Evaluation of the Theory of Literary Dependence.
(draft Jun 20, 1998)
My intention here is not to duplicate the work of those 'dissenting scholars'
discussed by Wenham (see the preceding article),
but to try to survey the arguments and data and arrange the issues logically.
In this way, the reader who wishes to see the trade-offs and areas for
further investigation will have a background from which to proceed.
What specifically is LD?
At its simplest, it is the theory that a gospel writer composed his
gospel by copying from, and modifying in the process, a written exemplar
of different gospel(s) or source(s).
This source might be:
(A1) read aloud by someone else, while the author wrote;
(A2) read silently by the author, and then the 'new' gospel dictated
orally to scribes; or
(A3) conceivably have been so familiar to the author (via VERY detailed
memory that extended to linguistic forms and long stretches of order) that
it was 'on the mind' of the author as he prepared his new work.
In the case of the Two-Source theory of Literary Dependence, this would
either
(B1) have the author looking at two documents in front of him, while
he writes the third; or
(B2) have two readers, reading the documents orally to the author, who
composes the new document after brief periods of reading.
What are the main arguments used by advocates of LD?
There are essentially three main arguments for LD: (1) overlap in content;
(2) parallels in the order of passages; and (3) verbal agreements.
-
Overlap in content: This argument points out the obvious overlap
in the events described and the words recorded in the Synoptic gospels.
This agreement of content is not considered a strong argument, of course,
since this would be expected in ANY of the theories: Eyewitness, Oral Tradition,
or Literary Dependence. As long as the same stock of history is being described
we SHOULD expect a considerable sharing of stories. (Accordingly, we will
not be discussing this aspect of the problem here.)
-
Parallels in the order of passages: This argument is generally considered
quite strong. Even Wenham, who has all but abandoned any belief in LD,
considers this a strong indication of some kind of dependence (or at least
interdependence). The thrust of this argument is that many of the various
pericopes (i.e., narrative or literary sub-units) occur in the same order
within the Synoptics, even though there does not seem to be any thematic
or 'internal' clues/connections (e.g., chronological, locale, topical)
that would suggest such an order. Wenham describes the logical force of
this [RMML:43]:
"Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological
succession are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is
a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by
an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again,
a literary connection is a natural explanation. Such sequences are found
at a number of places in the synoptics, especially in the triple tradition"
This suggests that one of the gospels 'set the standard' by creating
this order, and that the other gospels-having read that order-stuck to
it.
The case for 2GH is very strong here, in that Luke keeps to the order
of Matthew in each 'strip' of his narrative: he uses a sequence, breaks
it off for some of his own material, but RESUMES Matthean order later [BQI:Introduction].
-
Verbal agreements: This argument makes the point that there seems
to be a surprising (and non-trivial) number of agreements in specific language
expressions between the synoptics. The example that James used, and that
we started this article with, is considered to be an obvious case of 'borrowing'
from one gospel to another. It has the appearance of being lifted right
out of one gospel, and planted-with three changes-into another. Proponents
argue that this level of "verbal agreement" is so high throughout the gospels
as to make the allegedly 'looser' OTH much more improbable.
I have noted that only arguments 2 and 3 are currently used, so I will
restrict my evaluation to these.
Evaluation of the argument from "Verbal Agreements"
The interesting thing here is that this has a VERY high level of ambiguity
in it.
The standard method, of course, is to identify 'parallel passages' and
then compare the words. But even this initial first step is fraught with
difficulty-what exactly is a rigorous definition of 'parallel'?
For example, Neville points this out [NT:AOSSC:227-228]:
"In this connection one must also examine the criteria for determining
true parallelism between pericopes. Synoptic critics currently work
without clearly defined guidelines for discriminating true parallels from
nonparallel pericopes..."
And the old 'synopsis' diagrams have been shown to be biased, with the
Griesbachian approach more neutral than the 2SH. So Neville [NT:AOSSC:236]:
"The methodological procedure adopted by Lachmann, Kummel,
Neirynck, and Tuckett (Tanknote: leading advocates of 2SH) determines
to some extent what one's conclusion will be. Griesbach's procedure
is more neutral because it does not preclude possible explanations
of the synoptic data in the way that Lachmann's does."
This problem is obviously highlighted by the simple fact of the nature
of Jesus' teaching ministry. He undoubtedly taught the same truths to multiple
audiences, with slight adaptations to local conditions, and with varying
levels of detail and exposition. When two such similar sayings show up
in the gospel, we would clearly be mistaken to presume that one was 'more
original' than the other(!). Plus, the often generic (and therefore 'stretchable')
semantic content of some of the public sayings (e.g., the "poor" vs "poor
in spirit" quote given above) creates that same 'reverse engineering' problem.
But let's assume that we find a passage that is clearly parallel, determined
by a unique episodal framework (e.g. baptism of Jesus), how should we proceed
to analyze similarities and differences?
