You may have been told all the Good News accounts copy each other. The academic community will tell you 'Such and such Gospel is partly Mark and partly the Q document and so on.' But there is no such thing as the “Q document" zero proof, it's just a made up theory. And you will notice none of these academic-types online will show you ANY proof of why they believe the Good News accounts are copied they simply say that they are and that “Biblical scholars agree.” Well one wonders if these supposed Biblical scholars also show no proof and simply say “Biblical scholars agree.” Ironically academic-types are used to copying their opinions from others without doing research themselves so it makes sense that they believe the Good News accounts are copied.

Note first that none of the Good News accounts claim to be copying. Luke simply says:
Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled amongst us, even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you —The Good News according to Luke

So we know that their were many people writing about Jesus. From other sources such as Clemet for example and others we can gather there was in fact much more information no doubt about Jesus, the early assemblies, the apostles in the first century which is now lost. This really is quite an obvious statement but important to note.

So because none of the four Good News accounts claim copying the burden of proof is on those who believe they are copying.

“They talk about the same events and therefore they are copied.”

Mark
They sent some of the Pharisees and the Herodians to him, that they might trap him with words. When they had come, they asked him, “Rabbi, we know that you are honest, and don’t defer to anyone; for you aren’t partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?  Shall we give, or shall we not give?” But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius, that I may see it.” They brought it. He said to them, “Whose is this image and inscription?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Yeshua answered them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” They marvelled greatly at him.

Matthew
Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk. They sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Rabbi, we know that you are honest, and teach the way of God in truth, no matter whom you teach; for you aren’t partial to anyone. Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Yeshua perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test me, you hypocrites? Show me the tax money.” They brought to him a denarius. He asked them, “Whose is this image and inscription?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard it, they marvelled, and left him and went away.

Luke
They watched him and sent out spies, who pretended to be righteous, that they might trap him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the power and authority of the governor. They asked him, “Rabbi, we know that you say and teach what is right, and aren’t partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God.  Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Why do you test me? Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” They answered, “Caesar’s.” He said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” They weren’t able to trap him in his words before the people. They marvelled at his answer and were silent.

Here all three accounts tell the same event. Notice that they tell it differently. But the differences in detail really have no effect on the message or anything.

Ask yourself, does this look copied to you?
[Image]

Or should we believe the obvious reality that if these were written in the first century from eye witnesses and the testimony of eye witnesses and the testimony of people who had heard of other testimony of eye witnesses, if that is true, does that not better explain why we have similar but different ways of telling the same thing. Is that not just obvious from what we know about witness testimony.

One of the obvious ways to know the accounts aren't copying each other is this: Go and make a Gospel Harmony for yourself. You will quickly learn that the Gospels are horribly out of order with one another. It isn't obvious at all when you read them individually. But if Luke and Matthew were copying Mark then why do the same events appear in different order? Being out of order is something you'd get if you are using random witness testimony from individuals who saw part of the events at a time.

For example Matthew and Mark say Peter was called from the sea before Jesus healed his mother-in-law. In Luke it's the other way around. And that's just one example the out of order nature makes a Gospel Harmony literally impossible because you simply have to choose which one you think got the order of events correctly. Some times indeed the accounts aren't assuming a for-sure order. But other times it most certainly is implying a direct order from one event to the next whereas the other Gospels disagree.

What would cause this discrepancy? Did the copiers simply not care and decided to mess the order up for no reason while also changing the events slightly for no reason, is that “copying”?

Or again is it more likely that these are from witnesses. Thousands of people living in Israel in different towns who had Jesus come through. Mark and Luke no doubt talked to some of the same people like Peter but also simple peasants and others and got the same general stories. Even from the same person it could be told with slightly different words or included or excluded details.

Not only are the accounts not copying each other but they are OBVIOUSLY not and are in fact obviously independent. The fact that they are independent and telling the same events is the reason Atheists demand that they must have been copied.

No doubt as Luke says their were many writing down narratives of the event and many of those have not survived today and I'm sure Mark and Luke would have looked at those accounts and such. But we know for example that Luke wrote his account before he wrote Acts because he says so, and we know that Acts had to be written at least before Paul's death, for many other reasons Luke clearly wrote his account while he was at Jerusalem for 2 years 58 and 59 AD as is recorded in Acts and I would say that's the latest possible time he could have wrote it and there would be no reason whatsoever for him not to talk to people in Jerusalem and even in the greater region.

It is also obvious that Luke and Matthew's accounts did not meet one another. Luke really leaves no room in Jesus' birth story for Matthew's birth story and the genealogies are different. These differences can be explained of course but we can tell that if Luke knew about Matthew he clearly did not care one bit about it. Luke never saw Matthew. Yet at times Luke and Matthew agree with each other and agree less with Mark. Once again the fact is there is no copying going on. These all are independent accounts of real events coming from the real people who were there.

I know I've given few examples, the problem is the entire Gospels themselves are examples and speak for themselves on the fact they are not copied from one another. Where do you even begin, there is endless difference in the way the same events are described and the order they happen and yet the differences are all superficial and meaningless for a copyiest to do.

Yet you will see from these academic-types as if Mark is simply put into Luke and Luke just added bits at the beginning and end and maybe some bits in the middle, same with Matthew and then this non-existent zero proof “Q document”.

If the Gospels are copied then why aren't they copied. Show any proof whatsoever for your theory. Everything is better explained by these being written independently in the same area talking to the same people either literally the same people or people who were all there for the same events such as the feeding of the 5,000 which again, is simply literally not copied. It's just that simple.

