According to the two-source theory, Matthew had the Gospel of Mark as a model and not the other way around. Compare MT 20:29-34 with MK 10:46-52 and support this theory…?

> In the first 17 centuries of our time bill, the credibility of the Gospels was never seriously doubted. Especially since 19. The century has been claimed by several scholars that the Gospels were not due to divine inspiration, but were conceived by people. It was also argued that the evangelists had their first-hand information about Jesus, and they were able to write reliable history. Because the first three Gospels, also called “synoptical Gospels” (according to the Greek word for “equal vision”), are very similar in structure and content, one has also concluded that the evangelists would have written off extensively. And the miracles of Jesus and his resurrection, as described in the Gospels, have been denied all round. Some have even made an agreement that Jesus has ever lived!

These critics have also assumed that Markus had to have written a gospel as the first, because he had to find as good as any content that would not have used Matthew and Luke. These two, in turn, are supposed to have written off for their Gospels at Markus and have also resorted to a so-called logic or speech source (abbreviated to “Q”). As the Bible scholar A. F. J. Klijn remarks, the evangelists were “degraded to mere collectors of individual stories” by this popular hypothesis. If this “two-source theory” was true, they should be accused of theft of intellectual property and legend formation. Faith in the divine origin of the Bible has thus been undermined (2 Tim. 3:16).

Were the Evangelist Plagiators?

Is the similarity of the synoptic Gospels necessarily evidence that the authors have just written off each other? No. Why not? On the one hand, Jesus had promised his disciples, the Holy Spirit would “remember them all things” he had said to them (Jn 14:26).

There it shines when so many things the Evangelists described were memories of the same events. It is quite impossible to rule out that a Bible writer reads the texts of another person or references them, but this suggests careful research rather than spiritual theft (2 Peter 3:15).

On the other hand, it is necessary to take into account theAnchor Bible Dictionarydeclares that it was “usual to pass on traditions orally, and thus it was easy to explain why the memorable speeches of Jesus are practically recorded in the same text.”

Lukas explained that he had spoken with many eyewitnesses and had “been exactly after all things from the beginning” (Luke 1:1-4). Does that sound like mental theft or legend formation? On the contrary! After a thorough study of his writings, the archaeologist William Ramsay came to the conclusion: “Lukas is a first-class historian: Not only is his factual reports conquered, he also had a real sense of historiography . . This author must be counted among the very great historians. ‘

Incidentally, the testimony of former church fathers as that of theologian Origenes from the 3rd. Century conclude that the Apostle Matthew was the first to write a gospel. Origenes wrote: “Only the Gospel was written in the Hebrew language for the believers of Judaism according to Matthew, the former collector and later apostle of Jesus Christ.” As an apostle and eyewitnesses, Matthew hardly needed to write to Mark, who was not an eyewitness! What is based on the assertion that Matthew and Luke had written off from Mark and an alleged source “Q”?

Was Markusevangelium the first to be written?

For the theory that Markusevangelium was first written and used as a source by Matthew and Lukas, “there is no single document that is hard to do and puncture”, theAnchor Bible Dictionaryone. Nevertheless, it is represented by many scholars with the argument that Markusevangelium abstain as well as nothing that cannot be found in Matthew and Luke. For example, Johannes Kuhn wrote a Bible scholar of the 19th century and advocates of this theory, it is otherwise necessary to remember that Mark had cut the two roles of the Gospel of Matthew and Luke into small parts, which were put together in a pot, and which made his Gospel come forth from this mixture.”

The fact that the Gospel of St. Mark contains comparatively few information that cannot be found among others can hardly be surprised, because it is the shortest of the four Gospels. But this is not yet a proof that it must have been written first. Apart from that, the assertion that Markus does not provide any independent information is not true at all. Over 180 passages and fascinating details from this exciting, lively report on Jesus’ work cannot be found with Matthew and Luke! The Gospel of St. Mark is quite a unique description of the life of Jesus (which is also the case on page 13).

And the source “Q”?

What did it do with the source “Q” from which Matthew and Luke allegedly drew? The religious professor J. M. Robinson said: “Q” is undoubtedly the most important Christian text we have.” One can only wonder about this statement if one considers that there is nowhere today a source “Q” and no one can prove that it has ever existed at all — and that, although scholars claim, several copies must have been in circulation. In addition, there is no single quotation from the church fathers.

Theguess,there was a source ‘Q’, based onhypothesis,the Gospel of Mark was first written. What is going on, if not on the attempt,aunproven adoption with aOtherto justify unproven acceptance? In such theories one is well advised to think about the Bible: “Only a thoughtless person believes every word! The future checks everything” (Spruche 14:15,Hope for all).

The Gospels: authentic and credible

Such pure mutations and unproven claims by Bible critics have prevented many people from dealing more closely with the Gospels. In these credible reports on Jesus’ life and work, as well as his death and resurrection, it becomes clear that the ancient Christians did not consider all this to be legends. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses for real playing this way. These first Christians, who could be persecuted, even risked their lives, were completely clear how meaningless the succession of Jesus would have been, in his work and resurrection, pure fiction (1 Mor. 15:3-8, 17, 19; 2 Tim. 2:2).

To the controversy about the ominous, lost source “Q” and the hypothesis that Mark’s Gospel had been written first, the theology professor G. W. Buchanan explained: “If you have too much to deal with hypotheses during the study of the Bible, the actual text is easily too short.”

This fits with the advice of the Apostle Paul to his friend Timothy, not to pay attention to “untrue stories and gender registers that do not lead to anything, but rather to raise questions about research rather than to present something of God which is related to faith” (1 Tim 1:4).

The Gospels are credible. They contain constricted reports of eyewitnesses. They are based on thorough research. They convey a detailed, fascinating image of the life of Jesus Christ. That is why, like Timothy at the time, we can only benefit from the fact that we have taken the advice of Paul:

“Stay in the things you have learned and have been convinced to believe.” We really have every reason to believe that “the whole Scripture is inspired by God” — the four Gospels are not excluded! (2 Tim. 3:14-17). <= <= < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

(Source: “Wachtturm” 08, 1.10., p. 14)