Roland

Let me try to make my point clearer.

Let's assume Jesus said a finite number of things.

Four "eyewitnesses" sit down to compose biographies of him. Without consulting one another, three of the writers JUST SO HAPPEN to choose most of the same quotes to include in their accounts.

The fourth writer, however, pulling from the same finite number of sayings, chooses entirely different quotes. But are these quotes of a seconday nature, the kind of throwaway lines that the earlier three writers would have coincidentally chosen to ignore? Absolutely not. In fact, they are probably THE MOST PROFOUND STATEMENTS Jesus is said to have made. They go to the very core of who Jesus is and what he represents.

Now, what is more likely? That Matthew, Mark and Luke would have coincidentally left them out, or that Jesus never actually said the quotes in John and that John made them up because they conveyed what HE believed Jesus represented?

If there were only two gospels and they disagreed, I would be much more inclined to accept your argument. But three gospels against one renders that fourth gospel at least very suspect.

Roland

PS. I realize that Luke never claims to be an eyewitness account, but the problem still remains. Why could he find no one who seemed to remember - or cared enough to record - all those great quotes found in John?

Diogenes the Cynic

It's not just that the accounts and the quotations are often word for word identical- it's that they're identical in a different language from which they were originally spoken. It is beyond the realm of plausibility that three (or even two) authors could independently translate so many quotations and framing narratives exactly the same. It didn't happen - or, at least, it needs to be demonstrated why that explanation should be preferred over the infinitely plausible assumption that one version was copied by others.

mata leao

diogenes, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the words of Jesus.....and my word shall go forth unto all the nations, in every kindred tongue and into divers places....my gospels shall be preached throughout the entire world....my word shall not return unto me void. At pentecost, beleivers from many different backgrounds were commissioned to carry the gospels throughout the roman empire and unto the barbarians and the four 'corners'.....so duh! when yoiu come upon a translation in a different language, dont you think that is "plausible"?

Diogenes the Cynic

Not in the slightest.

mata leao

then diogenes you might be surprised at how the gospels spread so quickly throughout the Roman empire and into barbarian lands and in so many many languages. This was the design my freind, the template from the very very inception. Pilgrims, scribes,seekers, holy men ect from througout palestine came to Jerusalem to study and learn and they wrote and copied and transcribed, even while the disciples were still in Jerusalem after the resurrection of Jesus. Diogenes, your "plausibility" credulity is like that of Goering when he saw yellow nosed American mustang fighters over Berlin"Zeesis not possseebool!".....yep, it was the Fourth Fighter Group! really, diogenes, it really was!

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't know what this mish-mash of unsupported assertions and non-sequiturs has to do with the plausibility of two or more Aramaic sayings traditions being independently translated identically into Greek (by non-witnesses).

mata leao

non witnesses? where is your proof?.....independently translated? where is your proof?

Diogenes the Cynic

Are you kidding me? All four authorship traditions of the Canonical Gospels have long been abandoned as spurious by NT scholars, but never mind that, you have your burden reversed. All of the gospels are anaonymous and none of them name their own author. If you want to assign specific authors to any of those books, it is your burden to prove why those assignments should be taken seriously, no mine to disprove.
They were not independently translated. That's my point.

Weltall

If so many people were running around and writing things down while the disciples were still around, why is it that not one single source outside the bible attests to the events that take place within it? For example, how is it that every writer in that period missed the resurrection of dead saints? Some of these seekers of yours must have seen them if your assertion is true but they seem to have forgotten to write it down. Funny that.