Duvduv

It's very interesting to see how the same story is retold with differences in each of the four gospels. In the case of Jesus coming into Galilee and announcing that a prophet is without honor except in his own area, we see that Matthew more closely resembles Mark than Matthew resembles Luke, with Matthew actually being a shorter version than the version in Mark, which is usually known to have shorter versions. If Mark was the first gospel, it would be expected that a story in Matthew would be an expansion of the earlier Mark story, but not in this case.

Perhaps there were several versions of GMark, i.e. that someone went back and introduced some elements into Mark AFTER the other gospels were already known.

Luke offers even more detail than Mark or Matthew, and makes it sound as if he had more information, or was midrashing up the story. And the bare bones John and extensive Luke versions have a total different opposite meaning, i.e. John says "A prophet has no honor in his own country" instead of a prophet ONLY has honor in his own country. I think these are clear indications that each emerged from a different source, probably a different oral tradition rather than products from a forgery factory.

See: Matthew 13:54-58, Mark 6:1-6, Luke 4:16-30 and John 4:43-45.

aeebee50

You would think they were human.

Duvduv

And if you look at other episodes in the chart side by side, you can see how often the stories, even when very similar, are not exactly the same, or are quite a bit different even when sharing a theme or aphorism. In my view this clearly reflects four separate branches of the Christ sect with frequently four differing versions of the same theme, suggesting oral traditions.

Duvduv

Even if there is reliance by Matthew on Mark, or Luke on Matthew, there would still seem to be separate traditions involved.

Toto

So far in this thread you haven't said anything new or controversial. There is an entire field of study referred to as "the synoptic problem" that has tried to tease out the meaning behind the similarities and differences in the gospels.

Except - there is no indication that this is due to different "oral traditions." The differences are due to differing theological requirements for the various authors.

In fact, there is absolutely no evidence of any oral traditions in early Christianity.

Duvduv

If they were oral how could you identify them with documentation?
The differences don't have to necessarily be theological, but only rhe way the author of the story thought it was to be expressed. After all, isn't a matter of how the authors thought the aphorism was expressed whether a prophet is or is not honored in his own country?!

Toto

But there is positive evidence of literary borrowing among the gospels. There is no evidence of oral traditions. The gospels are not written in rhyme, which is sometimes an indication of an oral tradition, and there is no reference to sayings, or anything that would go against the plain impression that the gospels are literary compositions.

"Oral traditions" are just a make shift excuse that Christians come up with to explain how the gospel writers could have known about events from a few generations before.

Could you explain what you mean by this? I don't see any significant difference in the saying.

Mark 6:4 compared to Matt 13:57, Luke 4:24, John 4:44

Doug Shaver

I've never believed they were any kind of forgery. I used to believe they were poorly done history with a substantial overlay of legend and other embellishments. Now I think they were fiction.

shadowfox

Whether those differences arise from traditions or from theological requirements I am certainly not qualified to say! However, just at this time, a Christian theologian and I (yup, odd I know!) are in process of discussing the gospels.

Having noted the differences and in looking into some sholarly opinions, I do get the idea that possibly Matthew and Mark were themselves Jewish writing for a Chfristian converted from Jewish audience, especially Matthew who uses many references to the OT and prophecies. Also he views the Romans as the villains. Luke may have been himself a gentile, and a member of the church in Antioch, a city about which he wrote in some detail as if he were very familiar with it. Was he Greek or Roman and Cyreneian? I can't say. But he is far more sympathetic to the gentiles than the other gospel writers and views not the Romans but the Jews as the villains. So his focus may well have been Gentiles who were converts or considering to become so.

Also Matthew concentrates more on Joseph especially as it has to do with genealogy which was the Jewish way; while Luke concentrates on Mary, perhaps due to the gentile pagan way of concentrating more on goddesses which did not exist in Judaism.

So, differences arising from focus?



Forgot to say that this is an old friend, old in both ways, who is not trying to convert me but is just delighted to have someone, especially an admitted atheist who won't hassle her, to discuss these things with.

Duvduv

Hi, Toto. Well, the differences that could be attributed to an oral tradition or some other written sources don't always have to do with theology, but simply the version of the story as it differs from another gospel. In the case of the citations from the four gospels I mentioned, I misread the phrase in Matthew the way it was written. So I take that back.

But the essential point refers to the interesting way in which similar or the same stories are written in different ways which suggest that the writer(s) had the version of the story differently, and despite having access to another gospel preferred presenting the story in their own way.