Risen,
You have added a great deal to what is already a backlog of pertinent points that I should address. However, I think the portion of your last post should be answered before delving into specifics. The insinuation that I am characterizing the relationship between the synoptics as ‘plagiarism’ or ‘fraud’ or not ones that I have made nor is that the position of scholarship I have read on this matter. I don’t doubt that accusation has been made by ‘village atheist’ types, but I think that kind of rhetoric is a distraction. The scholarly hypothesis is that these are three related documents that have gone through a process of editing and redaction based upon a critique of shared pericopae and narrative structures.
It was not my intention to cast untrue aspersions on your position; However, we cannot obscure the fact that you are essentially accusing the early church of dishonesty at some point. At the very least you'd be accusing the early church of fabricrating stories about the authorship, circumstances of creation, and method of transmission of these gospels.
Not only is someone in the church being accused of lying at some point concerning the creation of these documents, but furthermore the church is being accused of incompetence: Either they were uninterested or unable to verify the source of the gospels. Which is quite an illogical position to take when you consider there was a whole generation where the apostles were alive and walking around the earth and a generation following that had directly heard from them - Yet no one ever stopped to inquire from them as to who wrote the writings they were passing around from church to church across the Roman empire? The first time this even comes up is around 100AD or later with Papia's writing? It's an absurd notion. We see in early church writings that the church was interested in which gospels were true and false, and did even make inquiries of those closest to Jesus concerning history.
Am I also wrong to assume from the things you've said that you don't believe in the supernatural inspiration of scripture? In which case, would it also be wrong to assume you don't believe in the supernatural and miraculous in general? If that were the case, you'd be accusing every gospel of being full of lies. Regardless of whether or not you think the text we have represents an accurate recounting of preceding oral traditions, you'd still have to be accusing the oral traditions they are based on of being largely complete fabrications.
Once you start accusing the early church of lying and negligence on some level about scripture, while also claiming they edited the content of the gospels, this opens the door to even worse accusations being leveled against scripture - Which is why some (academic and laymen alike) accuse the gospels of not being accurate reflections of the truth; either through incompetence in transmission or being purposefully altered and embellished to suit an agenda. Some start to pick and choose which parts of the scripture they think is an authentic recording of Jesus's life from that which they think were fabrications.
You can see then why this is not a light accusation to level against the church; because when taken to it's logical conclusion it leads to an increasing amount of rejection of the truthfulness of scripture simply because ones presuppositions are from the start that the church lied or couldn't accurately relate basic and important information - so some then set themselves up from the beginning as having the role of speculating what is true from what is false in scripture. Everything that is inconsistent with their own speculative opinion is thrown out without seeing a need to harmonize their view of scripture with what we actually know from recorded history. They see no problem in doing that because, afterall, hasn't it already been concluded that the church was both dishonest and incompetent in the transmission of truth about Jesus and the apostles? So why would we take their historical witness over our own speculative reasoning?
However, I would like to know more accurately what you personally advocate, so that I can engage in discussion with you based on that.
Questions I would like to ask to ascertain where you stand:
-Do you believe in divine inspiration of scripture; Ie. God reveals himself and speaks to man, and relates truth to man so that man may relay that truth to others.
-Do you believe that the Gospels represent an accurate and truthful account of Jesus's life and teachings, from the words he spoke to the miracles he performed, including his resurrection and ascension to Heaven at the right hand of the father?
-Do you believe Mark wrote the gospel of Mark? The same question concerning Matthew, Luke, and John.
-Do you believe that any gospel is based on eye witness testimony?
-Do you believe John is just as historically accurate and/or as divinely inspired as the other three gospels?
Simply stated, the hypothesis rests on the idea that Matthew reproduces about 90% of Mark and Luke about 50% of the same. Agreement in this ‘triple tradition’ begins where Mark begins and ends when Mark ends. In segments in this triple tradition verbal correspondence averages about 50% (assuming tense shifts, noun/pronoun choice and reduction of parataxis are not serious deviations). Moreover, in these sort of passages, Matthew and Mark often agree against Luke and Luke and Mark often agree against Matthew, but Matthew and Luke seldom agree against Mark. Additionally, Matthew and Luke share extensive material with each other containing verbal correspondence that is not found in Mark. These propositions are generally agreed upon and are sometimes referred to as the ‘synoptic puzzle’.
To me, the traditional stance you are positing doesn’t do a very good job of explaining these features of the documents we have before us. Moreover, holding that the Matthew that we do have is the product of translation (i.e. from Hebrew or Aramaic) into koine Greek is made even less tenable given the above. That is, I cast my lot with scholarship on this issue not only because it seems cogent, but because of my own experience with respect to language (again, analogy). Although my knowledge of koine is limited as I am self-taught relying on primers, a few apps and recorded lectures (Mounce has a very good series), I did take four years of German and Latin in college. On the fact of it, I find it unlikely that the synoptics have this degree of correspondence given one of them is an original Greek composition (Mark), one of them a translation from another language (Matthew) and one of them an independent account based on the reminiscence of a different individual than Mark.
Moreover, while I do feel the traditional attributions do fit an hypothetical overall editorial function (see David Trobisch The First Edition of the New Testament; Oxford University Press), this matters less than the inherent anonymity of the gospel authors themselves.
I've addressed issues related to that in my posts. I'm happy to expound on that as necessary, but I believe it would be best to wait for you to address what I've already written so that I don't just restate a bunch of things I've already said on top of adding in more information.