“Source Criticism” as a Disciplined Approach to the Synoptic Gospels

As students begin researching the Synoptic Problem they are quickly confronted with the topic commonly referred to as “Source Criticism.” First, it is important to understand that within biblical scholarship circles Source Criticism is referred to as a “discipline.” In other words, when done correctly and consistently, it is performed in a disciplined manner that is absent of subjective choices and fluctuating standards—in other words you can’t just wing it. Consequently, when done with a reasonable standard and in a disciplined manner it produces data that enables one to make rational and well-defended conclusions. So before discussing some specific passages with the Synoptic Gospels and some possible conclusions drawn from them, we should start by recognizing some facts about English translations, as well as some essential principles of Source Criticism.

When the Synoptic Gospels are describing the very same event then one should recognize that a high degree of common vocabulary is unavoidable. Consequently, the mere presence of common vocabulary does not prove literary interdependence (e.g., Matt 12.4-9; Mk 3.1-6; and Luke 6.6-11; a man with a withered hand; the event occurs in a synagogue; verbal dialogue on Jewish law; etc.). As English translators translate passages such as these they are compelled to standardize their interpretations of biblical texts in order to make them readable. This is appropriate simply because if translators literarily translated verbatim all the idiosyncrasies of the Koine Greek, then their translations would be unreadable to English readers. For example, English translations often standardize the word order of Greek sentences into English sentences in spite of the fact that the word order may be different in the Greek texts. So, while the word order of parallel texts may appear exactly the same in your English parallels, the reality is that in the Greek their word order may not be as parallel. The same is true with respect to the use of some Greek words. Since they basically mean the same thing, English translators will standardize their interpretations of these words in spite of the fact that they may not be found in the same tenses or constructions. This is also true with respect to Greek synonyms. For example, different words may mean the same thing whether they are in Greek or English; consequently, English translators will translate different Greek words into the same English word (e.g., the English word “love” and the Greek words of “agape” and “phileo”). Do they mean the same thing? Yes they can; consequently, English translators have not damaged the meaning of the original Greek. The point is this: what may appear to be an exact parallel in English is in fact many times not an exact parallel in the Greek.

Lastly, and most importantly for this discussion, whatever standard one uses to conclude that there is a direct literary relationship between 2 Synoptic Gospels, then that very same standard should also be used while comparing other parallel texts, and that same standard should be consistently applied to all texts while using Source Criticism to conduct research within the Synoptic Gospels. For example, if in your opinion you believe that 80% parallelism is sufficient evidence for concluding literary interdependence, then that same standard should be used in all passages that you analyze in your synopsis of the Gospels. In other words, it would be an undisciplined approach (not to mention subjective and uncritical) to conclude that a literary interdependence exists when observing only 70% commonality in 2 parallel passages, but when confronted with 95% commonality to then conclude that there is no direct literary relationship, but instead to assert that an unknown source exists between them, and that this mysterious uncorroborated source accounts for this high percentage of commonality—such as the theory of Q.

With these principles in mind, let’s briefly look Matthew 12.4-9, Mark 3.1-6, and Luke 6.6-11. While it is obvious that all 3 Gospels document the same event, there is enough variety within them that it makes it difficult to definitively conclude anything with respect to literary dependence. That is not to assert that there is no proof of any direct literary relationship between them, but only that there are other possibilities that can just as reasonably account for the commonality that does exist within all 3 accounts. The most likely conclusion for arguing against literary interdependence is that while Mark depended upon Peter for his account (cf. Papias, ca. AD 110), Matthew relied upon his own eyewitness memory of the event, and thus has emphasized what he remembered about it. Whereas Luke, through his interviews with eyewitnesses, has molded his own record of this event and has provided new details and a slightly different emphasis. Why these authors have not included some information found in the other Gospels, while also emphasizing different information in their own respective Gospel, are questions for the Redaction Critic to address (which is a discussion for another blog). The bottom line with respect to these 3 passages found within the Synoptic Gospels is this: since there is both agreement and disagreement in vocabulary and emphasis in these parallel passages (differences that are more apparent in my Greek Synopsis than in your English translations) the first exercise proves very little with respect to the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. Does this example prove that there is no literary interdependence between them; no it doesn’t. Conversely, it also does not prove that a literary interdependence exists between them. There may be some direct literary dependence between them, but the commonality and variances in these records may also point in another direction, such as oral accounts from eyewitnesses (which Luke confessed to relying upon, and which the church’s early history documents that Mark relied upon though his dependence of Peter, with Matthew himself being his own eyewitness). Consequently, what can be conclusively asserted about these parallel passages is that they all document the same event, and their records are based upon the testimonies of eyewitnesses. How you confirm whether a literary relationship exists between them depends largely upon the standard that you decide upon for proving their relationship to one another, and that is a determination that only you can decide for yourself. That being said, once you have established a mearsurable standard, then you should consistently apply it throughout your reseach for finding a plausible solution for the Synoptic Problem.

