ROBERT L. THOMAS, ED.

Contributors / 7

Introduction / 8

Robert L. Thomas

CHAPTER 1: The Case for the Markan Priority View of Gospel Origins: The Two-/Four-Source View / 19

Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C. Williams

Two-Gospel Response / 97

John H. Niemeld

Independence Response / 111

F David Farnell

CHAPTER 2: The Case for the Two-Gospel View of Gospel Origins / 126

John H. Niemeld

Markan Priority Response / 198

Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C. Williams

Independence Response / 210

F David Farnell

Chapter 3: The Case for the Independence View of Gospel Origins / 226

F David Farnell

Markan Priority Response / 310

Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C. Williams

Two-Gospel Response / 323

John H. Niemeld

Conclusion: The Evidence Summarized / 337

Robert L. Thomas

Author Index / 389

Scripture Index / 393

Subject Index / 398

F. David Farnell (Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary) is associate professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary, Sun Valley, California.

John H. Niemela (Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary, Orange, California.

Grant R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen) is professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

Robert L. Thomas (Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary), general editor, is professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary, Sun Valley, California.

Matthew C. Williams (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is associate professor of New Testament, Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.

Robert L.Thomas

The first three Gospels in the New Testament-Matthew, Mark, and Luke-are the "Synoptic Gospels," so called because, as the term synoptic suggests, each of them records the Lord Jesus' life from the same general perspective as the other two. In this characteristic they are distinctive because the Gospel of John offers a different, but not conflicting, perspective of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. How the Synoptic Gospels originated was of great interest for the earliest Christians.

Their conclusions about Gospel origins prevailed for seventeen or eighteen hundred years. After the Reformation of the sixteenth century, however, scholars of nonevangelical persuasions began to focus attention on the origin of the synoptics, and differing opinions about those origins began to emerge. Shortly after the middle of the twentieth century, evangelical scholars began to restudy the origins, creating widespread current interest among evangelicals in the origins of the synoptics.

Where did Matthew, Mark, and Luke get information about Jesus and His contemporaries to include in their Gospels? Did they consult the writings of one another, or did they write independently of each other, based on information from apostolic eyewitnesses? Matthew was an eyewitness to much about which he wrote, but how did Mark and Luke accumulate data to include in their accounts? These are but a sampling of the questions raised in a thorough study of the New Testament's first three books.

The Three Principal Views

Among the views that have from time to time emerged about Gospel origins, three dominate discussions among New Testament (NT) specialists at the beginning of the twenty-first century. They are, in the order of their popularity among scholars, the Two-/Four-Source View, the Two-Gospel View, and the Independence View.

The Two-/Four-Source View

This view, sometimes referred to as the Two-/Four-Document View or the Markan Priority Hypothesis, holds that Mark was the earliest of the synoptics to be written. The Two-Source View claims that Mark, along with another nonextant document called Q, was the basis for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In other words, Matthew and Luke were literarily dependent on Mark and Q. That they sometimes copied word for word, and sometimes did not, is the position of this hypothesis.

The Four-Source View, sometimes referred to as the Oxford Hypothesis, builds on the Two-Source View by positing the existence of two additional nonextant documents. Theorists term one of the documents "M," claiming that it is a source used by Matthew in addition to Mark and Q. The other source it terms "L," as an additional source used by Luke. The four sources involved, then, are Mark, Q, M, and L.

In chapter 1 of this volume, Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C. Williams defend the Markan Hypothesis (MH). Professor Osborne, well known through his written ministry, is professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois. Professor Williams, who wrote his dissertation on the Synoptic Problem with Professor Scot McKnight and Professor Osborne as his mentors, is associate professor of New Testament, Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.

Professors Osborne and Williams represent the viewpoint that prevails among NT scholars at most evangelical institutions of higher learning in the United States and perhaps throughout the world. They are well qualified to present evidence that favors the MH and they favor, as readers will discover, the Four-Source variation of this view.

