Board index ‹ Bible

[J Lord]

I know that academic scholars who study the bible would say that the authors of the gospels were not eye witnesses, so in telling their story they copied parts of it from earlier texts while adding new information when it suited their purposes. But I am wondering about the Christian explanation for this, as I believe in the Christian tradition the authors were said to be eyewitnesses to the events they are talking about. If they were eye witnesses, what is the Christian explanation as to why would they copy from an earlier source when telling their story?

[jimwalton]

They were all working off the same material: the life of Jesus. I've read biographies of Abraham Lincoln, and some of George Washington, that have the same stories in them. It is to be expected when we are telling the truth about someone's experiences, behavior, or words.

Second, it was the nature of oral tradition to tell stories in a form pleasing to the ear and the rhythm of the language. Because 3 would tell the story in the same way is no indication of untruth.

Third, if all of the Gospel writers told different stories, we would be suspicious that they were speaking of different people or making things up. If that's the case, it's false and disingenuous to be denigrating when they all tell the same story.

Fourth, you are no doubt aware of the theorized existence of a "Q" document that was the source material for the Synoptic Gospels. Since Papias speaks of Matthew authoring a Hebrew Gospel, I wonder if Matthew may have written Q. Since Matthew and Mark were both residents of Jerusalem in the 30s and 40s, it's no surprise that both of them tap into that source material, though in quite different ways. Luke, as a researcher, also taps into it, but in a very different style than Matthew or Mark. And since Matthew was an eyewitness, it's no surprise that Mark and Luke may have tapped into his work along with the oral tellings of the Jesus story that were circulating freely. I see nothing here that discredits the account of the Gospels.

[Pastor]

The starting premise is false: That they "copied" from other sources, or even from each other. There is no textual evidence of this. The Bible never says so. It is pure speculation, usually from people who desire to water down the Bible's inspiration and authority.

Saying similar things is not proof of copying. We believe that the Spirit inspired the gospel writers, so each book has the Spirit in common. God is repetitious and repeats himself often (as do we!). This is normal and to be expected. Psalms repeat themselves. Proverbs repeat themselves. Torah laws repeat themselves. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Also, if the writers were eyewitnesses, then they saw/heard the same events. If they are being truthful, we would expect similarities, not differences.

[J Lord]

> Third, if all of the Gospel writers told different stories, we would be suspicious that they were speaking of different people or making things up.

Well, they do tell different stories that contradict each other in some ways, which has made people suspicious of them. But they also seem to copy from each other because there are identical wording in the same order for other parts of the story. It is these sections that match verbatim that I am referring to. You seem to have been addressing the general similarity in the story, which wasn't what I was addressing. Although it could be possible that two people had memorized verbatim the same oral story and therefore recorded it in a nearly identical way. That could account for the identical passages in theory.

[jimwalton]

The "identical wording" is quite minimal. I've examined these texts, and there are very few where the wording is identical. Despite the similarities in material, and though Matthew is often accused of stealing his content from Mark, the contrasts in wording, theme, and style shows uniqueness in their presentations from start to finish.

I actually counted this a few months ago. While most of Mark occurs in Matthew in some form, they are far from "copied." For instance, eighteen verses of Mark 1 (out of 45) are in Matthew. Twenty-four (of 28) verses of Mark 2 are in Matthew. Twenty-five (of 35) of Mark 3. I noticed the two accounts are quite different when I read them in parallel, though. While it was the same thought, it was rarely the same words. Sometimes I had a hard time figuring out if the verse from Mark was actually in Matthew, they were worded so differently. I had to make some judgment calls.

Though much of the thoughts in Mark are in Matthew, since Matthew is almost twice as long, at least 44% of Matthew is unique from Mark. And even what is "the same" is rarely word-for-word. It's really hard to claim it's copied.

> But they also seem to copy from each other because there are identical wording in the same order for other parts of the story.

We can analyze in the Greek any parallel texts in the two Gospels that you want, but I'm sure you'll find they are not really as identical as you seem to think. I know because I've done it. There are some identical terms, and in some cases almost identical verses, but the identicalness doesn't reach very far. Matthew's Gospel bears all the signs of his own retelling of the story. As N.T. Wright said, "At almost every point Matthew remains stubbornly independent. Whatever his sources, he has made them his own. It exhibits many traces of his unique style. But it is still emphatically the same story."

[J Lord]

So do you think the similarities are due to both authors using the same source text?

[jimwalton]

Since I consider (on the basis of all evidence) that the Gospels are historical accounts, they are all using the same life and words of Jesus as their reference point. Most scholars nowadays also claim there was a "Q" source that was referenced by Mark, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and possibly Q as a source.

In modern scholarship, there are four main schools of Gospel formation:

1. The two-source theory (Mark and Q). Mark and Q are separate sources from which Matthew and Luke and drew information.

2. The Farrer Hypothesis. There is no Q. Mark wrote first. Matthew used Mark as a source. Luke used Mark and Matthew. Matthew and Luke were written independently from each other.

3. The Griesbach Hypothesis. Matthew was written first. Luke used Matthew as a source. Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources.

4. The Oral Tradition Hypothesis. All of the Gospel writers tapped into oral tradition for the composition of their works (hence their similarity).