Which brings us to a discussion of Matthew 3.7-10 and Luke 3.3-9. Having examined these 2 passages, which document an event not found in Mark’s Gospel, we observe 2 interesting facts. The first is that the introductions of the passages are different; and secondly, the quotes of John the Baptist are virtually verbatim. The only alterations (i.e., “redactions”) in the quotation of John is that the word “work” found in Matthew’s account is plural in Luke’s account. Next, the word “seem” in Matthew is different than Luke’s account (i.e., “begin”). And lastly, the word “even” is absent in Matthew’s account but is present in Luke’s. These are very minor differences. Moreover, other than these 3 variations, the word order of these texts in Greek is exactly the same. This is very important since in the Greek one can observe more substantial changes in the quotes of Jesus found in the comparison of the first 3 passages discussed. Consequently, using a consistent and disciplined approach one should conclude that there appears to be a direct literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Given this conclusion one should ask “what is the most reasonable explanation for this relationship?” Well, the most reasonable conclusion is that since Matthew was living in Judea during the time of John the Baptist’s ministry, then it is entirely possible that he heard the preaching of John for himself. More probably, however, is that since he was a disciple of Jesus, then he also knew disciples of Jesus that had also been disciples of John the Baptist (e.g., Andrew, cf., John 1.35-42). Consequently, Matthew either heard John himself, or he recorded from John’s disciples what John had taught and said. Whereas with respect to Luke, we have no evidence that he was a personal disciple of Jesus, let alone a hearer of John the Baptist. Thus, a reasonable conclusion is that Luke depended upon Matthew’s Gospel for his record of this event. Alternatively, in the same manner as Matthew, Luke could have interviewed disciples of John as well.

The problem that often arises with respect to these 2 passages is that as scholars begin discussing the common material found between Matthew and Luke, then some begin making conjectures about the possibility of an anonymous unknown source commonly referred to as “Q.” These scholars often describe Q as an abbreviated “Jesus sayings document.” The problem with interjecting Q at this point is that we are not dealing with any sayings of Jesus; we are dealing with a direct quote of John the Baptist. Consequently, Q should not be interjected at this point. Additionally, many textbooks provide discussions about the possibility that the Gospel of Thomas provides possible evidence for Q’s existence. The problem with this assertion is that the Gospel of Thomas is a Coptic document originating from mid-second century or possibly even a mid-third century AD. Consequently, it is considerably older than the canonical Gospels. In other words, with respect to Q, it is far more reasonable to assert that the canonical Gospels were the source for Q rather than the other way around (that is if Q was even existed at all). The bottom line is this: the Gospel of Thomas provides no hard evidence for Q’s existence. One can only conjecture about Q as a source for the Gospel of Thomas, whereas it is certain that the canonical Gospels were the foundational sources for the Gospel of Thomas.

So back to the passages in question found in Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels; if one uses a disciplined approach while seeking to answer the possibility of a direct literary relationship between these passages, then what should be a reasonable conclusion? The most defensible conclusion is that one Synoptic Gospel has a direct literary dependence upon the other Synoptic Gospel. Given what we know about the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it appears that the most reasonable explanation is that Luke has depended upon Matthew’s Gospel. Does the evidence prove this conclusion, no it doesn’t. As previously mentioned, it is also possible that Luke interviewed other disciples of John the Baptist that became followers of Jesus (cf. Acts 19.1-5). Nevertheless, given the high degree of exact parallelism found between these passages we, therefore, have strong evidence of a direct literary dependence by Luke upon the Gospel of Matthew. This conclusion is the product of a disciplined approach to the question of what is the literary relationship between these 2 passages. It does not, however, either prove or disprove any theories concerning Q; that conclusion would require a much more thorough investigation. That being said, however, there is no hard physical evidence or historical reference for any such document referred to as Q. I hope provides an example as to what constitutes a disciplined approach to Source Criticism, and how it can guide your research, as well as influence your conclusions.

Written by Monte Shanks

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2017

Copied by Permission

25 September 2018