The Two-Gospel View

The Two-Gospel View or Hypothesis (2GH)-also known as the Griesbach, neo-Griesbach, or Owen-Griesbach view-understands Matthew to have written earliest, Luke next, and Mark last, with Luke using Matthew as a source and Mark using Matthew and Luke as sources. The Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence receives more support in the ancient church than the Two-Source View, Clement of Alexandria being an early advocate. Clement and other early church fathers did not, however, support the notion that Luke and Mark used earlier gospels as sources. Thus, the 2GH takes issue with the MH and its postulating of Markan priority and the existence of Q, M, and L as sources for the Synoptic Gospels.

The 2GH ranks second in popularity among NT scholars and is currently adding supporters. The growth in support is particularly noticeable among nonevangelical scholars. We have not, however, invited a nonevangelical scholar to support that view in this book. John H. Niemela-professor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary, Orange, California-however, is a solid evangelical scholar, earning respect even among nonevangelicals for his method of defending the 2GH, presented in chapter 2 of this volume. He is well qualified to defend the view in a dialogue format such as this volume provides. Professor Niemela-with Professor Harold Hoehner as his mentor and William R. Farmer, a well-known advocate of the 2GH, as a member of his dissertation committee--dealt with the 2GH in his dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary.

As evangelicals who support literary dependence deepen their study of synoptic issues, the 2GH apparently will grow in popularity in evangelical circles as it has in nonevangelical circles. If this happens, the growth will probably come at the expense of the popularity of the MH, as has been the case among nonevangelicals.

The Independence View

This view is by far the oldest of the three views and holds that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote independently of each other, that is, each one wrote without having seen what the other two had written. Literary independence means, then, that no literary collaboration took place among the writers in composing the Synoptic Gospels-they were literarily independent of each other. If Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels in the late A.D. 50s while in separate locations of the eastern Mediterranean, neither would have had access to what the other had written. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome in the late sixties, he may by then have known that the other two men had written, but he did not have access to what they had written. In addition, tradition indicates that Mark built his Gospel around the preaching of Peter, not the writings of Matthew and Luke.

The Independence View has a long history, being held throughout the centuries by the Christian church, but it is currently unpopular among NT scholars, so unpopular that some scholars will scarcely recognize it as a viable approach. On the other hand, the Independence View is estimated to be the most widely held among average evangelical Christians. If this estimate is accurate, a gulf stands between the view of the evangelical public and the view being taught in most evangelical institutions of higher learning.

In chapter 3 of this volume, F. David Farnell, associate professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary, Sun Valley, California, defends the Independence View. He has begun a promising publishing career and is well qualified to contribute to this book on the basis of his Master of Theology thesis at Talbot Theological Seminary and his coediting of and contributions to The Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998). Most students in evangelical institutions have no exposure to the Independence View and will learn much from Professor Farnell's explanation.

The Format

Each chapter of this book consists of the presentation of a viewpoint followed by two responses. The presenters and the responders are those introduced in the preceding sections of this introduction. In chapter 1, for example, Osborne and Williams present their case in support of the MH. Then Professors Niemela and Farnell respond to that presentation, specifying why they differ with the MH. Chapters 2 and 3 follow the same format.

All of the presentations are approximately the same length, with responses to each presentation limited to about thirteen pages. The responses are given without documentation, the respondents directly addressing the chief weaknesses of the view presented. The goal of such a format is to furnish students of the Synoptic Gospels an abbreviated comparison of the issues at stake in advocating a particular view.

The Issues at Stake

Some evangelicals say that the origins of the Synoptic Gospels are unimportant, that God's having inspired them makes them authoritative. Yet the matter is not quite so simple. How God inspired the Synoptics is also important, affecting the nature of the resultant products found in the three books. A number of issues hinge on the origins of the Gospels, the foremost being, Who is the real Jesus? And, what did He actually say and do?

Interest in studies about Jesus is constantly increasing. In their writings NT scholars are multiplying the number of articles and books about Jesus' life and teachings. Conferences and special study groups focus on discovering who the real Jesus was. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the "quest for the historical Jesus" was a major topic in Gospel studies. In the middle of the twentieth century, a "second quest for the historical Jesus" dominated scholarly attention. Then, at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twentyfirst century, a "third quest for the historical Jesus" is under way.

