Faith on Trial (10 page)

Finally, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written by people at approximately the same time, people who knew one another well and may have even lived together for the greater part of several years. These friendships could account for much of the similarity, even though each viewed the events slightly differently. The apostle Peter is a particularly strong common link to all three Gospels. Additionally, the events that occurred and were reported were of a startling nature, culminating in the crucifixion of someone deeply loved and his resurrection, which would have been stunning. That these events would leave a deep and significant impression on the style and manner of reporting is not surprising.

A comparison between different New Testament translations of these specifically questioned passages makes clear that twentieth-century styles of translation may also have affected the analysis of the text by modern scholars. A study originally prepared in the 1930s, and updated in 1956 by Burton H. Throckmorton Jr. (using the 1952 Revised Standard Version of the Bible), compared the corresponding common passages of these three Gospels in parallel columns.
10
Because this study was later revised, for our trial we will refer to it as the “1956 Throckmorton study.”

The following text was given as an example of identical wording in the three Gospels in the 1956 Throckmorton study. In the portion of the sentence under review we find a request for the body of Jesus after his death, made by a follower of Jesus to Pilate. The follower, Joseph of Arimathea, “went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.”

The 1956 Throckmorton study reveals
identical
language for this passage for each of the three Gospels. Conversely, in other modern translations of the Gospels (including a later revision of the 1956 Throckmorton study based on a different translation), the same passages are far from identical. Here is an example taken from the King James translation of the same passage in the three Gospels on Joseph of Arimathaea.
11

As you can see, under this translation there’s a significant variation between the three Gospels of words in the passage as compared to the comparison of the same passage by Throckmorton. There are numerous examples like this. In a 1995 text providing parallels among seven different English-language versions of each passage of each Gospel of the New Testament, the same passage we reviewed above is translated differently in each one!
12
Why such differences now? What happened to the fidelity of transmission scribes cultivated when dealing with the ancient documents?

The printing press was invented.

Recall that in chapter 2 we discussed the fidelity of transmission honored by the scribes with handwritten manuscripts. Recall how we learned that scribes copied each dot, each word and line and mark on a page when creating new manuscript copies? But when the printing press became the mechanism for creating new copies of the Gospels, scribes were no longer required. Gradually subjective interpretation slipped into translations.

With respect to all of the portions of the three Gospels that critics have alleged to be interdependent, the criticized passages often appear to fall into one of three categories, which we’ll examine below. Unfortunately, most biblical scholars focusing on the synoptic problem (that is, who copied whom?) have failed to make any such distinction when they allege that one Gospel writer copied from the other.

Nevertheless, here’s a rebuttal, a demonstration showing that it is too simplistic to claim that Matthew, Mark, and Luke merely copied from one another. As we begin exploring this issue, keep in mind that comparisons of similar passages from the three different Gospels are difficult to make because the narrative structures do not necessarily follow one another chronologically. In the demonstration below we will use the 1956 Throckmorton study comparison of the challenged passages as a control standard because it provides an objective and straightforward presentation in the easy-to-read parallel columns.
13

First to be considered are those passages that are similar in story line or concept but not identical in wording. An example of this is the following passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Mark:

As you can see, though the parables are similar, they’re not identical. Coincidence cannot be ruled out here, particularly when we consider that the witnesses, Matthew and Mark, are both reporting what they claim to have heard at the same time from the same person in the same place. The variations between the two texts do not change the meaning of the parable. Some variation in witness testimony is generally
expected
when two witnesses testify to the same event in a courtroom. This type of similarity does not diminish the originality of the testimony; rather, such immaterial differences strengthen the testimony, indicating they were not copied but instead constitute individual recollections.

The second type of comparison critics assert indicates copying is a comparison of passages in which a portion of a sentence is identical in structure or words with the remainder of the sentence (and sometimes the context of the statement) being entirely different. Using the parable of the mustard seed again, compare below the similar passages between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke:

Only the italicized portions of the passage above contain identical words. The majority of phrases in passages like this fall within quotations of Jesus. Yet such a result would not be unexpected at a time when tradition required those who followed a teacher to exercise extreme care in the transmission of those words to others, whether by memorization of oral teachings or by use of shorthand.

