Monday, October 18, 2010

How Independent Were the Four Gospels?

In the previous post, I said: "The four Gospels agree on the important details"

View Image
John on the Isle of Patmos
And Clamflats replied:

There is a bank robbery. Four tellers are interviewed by investigators. At the trial, the investigators state, “The four witnesses agree that the bandit wore a red shirt and black pants.” The defense attorney asks the investigators if they interviewed the tellers independently or as a group. I think you'd agree that independent corroboration should be considered more potent and that a group interview brings in questions about groupthink errors, such as, one teller remembered the clothing and the other three agree with him. Don't biblical scholars agree that the Gospels show signs of having some common source? I believe it is known as Q. And given the time difference between the events and the documentation, should we at least suspect that a number of the “important details” had already been accepted?

The three synoptic Gospels--Mark, Luke, and Matthew--include the same stories, often in the same sequence, but the Gospel of John is different. Scholars believe that Mark is the earliest Gospel, followed by Matthew and Luke, and then John.


The reason why scholars have hypothesized a Q source is because Matthew and Luke contain material that doesn't exist in Mark, and the idea is that Q is a collection of sayings and quotations by Jesus. However, they are not entirely happy with that hypothesis because it seems unlikely that such an important document would have been entirely lost and never referenced. 

But for the purpose of answering your question about groupthink, I'm going to focus on Luke and John. Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles to "the excellent Theophilus." Luke 1:1-4 says: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

So we know that he is writing to someone who is important enough to need his excellence affirmed in the salutation, and that he is purporting to give a detailed, consecutive account of the events of the life of Jesus. In other words, Luke probably held himself to a high standard in researching and writing the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

The question then becomes whether we have more than Luke's word for his factual accuracy. The world-famous archeologist, Sir William Ramsay, has said, "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Do we have reason to accept his assessment of Luke? Yes we do, because the historical accuracy of the book of Acts is indisputable. For example, according to Professor A. N. Sherwin-White, author of Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

Also, Luke begins to use the first person plural starting with Acts 16:11, indicating that he joined Paul in an evangelistic tour of Mediterranean cities. This is consistent with his statement at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke that he got his information from eyewitnesses and "servants of the word."

Whereas the Gospel of Luke purports to be a detailed, chronological history of Jesus, the Gospel of John is a deeply spiritual, reflective work with a high Christology, which means that it is more concerned with the nature of Jesus than with the details of His life. Rather than starting with the beginning of the life of Jesus, it starts with the beginning of time, and talks in a simple, mystical way of how the logos--the eternal transcendent Mind--became flesh and dwelt among us.

John is an entirely independent source, and scholars are split in terms of whether they think it was written by the apostle John himself or a follower. Although I see no reason to doubt the authorship of John (the work was attributed to John as early as the second century), even if one of his disciples wrote the Gospel the material would have originated from John himself, who was an eyewitness and very close to Jesus, calling himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved." In no way is he claiming that Jesus loved him more than the other disciples; he is basing his identity on his deep, personal awareness of God's love for him. In his epistles he emphasizes love as the essence of God's nature, so it is fitting that John's Gospel would focus on Christology.

So although the two Gospels cover the same events, Luke and John are very different in terms of their focus and style. Most likely they had little, if any, influence on each other.

Many people knew about the events (in Acts 26:26, Paul says that he's confident that King Agrippa knew about the events, because they did not take place in a corner), so it would have been very difficult for groupthink about important details to emerge so soon afterwards. And the fact that even the synoptic Gospels differ in the minor details indicates that there was no collusion. Even if Luke and Matthew based their account in part on Mark, they included details that were not found in Mark.

14 comments:

BeamStalk said...

The reason why scholars have hypothesized a Q source is because Matthew and Luke contain material that doesn't exist in Mark, and the idea is that Q is a collection of sayings and quotations by Jesus.

It is not similar, it is exact word for word stories found in each book. You can also reproduce Mark from Matthew and Luke (minus the crazy add on ending) word for word. That is how we know the writers of Matthew and Luke copied Mark. These were also written for different groups of people and were not meant to be bundled together.

However, they are not entirely happy with that hypothesis because it seems unlikely that such an important document would have been entirely lost and never referenced.

Who is "they"?

It seems unlikely that Alexander the Great's autobiography would go missing, yet it has. The more time that passes the less the chance of anyone finding it. Especially if it was already copied and added to other works. Paper is very fragile, especially the kind of paper being used then. Also scribes were very rare and basically just copied, it is quite possible most of them could not read.

Anette Acker said...

Hi BeamStalk, how are you doing?