One widely publicized series of studies has appeared under the auspices of the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars convened by Robert W. Funk in 1985. Marked by strong antisupernaturalistic presuppositions, this group has published two major works: The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993), and The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus by Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1998). The fifth gospel implied in the former title is that of Thomas, a gospel that the Jesus Seminar arbitrarily added to the four canonical Gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Because the Jesus Seminar professes to find much nonauthentic material in the four Gospels, the Jesus portrayed in The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus bears only a faint resemblance to the Jesus of the traditional four Gospels. The print in the two books follows a four-color scheme-red standing for authentic Jesus material, black standing for nonauthentic Jesus material, and pink and gray for material that is somewhere between authentic and nonauthentic. Because of the liberal stance of the Jesus Seminar personnel, however, very little material of the four canonical Gospels appears in red. Evangelicals cannot concur at all with such liberal views as those posed by the Jesus Seminar, and even some nonevangelical scholars have criticized the extremes to which the Jesus Seminar has gone in depicting who Jesus really was.'

In large part, the answers to who Jesus really was depend upon how one approaches the first three Gospels-Matthew, Mark, and Luke-which in turn depends upon how the three books came into being. Even among evangelicals a difference of opinion exists, and that difference has an impact upon how one conceives of Jesus as represented in the Synoptic Gospels-hence, the importance of probing of the origins of the synoptics. The three views that are most popular among evangelical scholars on this subject are presented in this book to acquaint readers with evidence that supports the case of each approach and to allow readers to sift through the issues and controversies for themselves.

The importance of the matter of origins will become apparent as readers progress through Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, but the following questions are offered to stir curiosity.

1. Which was the first Gospel to be written? Some scholars say Matthew, whereas others say Mark. Which of the two books did the ancient church consider to have been written first? Which is considered the first today? Does sequence of composition affect the originality of any of the Gospels?

2. How does one's theory of origins relate to the perceived historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts? Two views say that it has no effect, but another view says that it does. Did alterations of an unhistorical character occur in the composition of any of the Gospels?

3. How do different theories of origin relate to the role of the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Gospels? Did the Holy Spirit inspire through some kind of literary interdependency among the writers, or did He inspire the writers to write independently? If writers were dependent upon one another, how closely did they adhere to their source(s)?

4. How do the origins of the Gospels relate to whether we have the very words of Jesus or only approximations thereof? One theory allows for the former view, and the other theories allow for only the latter view. If the Gospels do not contain His very words, how far could a theory allow the Gospel writer to deviate from Jesus' actual words without trespassing the boundaries of biblical inerrancy?

5. In what way can the Synoptic Gospels harmonize? Does harmonization occur on a strictly historical basis, or must allowances be made for alterations of the tradition by the early Christian communities and the writers?

6. Was Matthew's role that of a scribe who copied manuscripts? Or was he an apostolic witness of what he recorded? Or was he both a scribe and an apostolic witness?

7. Are the Christological titles of Jesus a clue as to which Gospel was earliest? Did the early church from the beginning refer to Him with the respect appropriate to deity, or did that respect develop later on, between the time of Jesus' resurrection and the writing of the Gospels?

8. Is the writing or reporting style of one Gospel inferior to that of the other two? Does the style of individual authors relate to how they reported Jesus' words and deeds?

9. Do Gospel origins relate to a view of the inspiration of the Gospels? Is it possible for an evangelical who favors literary dependence to separate himself or herself from the liberal roots of the dependency theories?

10. Is one consistent in using the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament while at the same time denying that Mark was the first Gospel written? How do text-critical principles relate to one's view of synoptic origins?

11. If Q (seep. 9) was a foundational document in the early church, why did the church not preserve it for later generations? Who discovered the existence of Q?

12. Besides depending upon one another, did the writers of the Synoptic Gospels use other sources? If so, what was the nature of these sources? Were they written documents or oral tradition? Was Q a written source? Were M and L (see p. 9) written sources?

13. Does loyalty to the Word of God entail denying a theory of literary dependence? Does a belief in biblical inerrancy require a theory of literary independence?

14. In light of their own experiences and needs, did the early Christian communities and the writers of the Gospels alter the tradition they transmitted to others?