Another method of comparison is illustrated by the use of computer tracking programs comparing one document to another. These systems provide an easy way to compare sentences in different documents like the Gospels, comparing them word for word, highlighting identical words and phrases in the same sequence (even where many additional, nonconforming words and phrases may appear in between the common identical words) and indicating deletions.

Every person who has used one of these computer-tracking programs to revise an existing document and then compares the changes between the revised document and the original has had the experience of being surprised at the similarities remaining between them. Common experience, common culture, and information received at the same time in the same place will often create the result that groups of words randomly appear in similar sequence in the new text, giving a false appearance that the second document was actually copied from the first. The relevance of this second type of comparison as illustrated by the diagram directly above is therefore questionable in determining whether the analyzed passages are original.

The third type of comparison within the synoptic problem focuses on identical, or almost identical, wording of entire sentences or passages. Because of the inconsistencies among modern translations evidenced above, it is probable that all of the so-called “identical passages” should really be analyzed under one of the preceding category types, not as a separate category of identical passages. Nevertheless, assuming the worst for the sake of argument and accepting the comparison made in the 1956 Throckmorton study, here is an example of identical passages:

Again, it is relevant that the majority of the similar sentences or passages in this category are quotations of Jesus. In a tradition that honored precise transmission of the words of teachers, quotations would have been routinely memorized by the teacher’s followers, if not preserved in shorthand, and that could account for the similarity. The jury, however, must conclude for itself whether such passages identical in wording as shown in the diagram above are explained by these factors. If so, then the passages will be considered original testimony in each Gospel, despite the identical wording. If not, the court will find that one witness copied from the other in the particular passages
where that occurs
.

In summary, the first category of passages included by most biblical scholars within the synoptic problem, those with common themes but no identical wording, under the analyses above should reasonably be accepted as original evidence by each of our witnesses, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in a court of law. In fact such testimony between the witnesses would probably be viewed as corroborating one another and would provide credibility. Scholars who have contended that these passages were interdependent because of their similarity are simply incorrect under a legal analysis.

In the case of the second category of similar passages described above, those with some identical wording in common passages, it’s reasonable to expect the court to view this testimony as original as to each witness, particularly where the similar language is contained within a quotation of Jesus when memorization or shorthand could have been used. This position is buttressed by the high value placed in the first century for tradition of accuracy and precision of transmission of important information.

Finally, if the jury determines that passages in the third category containing longer portions of identical language are deemed to be interdependent, then only one witness can be credited with originating that particular testimony. That determination will be made within the discretion of the jury, taking into consideration the credibility of the testimony as a whole, including other corroborative evidence.

But in the last two types of comparisons, only those particular portions of the Gospels that, as juror, consider to be copied fail the challenge. In those cases the passages you believe were copied should be considered to be testimony attributed to only one witness, but the remainder of the testimony will still be considered evidence provided from each separate witness.

A review of the comparisons of all the testimony in these three Gospels is too extensive to present here. But we can find something interesting by comparing testimony in the three Gospels related to the specific issues in our case, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. This testimony appears at the end of each of the three Gospels. So let’s begin in the garden of Gethsemane the night before the crucifixion (Matt. 26:36; Mark 14:32; Luke 22:40).

First, as to the testimony of Luke: again, using the 1956 Throckmorton study as a yardstick, only a small portion of this last part of the Gospel of Luke is identical to the corresponding sections of Matthew and Mark. In the few portions of in-common text that do appear in this section of his Gospel, only seven passages contain portions of substantially identical language.
14
Of these seven common passages, only three contain complete sentences, and even in this case some slight discrepancies still appear.

The jury may rationally conclude, therefore, that the Gospel of Luke is not dependent on the Gospels of Mark and Matthew as to the limited facts we are analyzing—which are the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Luke’s testimony as to those facts would most likely constitute original testimony in our trial.

And now to Matthew and Mark: as noted above, the Gospel of Mark is significantly shorter than the Gospel of Matthew.
15
Assuming for the sake of argument that identical passages were in fact copied, still, from the beginning of events in the garden of Gethsemane to the death of Jesus, more of Matthew appears to be original than Mark because of the extended narrative. Then again, the resurrection portion of the text appears to be entirely original in both Matthew and Mark, as in Luke. In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, only minimal phrases exist in common regarding the resurrection of Jesus, and that particular similar text is essentially unimportant to the testimony.