The first thing we need to consider is what literary 'borrowing' would
look like. What kinds of text would indicate (clearly) literary identity.
In the case of NT Greek, you have several components to work with: word
substitutions, word order, word root, word endings, word omissions, word
additions. In English, we do not have nearly as many word endings for nouns
and verbs as does Greek, and few endings on modifiers (e.g., adverbial
'-ly' or comparative senses, such as '-er' or '-est'). But let me take
a stab at illustrating some of the factors. Consider the following lines:
-
"The man took his mother to see her two cousins, but the hotel where they
were staying was closed." (original)
-
A man took his mother to see her two cousins, but the hotel where
they were staying was closed. (modifier change, no real change unless rhetorical)
-
The young man took his mother to see her two cousins, but the hotel
where they were staying was closed (word addition, brings out detail).
-
The man and his mom went to see her two cousins, but the hotel where
they were staying was closed. (word order, plus verb change, different
emphasis)
-
The woman took her mother to see the mother's two cousins, but the
hotel where they were staying was closed. (word root, major change in meaning,
all else the same)
-
The man took his mother to see her cousin, but the hotel where they
were staying was closed. (ending change, plus word omission)
-
The man took his mother to see her two cousins Polly and Molly,
but the Excelsior where they were staying was closed. (word additions,
plus word substitution)
-
Joe took Martha to visit Polly and Molly, but the
Excelsior wasn't open (massive changes-same event)
-
The man took his cousin to see their mothers, but the hotel
where they were staying was closed. (word order, but vastly different meaning)
-
The man took his mother to see her two cousins, but the inn was
closed (massive word changes, but clearly the same event)
Now, the question we are studying is simply this: given than author READ
#1 in a manuscript above, which of the items 2-10 would be clear evidence
of influence/borrowing?
-
Could easily be seen that way, since the author could have decided to cast
the story in a different light;
-
Likewise, if the author had knowledge that the man was young, and he had
a specific reason to change the original
-
Probably NOT...this would require a much larger number of changes, and
require much more thought as to what was trying to be done
-
This is questionable-roots generally get changed into some very, very close.
Opposites or radical substitutions do NOT occur, and apart from suspected
textual errors, we don't have these in the NT at any level (to my knowledge)
-
This could be, but the slight change from two to one, and one ending change
(the plural on 'cousin') might be a bit extreme for even a copyist error
-
This is likely not, but the 'form' could be suggested by the exemplar,
with the author knowing more detail and adding it. But could we call this
'borrowing'?-I doubt it.
-
This is radically different, and looks like an eyewitness account (due
to the absence of explanatory material about 'who' the various characters
were)
-
This, strangely enough, MIGHT BE, even though it represents a complete
change of meaning. But it would most likely be a copyist errors-similar
to dyslexic phenomena.
-
Probably not-the event is the same, but there are so many word changes
that a 'copy' paradigm is too much of a stretch.
So, we have some that obviously are NOT, some that probably ARE, and the
rest tend to be doubtful.
Now let's look at the NT data and the methodology involved.
First, let's note some issues of method:
First, we have already noted above the less than rigorous definition
of 'parallel pericope,' and this will be quite an issue. Indeed, the very
nature of the teaching mission of Jesus will militate against facile
identification of parallels. Wenham gives the example of the Beelzebub
accusations [RMML:65]:
"It is by no means obvious that a common document lies behind the
two passages in this first section. They could be independent accounts
of a single occasion considerable modified in transmission; or they could
be accounts of different occasions when the same slander was similarly
dealt with by Jesus. It is likely enough that this line of attack was deliberately
thought out and then pressed home against Jesus during the latter part
of his ministry."
In documenting the failure of the argument from order relative to the "Q"
source in Luke's Central Section (9.51-18.14), Wenham points out this issue
in a different way [RMML:76-77]:
"If the Q-material of the Central Section does not come from the one
or more Qs or from Matthew, what is the alternative? The simplest answer
is the most revolutionary. The answer could be that these Q-passages have
no common literary, or even oral, origin, but derive from different sayings
of Jesus. Their similarities derive from a common source in the mind
of Jesus, rather than from a single utterance of his lips. It is inevitable
that an itinerant preacher must repeat himself again and again, sometimes
in identical words, sometimes with slight variations, sometimes with new
applications; sometimes an old idea will appear in an entirely new dress.
All Q-passages set in different contents in the two gospels (from cases
of complete identity to cases of similar imagery) could quite well have
come from a preacher who on occasion had used the Matthean form and on
another the Lukan. It could be that we are distorting the material when
we insist upon asking which of the two is the more original.