15. Does literary dependence necessarily mean that communities and/or writers altered material in the process of transmitting data about Jesus?

16. Does Luke 1:1-4 support the assumption of literary dependence or collaboration among the writers of the Synoptic Gospels? If so, what Gospel was among the sources used by Luke? If not, what were Luke's sources? Do answers to these questions affect the reliability of Luke's Gospel?

17. How reliable were the early church fathers? Were they without mistakes in what they wrote? If they made mistakes, how frequently did they occur?

18. Did Matthew write one or two works about the life of Christ? If two, were they both in Greek, or was one in Aramaic? In what sequence did the Greek Gospel of Matthew come?

19. Did Augustine believe that Gospel writers depended upon each other literarily? What view of Gospel origins does Augustine's harmony of the Gospels imply?

20. Why does the Gospel of John have so little in common with the Synoptic Gospels? Does literary dependence among the synoptic writers account for their close agreements and their distinctiveness in comparison with John? Was there more to tell about the life of Jesus than what is found in the Synoptic Gospels? Did John try to avoid duplicating what was in the synoptics? Does one overshadow the other, or are they to be viewed as equals?

21. Which is more objective and scientific-the research supporting theories of literary dependence or that supporting the theory of literary independence?

22. Is danger inherent in an evangelical scholar's trying to earn the respect of the nonevangelical community of scholars? What presuppositions distinguish evangelicals from nonevangelicals?

23. What role did eyewitnesses play in the composition of the Synoptic Gospels? How can the Gospels of nonapostles Mark and Luke, who were not eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, be viewed with the same respect as the Gospel of the apostle Matthew?

24. What is the statistical probability that Mark was the earliest Gospel to be written? Do statistics have a legitimate voice in discussions of the origins of the Synoptic Gospels?

The preceding questions receive differing answers in the three chapters of this volume, with the three presentations and their responses offering the best evidence available, providing foundations for an ongoing dialogue between supporters of each viewpoint.

Editorial Perspective

The seminary teaching career of Robert L. Thomas, this volume's general editor, has spanned a period during which significant changes have transpired within evangelicalism in regard to perspectives of Synoptic Gospel origins. When Professor Thomas began his career in the late 1950s, evangelical scholars were of much the same mind regarding Gospel origins. As Professor Thomas approaches the end of his career, however, that same collective body is sharply divided on the same question. The division became evident with the 1998 release of The Jesus Crisis by Kregel Publications. Some responses to the book were heavily weighted in a positive direction, whereas others were sharply negative in their evaluations of the work.

The period between the late 1950s and the early twenty-first century has witnessed a gradual shift among evangelicals from supporting the Independence View to supporting the MH of Gospel origins. Interesting stages during that period included the 1960s, when evangelicals began talking tentatively about literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels. Reactions in that decade were usually, "What difference does it make?" But those who said that it did make a difference had nothing tangible on which to base their opinions.

Evangelical work in the 1970s and early 1980s began to define some of the implications of the shift in evangelical viewpoint regarding origins. Three major commentaries marked this closer definition in evangelical studies: W. L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); 1. H. Marshall, Commentary on Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); and R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Each work unequivocally supported a literary dependence theory regarding how the Synoptics originated. The last of the three books produced major concern within the ranks of the Evangelical Theological Society with the result that the membership voted to request Professor Gundry's resignation from the Society. The extreme position exhibited by this commentary-specifically the way Professor Gundry employed the MH-was cited as the principal reason for requesting his resignation.

The subsequent years of the 1980s witnessed a more tolerant attitude toward the theories of literary dependence within evangelicalism, and increasing numbers of academicians in Christian institutions adopted and taught literary dependence theories that were more moderate than those of Gundry. Evangelical literature favoring historical-critical approaches to the Synoptic Gospels also became more plentiful as younger scholars published their views on the subject. A notable exception to this trend was Eta Linnemann, a world-class Bultmannian scholar. After her conversion to Christianity in 1977, she turned decisively away from her earlier literary dependence view and became a strong advocate of literary independence. Her work on historical criticism appeared in 1986 in German and subsequently in four other languages: Dutch (1987); English (trans. Robert W. Yarbrough [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990]); Indonesian (1991); and Norwegian (1994). Her second book-Is There a Synoptic Problem?-appeared in German and English in 1992 (trans. Robert W. Yarbrough [Grand Rapids: Baker]).