Matthew and Luke's account couldn't have known each other yet they both have the sermon on the mount and Mark doesn't. And the sermon on the mount is recorded quite differently in Matthew and Luke so both of them couldn't have just been copying from each other or another written source, they were getting the information by people who were there.

I think the universal idea of the world being so well connected at this time is simply not true, I don't think Luke's account knew about Matthew I don't even think John decades later knew about Luke's account or Mark's.

Further then why is John's account so different? This is a question to the copyiest. Because we all agree John was written last and yet now we have THREE accounts and no one argues that John is copying any of them even when they tell the same events. The Jesus in John is no doubt the same Jesus, he has all the same attitude and sayings and mission, Erik Manning AKA Testify has shown this.

But the reason John is different is obvious. It is the only one that was written from the perspective of one person and if fact this becomes painfully obvious when you read the accounts that Matthew came from the very early assembly and Mark and Luke came from general testimony of the Apostles and others. John however is telling the story from him and what he knows and saw alone. If someone wants to claim that Matthew is such and such percentage of Mark I would like to ask to prove it. That Matthew was sitting at a table with Mark and copied it as oppose to using the same sources, the source we call reality.

We have four surviving independent accounts of Jesus all of which talk about miracles and death and resurrection. Funny that the Atheists want Mark to be first because “Jesus isn't a God in Mark.” ignoring the fact that Jesus rose from the dead in Mark. Supernatural elements were never added to Jesus. Everything is based on his death and resurrection that's why a peasant who preached for three years has had the greatest impact on the world than any other person.

The Academic community can do great work or has in the past at least. Paul's letters have been timelined extremely well and it's only because of that that I've been able to build an overall New Testament timeline however it is all way too common for people to just accept the so called “consensus” without actually seeing for themselves. I challenge everyone before you have any opinion to just try and make a Gospel Harmony for yourself. Put every verse in the Gospels in proper timelines order.

We need to be careful of what we take for true. I even went and looked for the evidence that is pushed for the Gospels copying from each other and instead I came to a website also proving that they DON'T copy each other: https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/did-the-gospel-writers-borrow-from-each-other/

Compared to the typical college academic graduate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6PrrnhAKFQ
Really notice the way he talks about presents things. He is literally starting from a theory and working down rather than working from the material and going up and his reasoning for everything is “Almost all scholars agree ___” Name a scholar, or better yet name proof. Explain yourself.

The Bible tells us many times you should have two witnesses. Chronicles and Kings. Well for Jesus it was doubled, we have four witnesses that God has allowed survived the Roman Empire. Likewise we also have four books for Moses.

I also want to make the point that Matthew is first. We know that Matthew was written in Hebrew first by Matthew himself, that's what the early church says that's what the documents say I think we should go by what people who actually lived much closer to the time said about these events. Matthew wrote in Hebrew because the Church was for the Jews at the time. This was before the Jerusalem council in 50 AD, as far as I'm concerned it really has to be written likely before 50 AD, so before 50 AD before gentiles really started to come into the church, it was written in Hebrew and then Matthew would have written in Greek afterwards because he was an accountant he knew Greek and Hebrew I'm sure so he could write both, people often ask about the translation but Matthew probably wrote the “translation” of his own Gospel into Greek so it;s the same thing.

We have the letter of James which is early everyone agrees, the first church letter, they say 45 AD I say it's probably even earlier based on some things in Acts I'm not going to get into. The Letter of James references things in Matthew that are not found in Mark and so James could just be referencing Jesus in general but the fact is there he seems to be coming from Matthew because that's what the early church created is Matthew. For what reason would Mark be written first if the same people will also claim that it was written for gentiles. It was 20 years before it was even assumed gentiles could be saved or in the Church in the same way. You also have the fact that Mark comes off as shortening Matthew if anything, if there was any copying going on it was Mark shortening Matthew but it still wouldn't make sense for him to be copying Matthew. I think many times that is just the obvious answer. Along with people who think such and such verses were added later, removal usually always makes more sense for many reasons but I'm prattling on. The Didache also uses Matthew and was early. My point is Gospel copying is a poor theory that's based on trying to destroy Biblical credibility first and seeking truth second. Because for someone who doesn't believe in Jesus the idea these could be independent from the thousands of people who witnessed him is impossible

Earlier Christians like Augustine, Papias and Origen believed Matthew was written first. Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and other early christian writings also say Mark came from Peter not copying Matthew or anyone else. Why is it Atheists have come along uprooted the documents and written facts to invent their own ideas which have led away Christians. I have no issue with the idea of the Gospel accounts copying from one another and Mark being first, the problem is it's a theory you have to assume is right and work down from rather than taking the more obvious path.

A large problem I see with many things is: The academic consensus says and look at how fancy the presentation is and so many people agree, well it doesn't matter how many agree when they are all just agreeing because "look at how many people agree". There are reasons to believe Mark came first and Matthew and Luke built of them but when you take into account the actual 1st century situation and reality and Acts and what the Gospels actually say it's far from the first correct theory. The Gospels are horribly out of order from each other and all the events are described in different ways that make no sense if you're just taking out chunks from one and putting it in the other. All of this is way better explained by the idea that the Gospels are coming from what people said. That's why they are so out of order because you interview some people in a town and they just tell you what happened not the exact timeline of every single event. No one but Jesus was around for every situation.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1899_144.pdf