And again in RMML:78-79:
"It is quite improbable that the great sayings which find a place
in both Matthew and Luke, many of which are hauntingly memorable, were
uttered only once by Jesus. He would have enjoyed them and would have
wished them remembered far and wide. He would have repeated them again
and again. These sayings would have become known in a common Greek form,
through the instructions given by the Jerusalem church to the diaspora
Jews who came to the festivals from all over the world. The identical or
almost identical sayings in Luke's Central Section, which at first suggest
literary dependence, could in fact easily have come from a saying uttered
on two different occasions. It is exceedingly unlikely that Jesus taught
about prayer only once; it is natural that he should have given the
Lord's Prayer and his 'ask ...seek...knock' sayings more than once, and
not always in identical words. As for the passages where common ideas are
presented in quite different dresses, this is all so natural. Indeed
if we release the Central Section from the procrustean bed of literary
dependence and accept it for what it purports to be, the strains and distortions
of the other theories vanish.
What this means is that the very material with which the evangelists
were concerned-the words and deeds of Jesus-had its own substrate
of 'identity and difference' within itself. In other words, this
identity/difference would not have been created by the evangelists at all!
Second, "verbal identity" must be at the word and linguistic
form level. It will simply not do to appeal to some vague "parallel
content", since this would be available for ALL competing theories of gospel
formation (i.e., LD, OT, Eyewitness).
Linnemann drives this home [NT:ITSP:70-71, 110, 111]:
"Literary dependence can only be proven or disproven from the actual
wording; one must restrict study to the linguistic data. Here it will
not do to point to individual formulaic agreements encompassing just a
sentence, or even a half sentence or just a few words. Such a practice
often obscures the fact that there is no real contextual conformity at
all from a linguistic point of view. Agreement in individual formulations
does not automatically show literary dependence. That kind of clarity
can be attained only after a general and thoroughgoing investigation of
all data. The extent of agreement, as well as the differences, must be
understood quantitatively if one wishes to come to an objective, well-grounded
result. It is not enough to quantify by verses, which has been done, since
considerable differences are found within parallel verses when one scrutinizes
the actual wording rather than simply the general content. The basis
for quantification should be the word as the smallest component of meaning."
"The extent of the similarities, as well as the differences, must be
noted carefully. And this must take place, not at the (general) level of
content, but at the (precise) level of linguistic form, for this alone
will show whether a literary relationship exists. In order to arrive
at usable results, the investigation must expressly avoid equating general
agreement in content with identity in linguistic form; the two are
by no means the same."
"Showing similarities among verses only discloses general agreements
in content. To arrive at precise results at the level of linguistic formation,
it is necessary to proceed from the foundational insight that the word
is the smallest significant unity. Dependence is established in comparable
passages by the occurrence of words in identical form. Not only
the root of the word but also its specific form in the case at hand must
be scrutinized. Similarities related simply to a common root have no relevance
for the question of literary dependence, since the similarity of common
root is offset by the dissimilarity of divergent form.
And even identical strings of words will not provide evidence of borrowing,
IF this string is misplaced within the pericope. In other words, if the
passage is "scrambled", then it obviously wasn't copied in a meaningful
sense [NT:ITSP:112].
To illustrate this, consider the story of the Rich Young Ruler in Mark
10.21-22 and Luke 18.22-23. Wenham points out that in these two verses
there are more than a score of differences, although the meaning
is obviously close. This is hardly evidence for literary borrowing [RMML:21-22].
And the story of the Great Banquet (Luke 14.15-24 and Matthew 22.1-14)
is supposedly Q-material, but out of 180 words in Luke and 223 words in
Matthew there are only eleven identical words. Wenham draws the
point: "This is no basis for a theory of a common literary source" [RMML:73].
Third, even when we find verbal identity it may be difficult to
determine (in many cases) when the identity is due to literary dependence,
or rather due to general oral transmission and memory dynamics. So Wenham
[RMML:51]:
"Before proceeding to the argument from wording a serious question
of methodology must be faced, which necessitates a digression. Redaction
critics tend to see the redactionary process as something quite complex,
so it may seem naive to try to assess the probability of a literary connection
by simply laying parallel passages side by side and asking ourselves whether
they look as though one is adapting the text of the other. It has been
believed for so long that the synoptic problem must be solved in terms
of literary relationships, that likenesses between passages are explained
almost exclusively in a literary way however great the differences may
be. It must be remembered, however, that the gospels were produced
in a society where much learning was acquired by rote, and they were produced
for communities who were trying to propagate the common teaching of the
apostolic church. In such circumstances verbal likenesses would survive
in oral transmission, and there is no need to invoke literary sources unless
there is consistent evidence of actual copying."
This factor alone would put the burden of proof on the LD'er, to demonstrate
long sections of pure copying-which simply cannot be found in the gospels
(we shall see more about this below).
And Wenham points out that this is a difficult issue, but that there
is no compelling reason up front for LD (versus OTH) [RMML:5]:
"The great question is: Have we been justified in placing so much
emphasis on documentary relationships? Lying behind this is the even
more basic question: Can one distinguish documentary dependence from
indebtedness to a common oral tradition? A frequently used method of
approach is simply to look at the parallel narratives and ask oneself about
the closeness of parallelism. If the wording is largely different, one
rejects a literary connection; if the wording has a good deal in common
yet is not very close, one keeps an open mind; but as soon as there is
identity of expression for more than about a dozen words in succession,
one leaps to the conclusion that the connection must be literary But his
is not a safe conclusion. Even in our print-ridden era many Christians
know a large number of ringing passages from the gospels and can quote
them in their favourite version verbatim: 'Foxes have holes...', 'The harvest
truly is great...', 'Ask and it shall be given you...', 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...'