It is not similar, it is exact word for word stories found in each book. You can also reproduce Mark from Matthew and Luke (minus the crazy add on ending) word for word. That is how we know the writers of Matthew and Luke copied Mark.

That's just not true. Look at the story of Jesus being questioned by the high priest/chief priests and teachers of the law in Matthew 26:57-67, Mark 14:53-65, and Luke 22:63-71.

The unimportant details vary, but the important part--Jesus stating that He was the Son of God and being therefore sentenced to death for blasphemy--is consistent in each account.

If all the details had been exactly the same, then you would have been right and it would have looked like the authors copied each other and therefore were not independent. However, the minor details are different enough and the important details are consistent. We know that at least three independent sources show Jesus telling the religious leaders that He was the Son of God.

We have four sources stating that women were the star witnesses at the empty tomb, but each account mentions a slightly different group. So again they did not copy each other.

Who is "they"?

It seems unlikely that Alexander the Great's autobiography would go missing, yet it has. The more time that passes the less the chance of anyone finding it. Especially if it was already copied and added to other works. Paper is very fragile, especially the kind of paper being used then. Also scribes were very rare and basically just copied, it is quite possible most of them could not read.


Wikipedia says the following:

"How could a major and respected source, used in two Canonical gospels totally disappear? If Q did exist, these sayings of Jesus would have been highly treasured in the Early Church. It remains a mystery how such an important document, which was the basis of two canonical Gospels, could be totally lost. An even greater mystery why the extensive Church Catalogs compiled by Eusebius and Nicephorus would omit such an important work, yet include such spurious accounts as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas. The existence of a highly treasured sayings document in circulation going unmentioned by the Fathers of the Early Church, remains one of the great conundrums of Modern Biblical Scholarship. Until these issues are resolved, Q will remain in doubt."

BeamStalk said...

I'm doing good, just busy lately. I have a new baby boy that demands a lot of time.

An even greater mystery why the extensive Church Catalogs compiled by Eusebius and Nicephorus would omit such an important work, yet include such spurious accounts as the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas.

Because Eusebius was working in the 3rd and 4th century. That is hundreds of years after the writing of Matthew and Luke. The canonization of scripture didn't start until the 4th century also.

There is also the controversial remark by Papias: Papias of Hierapolis, circa 125: "Matthew compiled the oracles (Greek: logia) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech". Which can imply a second source used by Matthew of sayings.

We know Paul wrote many more letters to churches that we don't have. Some are referenced in the Bible. Would they not have been important too? Would not Paul's writing been useful, it seems that some of his writing was.

You do also realize there were several books we know of only from a passing reference because they were destroyed by the church. Check out Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures.

The unimportant details vary, but the important part--Jesus stating that He was the Son of God and being therefore sentenced to death for blasphemy--is consistent in each account.

So you know this for a fact? Go back and read them all side by side. There are actually very few passages in Mark that are not found in a combination of Matthew and Luke. Three of those passages are Mark 3:21, 8:22-26, and 14:51-52. One of those passages is just weird (naked running man) and two kind of show Jesus in a negative light (his family thinks he is crazy and he is not successful in a healing attempt).

BeamStalk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BeamStalk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BeamStalk said...

weird it told me it didnt go through with my first post for being too long so I broke it up and reposted but the original went through, bah blogger

Anette Acker said...

I'm doing good, just busy lately. I have a new baby boy that demands a lot of time.

Congratulations! I'll bet he keeps you busy. Have you had a full night's sleep yet?

You do also realize there were several books we know of only from a passing reference because they were destroyed by the church. Check out Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I don't have a lot of confidence in Bart Ehrman. He has made contradictory statements depending on whether he targets a scholarly or a popular audience.

Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism says the following:

"[William Lane] Craig begins by saying there are two Bart Ehrmans: the scholarly Ehrman and the popular Ehrman. The scholarly Ehrman knows the text of the New Testament has been established to 99% accuracy, and with greater certainty than any other ancient document, but the popular Ehrman gives the impression that important Christian doctrines are up in the air because we are uncertain about which of the early textual variants for particular verses reflect the original text. I roughly agree with this criticism, and said so a long time ago."

I don't trust anyone who has been caught in a lie or embellishment. I avoid the "true believers" on my side and I don't think atheists should trust the "true unbelievers."

Aside from that statement by Muehlhauser and Craig, I read a debate transcript where Craig blindsided Ehrman with Bayes Theorem and Ehrman responded by saying:

"If you think I’m going to change my mind because you have mathematical proof for the existence of God, I’m sorry, but it ain’t gonna happen!"

