for instance stated that Mark had recorded everything he heard, just not in the order of Christ’s words or the things he had done (Goodnight, 2017). He did however, record everything truthfully and omitted nothing. Then, another example Ignatius wrote in his book ‘Against Heresies’ was that Matthew wrote the gospels of what he heard, from his own point of view and in doing so he helped build the foundation of the church. He goes on to compare the cherubim angels with four faces, to the four gospels, and the four covenants God made for man. He stated that the gospels after his research could not be more or less in numbers than they really were. In other words, I think, he is saying they are correct and should be listened to. The then adds to this stating “These things being so, all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain unlearned, and also audacious…” (Irenaeus, 180). Irenaeus was well known for his …show more content…
He instead, painted his own picture of Jesus from the facts he gathers, selecting the perfect ones, organizing them along with his own interruption; in turn, making them a complete and undivided narrative (“New Testament Of The Bible, n.d.). Luke had quite a unique ability as a writer and with this he had the longest and most appealing book of the New Testament. He wanted to use this book of his knowledge to make the Christian community one of harmony. He wanted all to be followers of Jesus and set out to do just this, with undisputed facts of Jesus’ life’s journeys and teachings. Luke truly felt if people knew Jesus as he did as kind, loving, charismatic, and as the wonderful man he was, they would love him as well and not believe the bad false claims against him. Luke wanted everyone to know Jesus and his love for all no matter race, wealth, sinners, or nonbelievers, he loved and tried to help them all. He had concern and compassion for the poor, he wanted no one hungry, and he was a very humble. He wanted all to follow in Jesus’ footsteps and if he got that word out maybe they