Much more would Greek-speaking Christians in the first century have memorised
many of the sayings of Jesus in whatever form they were commonly taught...There
is no reason therefore why sayings of dozens of words in length should
not occasionally be found in identical or nearly identical form and yet
have no literary connection. As far as the working of the individual
pericopes is concerned, nearly all (if not all) could be explained by oral
tradition." [RMML:4-5]
And finally, we must note that too often critical scholarship simply assumes
that the similarities are more significant than the differences. And, as
Linnemann points out, this is all too unscientific [NT:ITSP:60]:
"Here an all too facile equation is set up: In spite of considerable
differences, the extensive agreements still provide proof for literary
dependence. Not thought is given to alternative explanations of how
such agreement might have come into being. I have already mentioned one
possibility-the writers' efforts to pass on Jesus' words as precisely as
possible. Similarities might also arise because identical content limits
the variety of words available to a faithful recorder."
Okay, so let's move to the raw data on "verbal identity". Of the
words, forms, and linguistic patterns, HOW MUCH is really 'identical'?
[I will be drawing from Wenham's analysis (plus his use of other dissenters),
and the first-hand detailed analysis of Linnemann, the ex-Bultmannian Form
Critic).]
First, let's survey some of the evidence/observations of Wenham
[all pages refer to RMML]:
-
"In Category 1 [tanknote: the 52 pericopes shared by Luke and Mark] passages
the two gospels differ in wording five thousand times, but not in
sense." [p11]
-
"In due course we shall be arguing the priority of Matthew, but for the
moment let us suppose, as virtually all supporters of Q do, that
much of Matthew is an adaptation of Mark. It can be shown that Matthew,
like Luke, keeps to the sense of Mark and therefore can be presumed to
do the same with his other sources. In spite of the perplexing changes
of order in the first half of Matthew and the large amount of extra material
(Q and special-Matthew) incorporated in it, the parallels between Matthew
and Mark are more clear-cut than between Mark and Luke...It has been estimated
that about eleven-twelfths of Mark's subject-matter appears in Matthew.
But, as Rist has shown, there is a large measure of independence between
the gospels, and there is a vast number of verbal differences between them.
The number of additions, subtractions, alterations and changes of order
in the parallel passages amounts to well over eight thousand...Yet
is spite of this, differences in sense are strikingly few." [p96; Wenham
can find only ten possible changes in sense!]
Next, let's survey some of the detailed counts of Linnemann [all
pages from NT:ITSP]:
-
"This quantitative Synoptic comparison (in which mere agreement in content
is not taken into account) had the following results: In the cross section
examined, just 22.19 percent of the words in parallel passages are completely
identical; on the average, given 100 words in Mark, Matthew will
have 95.68 differences and Luke 100.43. This means that the verbal
similarities are comparatively small and extend chiefly to identical accounts
of Jesus' words and to specific and unalterable vocabulary that is
required by the nature of what is being related. [p14]
-
"Since the divergences in individual passages range at most from
5 to 80 percent of the words used, and on a rough average about 40 to
50 percent (not counting divergences due to word order and other differences),
the amount of data which ends up at the mercy of explanations based purely
on personal taste is considerable indeed! And of course the explanations
also diverge from each other. The assumption of a sayings-source turns
out, therefore, not to be helpful at all, since it is capable of accounting
for hardly more than 50 percent of the data." [p38]
-
"Luke lacks, therefor, more than one-fifth of the content of Mark's Gospel.
Insisting that Mark was s source for Luke, then, forces one to assume
that Luke arbitrarily suppressed almost a fourth of the pericopes he read
in Mark!" [p.99]
-
"in 180 cases the linguistic form of verses in Mark extends beyond the
compass of the verses in both parallels [tn: in Luke and Matthew]. That
would not be possible if Matthew and Luke, independently of each
other, had used Mark as a source. For it strains credulity beyond the
breaking point to suppose that 180 times they both-independently of
each other-left out a formulation found in Mark's Gospel, formulations
ranging in length from three words to three sentences. Stated quantitatively,
the additional minor details of Mark listed by Stoldt run to 1498 words,
or 13.43 percent of the entirety of Mark's Gospel" [p.99-100, although
Linnemann finds another 78 cases, encompassing another 515 words, making
the non-copied material 17.93 percent of Mark, pp100-101].