The 1990s were characterized by a stream of literary-dependency commentaries by evangelical publishers and authors. As indicated earlier, these books heavily favored the MH as opposed to the 2GH, a factor that significantly affects the perception of who the historical Jesus really was. Voices favoring the Independence View were relatively silent during this decade, the only book-length publications in its support being The Jesus Crisis and Jakob van Bruggen's Christ on Earth in Dutch in 1987 and English in 1998 (trans. Nancy ForestFlier [Grand Rapids: Baker]). Another indication of increased evangelical attention to Synoptic Gospels origins is the formation in 2000 of a special "Gospels and Life of Christ" study group that meets annually as a part of the Evangelical Theological Society's annual meetings. Early indications point toward this study group's leanings toward the MH view of Gospel origins.

Thus, the time is ripe for a comparison under one cover of the three major views of Gospel origins. The editor and the contributors to this volume consider such a book to be an asset to the evangelical community as a way to help individuals sort through issues and controversies that relate to the first three Gospels. It is with this goal-strengthening the body of Christ-that the following pages are offered. Sincere appreciation is extended for the gracious cooperation of the writers have contributed to this study.

Endnote

1. For example, Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Original Gospels (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996).

The Two-/Four-Source View

Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C.Williams

Albert Einstein wrote,

In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism.'

The parallels between the preceding quotation and the Synoptic Problem are striking. We have the finished product-the Synoptic Gospels-but only clues as to the exact history of how these three Gospels were produced. We can almost "hear" the ticking of the Evangelists through the pages of their respective Gospels, but we cannot "see" beyond this. The "Synoptic Problem" has been the phrase used to describe the task of determining the precise relationships between the agreements and disagreements found in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Synoptic Problem was at one time of such moment that William Sanday and his Oxford students and friends met three times per term for fifteen years (1894-1909) to study a synopsis of the Gospels paragraph by paragraph. That degree of investigation no longer exists, but various major international conferences' continue to hold discussions, and numerous books continue to appear regarding all sides of the debate.'

This chapter, following a brief history and possible solutions to the Synoptic Problem, argues for Markan priority. In doing so, it will show first that the Gospels were indeed literarily dependent upon one another. Second, it will present the historical arguments for Markan priority, the most telling being the so-called text-critical (or linguistic) argument. Third, following an examination of the similarities between the disciplines of textual criticism and source criticism, the text-critical criteria will be applied to numerous texts of Matthew and Mark, the goal being to determine the "source variant" or the primary text. Fourth, it will examine the various problems for the MH. Fifth, it will discuss Q, M, and L.

A Brief History of the Synoptic Problem

Because the history of the Synoptic Problem has been examined fully in many other places,4 only a brief history will be offered here before the main solutions are discussed.'

Clement made the first recorded comments on the relationships among the Synoptic Gospels: "[T]hose Gospels were first written which include the genealogies"' Augustine offered the next major opinion. Although he was most interested in a harmonization of the Gospels, his solution to the Synoptic Problem postulated an order of Matthew, then Mark, then Luke.

A long gap occurred before the appearance of a renewed and concentrated emphasis upon the relationship of the Synoptics. The impetus to this renewed study came from the publication, within a few years of each other, of works by Henry Owen (1764) and J. J. Griesbach (1783 and 1789) that examined closely the precise wording of the first three Gospels.7 These works questioned the Augustinian consensus for the order of the Gospels, suggesting the order of Matthew, then Luke, then Mark, who was thought to have conflated the first two Gospels. This new theory, now called the Two-Gospel (or OwenGriesbach) Hypothesis, inspired a plethora of works on the literary relationships of the Gospels and was for nearly a century held by the majority of scholars, including the Tubingen school.

