Structured Stories with Eyewitness Control
By: Erick Nelson
Last Updated: Thursday December 13, 2007
Abstract
The issue of how the gospels were written is an important one. Scholars long ago noticed that the first three gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - are very alike in their accounts, but different, too. The "Synoptic Problem" tries to account for their similarities and differences. The prevailing answer has been Literary Dependence - postulating that Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke from Matthew and/or Mark. Most of the discussion has focused on which gospel was first; most scholars have adopted the view that Mark was first ("Marcan Priority").
This article questions the traditional solution - not concerning which gospel was first, but whether there is evidence of direct literary dependence at all. When I actually look at the parallel passages, side-by-side, my impression is "If these copied from each other, why do they deviate as they do"" (about 50% verbal differences in common passages). It seems, purely from the literary form, that they have some dependence on one or more common sources, but we are certainly not driven by the evidence to assume direct dependence.
Next, I consider the arguments, as arguments, for the traditional solution: (1) verbal agreement, (2) agreement in order, (3) agreement in parenthetic materials, (4) Luke's prologue. I judge that the last two arguments are unconvincing (in fact, #4 hurts their case). Agreement in order requires at most a common outline. At the end of the day, I conclude that it's argument #1 which will prove or disprove the theory.
Therefore, I look at specific examples, to determine whether verbal agreement really does imply direct dependence. I decide that it does not.
But if direct literary dependence is not the answer, then what is? Why do the synoptic gospels seem so similar and yet so different? I offer an explanation which fits both the internal and external evidece: (a) Structured Stories grew out of the teaching of Jesus' disciples, and (b) the authors of the gospels presented these stories under eyewitness control. I believe that this explanation fully accounts for the data.
Personal Note
This study, in a way, is the oddest I have ever done. It's one thing to say that one entire school of thought is mistaken (as in the Metaphorical Gospel Theory article), but to contend that nearly all New Testament scholars are wrong just seems arrogant. Either I'm wrong or I'm right. If I'm wrong, this work ought to be quickly refuted, and I'll correct it so others don't make the same mistake. If I'm right, then I suppose there's a lot of re-thinking about this subject that needs to be done.