-
"More than a fifth of Mark's material, therefore, can be found in neither
Matthew nor in Luke. This is the heavy burden that every theory of
literary dependence must bear." [p101]
-
"Based on additional minor details alone, between 26 percent and 30 percent
of the formulations in Mark's text vary from parallel pericopes in the
other two Synoptics. Proponents of the two-source theory are, accordingly,
required to assume that Matthew crossed out around 26 percent and Luke
around 30 percent of the material in their Marcan exemplar.""[p102]
-
"The parallelism [tn: in content] between Matthew and Mark is limited to
5220 words (a 46.49 percent deviation from Mark." [p103]
-
"This means that the parallelism [tn: in content] between Luke and Mark
is limited to just 4061 words (36.17 percent deviation from Mark)."
[p104]
-
"If Matthew used Mark as a source, the statistics show that he must have
altered, by adding to or deleting from the Marcan exemplar in the
pericopes from which he borrowed, by a word content equal to 49.83 percent
of the book of Mark" [p104]
-
"If Luke used Mark as a source, the statistics show that he must have altered
by addition or deletion the Marcan exemplar in the pericopes from which
he borrowed a word content equal to 53.54 percent." [p105]
-
"It should, therefore, astonish every proponent of the two-source theory
(or other theories of literary dependence) that no fewer than 187 words
of Mark's vocabulary appear in neither Matthew nor Luke. That means dependent
Matthew and Luke obliterated 13.5 percent of Mark's vocabulary-and
did so in full mutual agreement, but totally independent of each other!
Anyone wishing to hold to the two-source theory must swallow this unpalatable
fact, whose unsavory presence must be faced by proponents of other literary
dependence theories as well...Matthew, Mark, and Luke have in common just
830 words or 61.71 percent of the vocabulary of Mark's Gospel. This is
little more than three-fifths, a quite unexpected result, for extensive
identity in vocabulary normally accompanies direct literary dependence...But
it seems hardly likely that someone who thinks a piece of writing worth
using as an exemplar would then turn around and criticize it sentence by
sentence and word by word." [p132]
The data above leads to some rather sobering conclusions, relative to what
might now be called "alleged" verbal identity(!), and LD theories seem
almost in the "What's wrong with this picture?" category. Some of the implications
for the gospel authors seem so counter-intuitive as to render the theory
of LD in need of 'extraordinary evidence'!
What are the implications to be drawn from the raw data above?
-
"With increasing study I become less inclined to think that Luke is
directly dependent on Mark at the points where the two gospels are parallel
and that he is modifying the text before him. So many of the huge number
of changes seem pointless. Of course not every one of the five thousand
changes would have involved a separate editorial decisions, as groups of
words would be considered together. But even so Luke would have had to
make decisions to alter his text many hundreds of times. How much easier
it would have been for him to have copied his source word for word at all
points where he was in agreement with it, as on occasion the Chronicler
did; or to have contented himself at most with just a few omissions and
a little polishing" [RMML:20]
-
"But the wording, order and content [of the Passion narrative] are so different
that Luke's redaction of Mark would perforce have been a torturous process
to have achieved this results, and in view of its likenesses to the account
in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, it is better to regard it as a separate line
of tradition followed perhaps in the Pauline Churches." [RMML:39]
-
"The differences of sense between the Q-material of Matthew and of Luke
make dependence on Q or large-scale borrowing from Matthew improbable."
[RMML:40]
-
"The Sermon on a Level Place in Luke 6:20-49 is remarkable in that all
but five of its thirty verses have parallels in the Sermon on the Mount,
mostly in the same order...This sermon does not show such great differences
from its Matthean counterpart that a common origin is ruled out, but
the differences are too great to suggest a common literary source.
If there was such a source either Matthew or Luke or both of them must
have introduced many seemingly gratuitous changes of order or wording.
A case can be made out for both accounts being highly condensed reports
of the same discourse, one designed to meet the needs of a Jewish environment
and the other of a Gentile situation. The idea that they are extracts from
the same discourse is somewhat confirmed by the context, which is roughly
the same in the two gospels-in both it follows the call of the fishermen
and a highly successful preaching tour, and in both it is followed by a
return to Capernaum and the healing of the centurion's boy there. But they
could have been separate discourses." [RMML:79-80]
-
"From the earliest patristic times Matthew's gospel was held in
the very highest esteem; indeed it seems to have been regarded as the premier
document of the Christian church, quoted far more than any other gospel,
and it is not exaggerating when Butler calls elements of the book 'this
magnificent composition', 'his own freely soaring and monumental
structure', 'a stroke of genius'. If Matthew is indeed following mark,
his many departures from his text are cleverly disguised, and it is surprising
that he has obliterated so much of Mark's vivid narrative. Whether he assembled
recollections and testimonies of his own or whether his word was based
on Mark and other sources, all must admit that it was a careful and
brilliantly successful operation. It is difficult to see it as the
result of making eight thousand alterations to someone else's work.