Craig said nothing about mathematical proof of God's existence, and I have a really hard time believing that Ehrman had no clue what Craig was talking about. It sounded like he was blustering and hoping the audience wouldn't understand Bayes Theorem.

He then went on to say: "First, Bill makes dubious use of modern authorities. Bill constantly quotes modern scholars as if somehow that constitutes evidence for his point of view. As Bill himself knows, the fact that the majority of New Testament scholars would agree with his four points is not proof that they are right. For one thing, the majority of New Testament scholars are believers in the New Testament, that is, they’re theologically committed to the text, so of course they agree on these points. I should note that the majority of historians do not agree with Bill’s conclusion."

Well, Ehrman himself is one of the scholars that agree with the four points and he's not a believer! That is, he has elsewhere stated agreement with the historical evidence that supports the resurrection. But he is misleading the audience with the way he stated that. Of course the majority of historians do not agree with Craig's conclusion--that God raised Jesus from the dead. If they did, they would be Christians and not impartial.

So this is a longwinded way of saying that I question Ehrman's intellectual honesty.

Anette Acker said...

So you know this for a fact? Go back and read them all side by side. There are actually very few passages in Mark that are not found in a combination of Matthew and Luke. Three of those passages are Mark 3:21, 8:22-26, and 14:51-52. One of those passages is just weird (naked running man) and two kind of show Jesus in a negative light (his family thinks he is crazy and he is not successful in a healing attempt).

But the accounts are not identical. You yourself have pointed out on your blog that each Gospel gives a somewhat different account of the group of women present at the empty tomb. This is crucial because it demonstrates that the accounts are independent. If all three synoptic Gospels said exactly the same thing, you could make the argument that they are not independent attestation of the important events (like the empty tomb).

People often bring up the minor discrepancies and use them as an argument against the veracity of the Bible, but I think they actually prove the opposite because they show that the accounts are independent. And since I define inerrancy to mean that the Bible communicates exactly what God intends to communicate, it doesn't undermine the Bible's inerrancy. In this case, it is far more important to establish that the tomb was empty than to establish whether or not Salome was really present.

Anette Acker said...

As for whether Q existed, it may well have, but it is also possible that Luke and Matthew used many different sources. That is what Luke says at the beginning of his Gospel.

BeamStalk said...

Anette, you are not reading what I am saying.

Let's take the account of the women at the tomb.

Mark:

1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Now Matthew:

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Luke:

1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " 8Then they remembered his words.

9When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

See it is piecemeal, but almost all of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke.

BeamStalk said...

Also if I was Ehrman as a reference for New Testament Doctrine your point would be applicable. Instead I am using his list of scriptures that were deemed heretical and attempted to be destroyed. These include the recently found Gospels of Judas and Thomas. He is going over the other sects of Christians and their writings that popped up in the late first century and early second century, before the Nicene Creed.

BeamStalk said...

*sigh* If I was using Ehrman

Anyways the boy sleeps through the night has since coming home. Only a night here and there does he have issues. He is a very good boy.

Anette Acker said...

Anette, you are not reading what I am saying.

Let's take the account of the women at the tomb.


I must not be reading what you're saying. If each account describes a slightly different group (but all include Mary Magdalene) then that indicates independence, doesn't it? If Matthew and Luke copied Mark, then why did they vary the facts? There would be absolutely no reason to do so.

If I'm missing something, you're going to have to explain it to me more carefully. To me, the slight variations indicate that the sources are independent.

See it is piecemeal, but almost all of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke.

Really? Salome is not found elsewhere. And if Matthew and Luke just copied Mark, why didn't they say exactly that same thing?

I'm not disputing that the authors had access to other Gospel accounts but I think there were lots of written accounts floating around and many witnesses to be interviewed. That is what Luke says at the beginning of his account.

Anette Acker said...

Also if I was Ehrman as a reference for New Testament Doctrine your point would be applicable. Instead I am using his list of scriptures that were deemed heretical and attempted to be destroyed. These include the recently found Gospels of Judas and Thomas. He is going over the other sects of Christians and their writings that popped up in the late first century and early second century, before the Nicene Creed.

But they destroyed those books because they were clearly heretical. Have you read any of them? They are pretty clearly inconsistent with canonical doctrine, and they were written much later.

However, if Q was a reliable source of sayings or quotations of Jesus, presumably the church would have take good care of it. They certainly wouldn't have destroyed it. But you're right, it is possible that it was lost.

Anyways the boy sleeps through the night has since coming home. Only a night here and there does he have issues. He is a very good boy.

You're lucky that your son has slept through the night since the beginning! I was a zombie during those first months of our children's lives.