Refuting the claim that the gospels where chronologically exaggerated.

[apophatic]

I am wondering if anyone can point me to a book or source that refutes in a detailed way the notion and criticism that the 3 synoptic gospels were intentionally and dishonestly exaggerated and changed over time evidenced by the writings in the gospels themselves. the case is NOT that the texts themselves were altered.  the position is that each gospel was written in succession and that if you compare them from that perspective the later one was written the more exaggeration and changes were made.   

Ive been a Catholic for a long time but have never heard this particular position until recently.  Unfortunately I dont have a very good retentive memory but the criticisms take all of the gospels comparatively and show that the later they were written the more additions were made to make things work better, sound better and the more developed an understanding of Jesus was present especially in relation to his divinity that was NOT present in say the gospel of Mark.

But this line of reasoning questions many narratives like the relationship between Jesus and John the baptist and how each later gospel tries to fudge the nature of that relationship to make John less and Jesus more. 

I have to admit that the arguments sound compelling and since its new and since I do not have a label to call this line of reasoning I am having great difficulty finding any refutations of it.

[james03]

I don't know of any work on this, perhaps others will chime in.  But this is an argument from idiots.

Let's take a look:

the later they were written the more additions were made to make things work better, sound better and the more developed an understanding of Jesus

This is an argument about motivation.  Where is the proof that this was the motivation?  How about this? Later writers were familiar with earlier gospels and decided instead of doing an identical copy, instead decided to add historical facts that had been left out previously?  The Gospel of John even discusses this:

25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

There's my proof for motivation, where's there proof for motivation?

And speaking of John:

and the more developed an understanding of Jesus was present especially in relation to his divinity that was NOT present in say the gospel of Mark.

First Chapter of John:

and the Word was God. ... There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.  7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.  8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.

So this argument is not compelling.  It is idiotic.

[apophatic]

I see your position but I wish I could provide many more specific examples.  The people I have listened to may be wrong (I have a profound faith in the scriptures as they stand) but they are not idiots in my opinion.  They are deeply educated people who have reasoned positions that I am going to need to be able to refute intellectually.   

Thank you for your reply though and it is helpful.

This is a link to one of the people making this case if you are interested.


https://www.youtube.com/live/Npkjy0o-N_I?feature=share

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

I am going to need to be able to refute intellectually

Why?

[apophatic]

Is that a serious question?   "Faith seeks reason" and we should be able to defend the faith intellectually and meet any criticisms otherwise we could lose somebody who would otherwise be persuaded by reasoned argument.

[james03]

They are deeply educated people who have reasoned positions that I am going to need to be able to refute intellectually.

They are midwits and Christ haters.  When they attain complete power, they will kill you.  Atheists and jews always drown the world in blood.

As far as their "reasoned" position, I already showed you they are arguing about motivation.  I don't care about their beautiful ideas, until they show proof, there is nothing to refute.  I've also provided some scripture that refutes what they've said.

[james03]

Is that a serious question?   "Faith seeks reason" and we should be able to defend the faith intellectually and meet any criticisms otherwise we could lose somebody who would otherwise be persuaded by reasoned argument.

Fear of loss is a bad mind set.  Instead think of gain.  Think of ways to convert these midwit godless heathens.  Materialism is self contradictory.  That fact is the best avenue to convert an atheist who is open minded, in my experience.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Is that a serious question?  "Faith seeks reason" and we should be able to defend the faith intellectually and meet any criticisms otherwise we could lose somebody who would otherwise be persuaded by reasoned argument.

It is a serious question.  "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on."

It is not necessary to debunk every blasphemy generated out of the so-called "critical" methods.  The burden rests on them, not you, because they are the ones making extraordinary claims.

[james03]

^^^
That is the proper mindset. 

[diaduit]

When one argues the evil of abortion especially by demonstrating how an abortionist first targets limbs then torso and then finally the head while trying to preserve the heart, lungs,liver etc for medical research, clearly demonstrates it is the ending of an innocent human life and you are met with word gymnastics that has your head in a swirl while they try to convince you its just a clump of cells....its the same why? because they don't want to hear your reasoned argument, they just want to play with you for fun like a cat plays with a mouse before they kill it.

[TheSaintsAreComing]

I think the Gospel of John is the only one of the four that's generally accepted to have been written down at the latest date - the other gospels it's not clear which was written first

As such, how can it be proved that as time went on more things were added? Maybe Mark was written after Luke and Matthew to be a shorter, more condensed retelling

[james03]

I have my own theory on the gospels.  The Moon is a big AI, built with alien technology.  And it dictated the gospels to the writers.

There is the same amount of proof for my theory as the theory presented in the OP.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

I have my own theory on the gospels.  The Moon is a big AI, built with alien technology.  And it dictated the gospels to the writers.

There is the same amount of proof for my theory as the theory presented in the OP.

Didn't know you were a Moononite.  The Moononites near us make excellent furniture and very tasty preserves.

[Michael Wilson]

Those who argue about the "development" of the Gospels begin by claiming; without any basis whatsoever; that the Gospel of St. Mark was the first one to be written. Why? Because it is the briefest and the one with the least "fleshed out" characters. Historically we know from the first C. Church father Papias, who personally knew some of the Apostles, including St. John; that it was the Gospel of St. Mathew that was the first one written and it was originally in Aramaic, and then rapidly translated into Greek. Followed by the Gospel of St. Mark and then Luke and John.
This doesn't work for the "development" theory, since St. Matthew's Gospel is one of the longest; and very detailed in character development. What is true, is that St. John did write His Gospel to fill in the lacunae left by the previous three evangelists, and to refute the Gnostic errors of Cerinthus, which denied that Our Lord was truly Eternal God become man. That is why the first Chapter of St. John is so theologically dense in the description of the Eternal Word and His Divine nature and His assuming flesh. 

[james03]

and to refute the Gnostic errors of Cerinthus, which denied that Our Lord was truly Eternal God become man.

Michael knows about some dude named Cerinthus....... don't argue with him.