But of course it is not impossible." [RMML:94]
-
"The assumption of literary dependence among the three Synoptics, therefore,
leads, in view of the data established above, to unacceptable implausibilities,
indeed to absurdities. Such divergences in the common material of the
three Synoptics, if they are literally dependent, would make the evangelists
into insufferable faultfinders to whom hardly a word of their source was
acceptable. No evidence supports such a view, however. The great extent
of similarity in content, and particularly the roughly 80 percent agreement
in recording the words of Jesus, most readily shows that the writers strove
for precise reporting. Also, the sort of critical excessiveness that would
have to be assumed with the acceptance of literary dependence could
never have resulted in the harmonious and self-consistent entities that
one finds Matthew and Luke to be." [NT:ITSP:106]
-
"It is highly improbable, to put it mildly, that Matthew and Luke
either interchanged the words of their source or altered them in tense,
case, gender, or number over one-half of the time. They were not, after
all, freelance writers who used the Marcan text simply as the subject of
their own creative production. How great their concern was for precise
reportage is suggested by their agreement in the words of the heavenly
voice in the pericope analyzed above (tn: Mr 1.9-11, Jesus' Baptism): seven
of the nine words are identical (77.78 percent). One can only conclude
that the data in that pericope do not speak in favor of assuming literary
dependence, but rather against it." [NT:ITSP:114]
Now, if you haven't noticed by now, this is (1) rather detailed linguistic
data; and (2) it is disastrous for the argument from "Verbal Identity".
We have seen that this argument is rather 'fuzzy'; that the details in
the text basically contradict our often facile judgments based on superficial
similarities.
Let's do a quick summary of the above comments:
-
There is an initial methodological problem with identifying parallel passages.
It is very 'fuzzy' and lacks the rigor needed to really pursue this in
a scientific fashion.
-
The very nature of the teaching ministry of Jesus would produce an original
deposit of data that was already characterized by 'similarities and differences',
and therefore any attempts to explain these by redactional theories would
be manifestly wrong.
-
Bases for comparison must go beyond the superficial 'it LOOKS similar'
(i.e. content-based) and get into the very verbal roots, forms, tenses,
number, order, etc.
-
It is very difficult (if not virtually impossible) to distinguish verbal
identities based on oral tradition from those based on documentary sources.
There is no prima facie case for literary dependence that can be made for
these texts that would render it a 'reasonable assumption' (much less 'assured
results')
-
The differences within a parallel pericope must be taken seriously, and
probably accorded even more weight than similarities.
-
The actual linguistic data indicates HUGE amounts of very detailed (and
almost senseless) changes.
-
The actual linguistic data indicates VERY LITTLE actual verbal identity.
-
The interpretation of this 'very-little-borrowing' finding forces one to
doubt LD at a very significant level.
Accordingly, it is difficult to make this argument from 'verbal identity'
carry much of the load in support of LD. There are simply too many methodological
holes in it, the data seems overwhelmingly against it, and the redactional
scenario envisioned by it (given the data) seems highly unnatural and bizarre
at best.
Hence, we look now at the argument from Order.
What is the Argument from Order?
We have already seen the basic statement of this argument: that similarity
of order implies literary borrowing (versus other explanations of this
similarity).
Wenham describes the logical force of this [RMML:43]:
"Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological
succession are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is
a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by
an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again,
a literary connection is a natural explanation. Such sequences are found
at a number of places in the synoptics, especially in the triple tradition"
But here again we are going to run into similar problems-that of dislocations
in sequence. And we will have to ask if the dislocations are MORE SIGNIFICANT
than the similarities (assuming that we can come up with a meaningful explanation
for the similarities, of course).
Let's turn to the data again:
First, from Wenham [RMML] (who DOES consider the order to indicate
some kind of interdependence, although he opts for collaboration of authors,
as opposed to 'copyist' type of borrowing):
-
"According to the two-document hypothesis, Matthew and Luke sometimes depart
from the order of Mark. One would expect, if they were acting independently
of one other, that they would sometimes depart at the same place. But they
never do-is this not most improbable?" [p17]
-
"Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological
succession are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is
a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by
an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again,
a literary connection is a natural explanation. Such sequences are found
at a number of places in the synoptics, especially in the triple tradition.
In Luke's Central Section, however, it is hard to demonstrate a common
order for the Q-material. Just the opposite appears to be the case."
[p.43]
-
"So the argument from order on the supposition that Luke followed either
Q or Matthew must be deemed to have failed as far as Luke's Central
Section is concerned." [p51]
Linnemann is much more pointed and incisive in her discussions [NT:ITSP]:
-
"The conclusion one might expect-that Matthew did not use Mark-is not
drawn from the fact that in Matthew 8-9 five pericopes do not follow Mark's
order. It is rather asserted that here Matthew preferred a different
order due to the peculiar nature of the work he wished to compose. With
this the process of circular reasoning is complete: Whether Matthew
follows Mark's order, or whether he does not, he is still dependent on
Mark." [p.51]
-
"In sum, the order of pericopes is said to argue in favor of Marcan priority.
But in that case, every divergence in order speaks against Matthew having
used Mark. Strecker and Schnelle transform such divergences into alterations
of the Marcan original. In this fashion, they steadily presuppose that
which they first need to prove-that Matthew used the Gospel of Mark."
[p51]
-
"Still, discernible differences between Mark, on the one hand, and the
formulation of Matthew or Luke, on the other, fall far short of indicating
Marcan priority. A difference does not necessarily point to an alteration."
[p52]
-
"Strecker and Schnelle do see the need to hold a modified version of the
usual two-source hypothesis, because otherwise they cannot explain
Luke's omission of Mark 6:45-8:26: 'All we can be sure of is the assumption
that 6:45-8:26 did not yet appear, or perhaps was no longer contained,
in the copy of Mark that lay before Luke.' What is the justification for
this assumption? That it is needed? Do we wish to continue to try to cover
debts with more debts instead of finally admitting the bankruptcy of the
two-source hypothesis?" [p.54]
-
"Hans-Herbert Stoldt already answered this question when he said that 'nowhere
does the Gospel of Mark appear in the other two Gospels as an intact and
continuous narrative; rather, it runs parallel to the others, always
only temporarily and partially, in changing intervals and in quite
different lengths. Sometimes it runs parallel to Matthew for a passage,
sometimes to Luke, sometimes to both, occasionally to neither. Insofar
as all three do not coincide, the parallelism of one of them to Mark ceases
as soon as it begins with the other.'" [p84-85]
-
"Mark consists of 115 separate sections. Of these 115 sections, only fifty-eight
appear in all three Synoptics in the same sequence, or around 50.43 percent.
That is no more than half!" [p85]
-
"Now, surely no one will wish to deny that the order of the passion and
resurrection accounts has objective grounds: the cross-examination cannot
be reported until after the arrest; the crucifixion cannot be reported
until after the sentencing; the resurrection cannot be reported until after
the burial. Therefore, to be precise, only the Synoptic agreement in
narrative sequences outside the passion and resurrection accounts can
be relevant to the question of literary dependence. And that agreement
turns out to be rather insignificant: Only thirty-seven sections appear
in the same sequence among ninety-one sections (40.66 percent) not
dealing with the passion and resurrection. In other words, when we set
aside the narratives that would be expected to follow a similar sequence,
not even one-half of the sections in Mark follow the sequence of the
other Synoptics." [p85,91]
-
"In sum, for the entire Gospel of Matthew, the common narrative
sequence-according to the actual count of sections-is less than half."
[p92]
-
"Apart from the passion and resurrection accounts they [tn: material in
common sequence in Mark/Luke] amount to 60 out of 158 or 37.97 percent.
Comparing all of Luke to all of Mark, one arrives at eighty-one sections
out of 186, or 43.55 percent [tn: including the passion/resurrection narratives]."
[p.92]
-
"Anyone who champions the view that Mathew and Luke used Mark's narrative
thread as their basis must answer the questions: why did the original
authors not follow Mark's account in between 25 percent and 30 percent
of the sections of the original narrative order? Is it possible to
maintain that Mark furnished the framework for Matthew and Luke when in
Matthew the sections reflecting common narrative sequence with Mark amount
to only 48.88 percent, in Luke only 43.55 percent?" [p93]
-
"We cannot really speak of any thoroughgoing conformity in the ordering
of parables in Mark, Matthew, or Luke." [p166]
Again, these criticisms are leveled at the very foundation of the argument
from order-the very data of the sequences. If the sequences are only followed
at less than half of the cases, it is hard to build a secure case upon
that evidence!
I should also note here the methodological problem with arguments
from order. Neville points out [NT:APSSC]:
"perhaps the most fundamental methodological issue to have arisen
in synoptic studies this century centers on two basic options for analyzing
the literary data. The first option is to compare the pattern of agreement
and disagreement in order among all three synoptic gospels simultaneously.
The second is to compare the similarities and differences in order between
Matthew's and Mark's Gospels first, and then to do the same with mark's
and Luke's Gospels" (p232)
"The concern about an appropriate methodological procedure for analyzing
the phenomenon of order is significant because it is obvious that one's
approach may predetermine one's 'results.'" (p234)
What we seem to be stuck with is this: the LD hypothesis, although
a reasonable explanation for the similarities in order, is rendered useless
by its abject inability to account for the manifold differences in order
and sequence in the Synoptics. And there is no way to account for these
differences-within the theory-without presupposing LD to begin with. Hence,
the argument from order is either forceless or circular.
So, we have seen that the two main arguments for LD-the argument
from verbal identity and the argument from order-floundered on the actual
'disorderly' character of the details in the NT. The verbal identifies
weren't significant and there were more out-of-order sequences than in-order
sequences.
But there is yet one other argument against the theory of LD:
the argument from scribal practice.
The Argument from scribal practice
The argument from scribal practice is simply that the theory
of gospel formation alleged by LD'ers, and especially 2SH'ers, is totally
out of sync with what is known about scribal and literary praxis in the
first century A.D. In other words, the only 'control data' we have,
argues AGAINST LD, in its various forms, but esp. 2SH.
What we must understand is that many of the notions we have in the modern
world about working with texts simply do not apply to antiquity. Let's
note a couple of the dynamics of that time:
First, the practice of consulting multiple sources, in the process
of creating a third, is extremely difficult to even visualize in the first
century (much less execute!):
"In the first century tables and chairs such as we know them did not
exist. Diners reclined propped up on an elbow, at the low tables. To
consult more than one scroll an author would presumably have had to spread
them out on such a table or on the floor and either crawl around on hands
and knees or else repeatedly crouch down and stand up again, looking at
first one and then another. He could either make notes or commit what
he read to memory before writing the matter up on a sheet of papyrus or
vellum, or, possible, sitting down and transferring it directly to his
new scroll. Finding the place, unless he was prepared seriously to deface
his scrolls, would be difficult." [RMML:205]
Secondly, for 'commoners' to undertake the difficult task-given
the lack of textual helps at the time-is extremely unlikely.
"Copying with some adaptation was also common in the ancient world,
but it was the work of highly educated scholars. For one who was not
a professional to take a lengthy manuscript with no chapter, verse or even
word divisions and select, rearrange and revise it was a formidable task.
It is highly unlikely that one gospel was produced as the results of an
author working directly on the scroll of another; even less that he worked
on two or three at once." [RMML:206]
Third, the historical data that we have from compositional/scribal
praxis of the period is at significant variance with the praxis assumed
by LD'ers:
"We are in a position to tell with a considerable degree of certainty
what compositional procedures for making use of existing writings would
have been readily available in the first century. We can tell on the
basis of many examples of practice and some indications of theory: even
the most highly literate and sophisticated writers employ relatively simply
approaches to their 'sources'...Conflation was itself only rarely attempted,
and then very simply effected...the long debate on the sources of
the Synoptic Gospels seems to have been conducted without paying much or
any attention to this issue of whether any indications of 'sensible'
compositional procedures in the first century C.E. were available" [F.
G. Downing, cited in RMML:206]
Fourth, the data we have gives us NO REASON to believe the theory
of LD:
"If this general picture be accepted for a fairly sophisticated and
wealthy writer's preparation for writing, then the implications for the
study of the Synoptic Gospels is clear. Even had one of our evangelists
wanted to emulate the well-staffed and well-equipped compositional procedures
of a sophisticated literary figure, nothing would have suggested that he
should begin by analysing his source material, nor on that or any other
basis that he should plan some complex conflation of this sources." [Downing,
cited in RMML:207]
Finally, the very nature of the physical texts argues against LD
[HI:JTOT:343-344]:
"And a purely literary approach to the written text would require
too complicated a technique of cross-references and cross-checking to account
for the change of order. As F. G. Kenyon pointed out long ago, there
were normally no visible signs of where various parts of a composition
written on a scroll began or ended at this time. The matter was further
complicated through the need to roll and re-roll the scroll. Once a
passage in a scroll was located, there would be no way to refer to it by
paragraph or page, The intimate knowledge of the writing that was required
in order to locate a passage in a scroll actually obviated the need to
identify it exactly. And we have yet no clear evidence that Mark was originally
written on anything else than a common scroll. Therefore, the very physical
nature of written tests makes it likely that people quoted from memory
rather than located the passage in a writing. In addition, we should
not exclude the possibility that the school of the Matthean community had
secretaries and that Matthew himself composed his narrative by dictating
orally."
The upshot of this is clear: the theories of LD, esp. those involving conflation
of texts, do not hold up when compared to the 'control data' of first-century
scribal and literary practice. As the case with Documentary Hypothesis
of the Old Testament, these theories are scholarly creations 'in a vacuum'
without any connection to the real world of the past and the real word
of the data.
So, what do we have so far?
-
There is a significant erosion of the confidence in theories about the
Synoptic problem, with special erosion from the camps of LD and 2SH
-
There is a significant growth in adherents to 2GH
-
One's approach to the issue of redaction is generally brought to
the practice of redaction criticism
-
LD itself is NOT a matter of faith: many, many strong evangelicals are
firm believers in LD
-
Cases of 'redaction' (in spite of the difficulty of identifying them) cannot
reveal 'motives' by themselves.
-
The argument from verbal identify, used to support LD, is not very strong
at all.
-
The argument from order, used to support LD, is not very strong at all.
-
The argument from scribal practice, used to deny LD, is fairly strong,
since it uses the only control data available from the period.
So, I have to conclude that James' statements are simply out-of-sync with
the internal gospel data, out of sync with the external 'control' data,
and out-of-date with the scholarly trends.
So, now let's move on to how I understand the
gospel formation process to have looked...
-------------------------------------------------------
[ .... litdep2.html ........ ]
From: The
Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com] (Reference
Abbreviations)