During the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, a new hypothesis took center stage. Renewed textual examinations in Germany (by Christian Gottlob Wilke, Christian Hermann Weisse, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Paul Wernle, and Bernhard Weiss)' and England (mostly by the Oxford School: William Sanday, Sir John C. Hawkins, B. H. Streeter, W. C. Allen)' reached the conclusion of Markan priority.

Those who held to Markan priority, now called the Two-Source or Four-Source or Oxford Hypothesis (as with the Two-Gospel or Owen-Griesbach Hypothesis, we have yet to come to agreement on the name of this hypothesis), were so certain of this solution that this view soon became an "assured result." In fact, the majority of scholars in the twentieth century were so certain of the correctness of Oxford Hypothesis that they presupposed it as a solution. In 1909, V. H. Stanton said that the priority of Mark "was one of the most widely accepted results of modern criticism of the Gospels.."10 In Albert Schweitzer's summary of Gospel criticism, he stated, concerning the certainty of the Two-Source Hypothesis, that the evidence is so strong for this conclusion that it should not even be called a "hypothesis"" Vincent Taylor wrote in the introduction to his commentary on Mark, "Significant of the stability of critical opinion is the fact that, in a modern commentary, it is no longer necessary to prove the priority of Mark."12

Even as late as 1970 in a gathering of scholars at the Pittsburgh Festival on the Gospels, it was stated, "Perhaps the only major agreement among a wide circle of scholars was the priority of Mark." At the end of the conference, the scholars merely posed the question, "Is the priority of Mark a conclusion too solid to be challenged, or is it a question open to reexamination?"" In 1976, O. Lamar Cope wrote, "All of the recent studies of Matthew known to me have presupposed the two-document hypothesis.""

The Markan priority view has faced, however, an onslaught of challenges. In 1951, B. C. Butler published the first major critique of Markan priority, The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis.15 Butler examined, among other things, the main heads of evidence for Markan priority. He showed, for example, that the argument from order (see p. 37) merely places Mark in a middle position rather than in a prior position (the so-called "Lachmann Fallacy"). He also made a comparative examination of the actual wording of parallel passages of the Gospels to see if this detailed comparison might show that one Gospel was prior to another. Butler concluded this comparison by postulating Matthean priority. His analysis of the linguistic data was performed, however, without any objective criteria by which to determine priority. As a result, most of his exegetical study presents only subjective analyses for literary priority. It did succeed, though, in redirecting later scholars' efforts. Butler's study was followed by many others, including those of Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff, who examined the "scientific" evidence for conflation.16

Perhaps, though, the greatest challenge to the Two-Source Hypothesis came from William Farmer. He began by examining the historical circumstances, circumstances that contributed to the predominance of this theory." He then continued by both writing extensively in the area of the Synoptic Problem18 and, perhaps more importantly, supervising a host of doctoral students who carried on his revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis.

As a result of these challenges to the Two-Source Hypothesis, Synoptic Gospel scholarship today stands on uncertain ground. "The critical consensus regarding gospel relationships now appears to have been shaken, if not shattered"19 Although scholars as late as 1970 could claim Markan priority as a majority belief (see above), by 1979 such was no longer the case. At the close of the Cambridge Gospel Conference, on August 18, 1979, B. Ward Powers wrote that general agreement existed among the participating scholars: "To speak now of the Two-Source Hypothesis as an `assured result' of scholarship is no longer possible; the consensus of the past century or so concerning this hypothesis has gone"20

Possible Solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Regarding possible solutions to the Synoptic Problem, we now live in a pluralistic age. Five main solutions are held by scholars today: the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, the Two-Source Hypothesis, various multiple-source hypotheses, oral or literary independence solutions, or insoluble.

The first two solutions were examined earlier in the brief history of the Synoptic Problem. Multiple-source hypotheses are held in general by French scholars,21 L. Vaganay being the main proponent.22 A more recent defense of multiple-source (or stage) hypotheses is by Marie-Emile Boismard, who said23

Les diverses theories des Niveaux Multiples ont en commun le principe fondamental ... les rapports entre ces evangiles his due] non par dependance directe, mais en faisant appel a des sources hypothetiques plus anciennes dont ils dependent.24

A problem with multiple-source hypotheses lies in the postulated sources' always being speculative; the more sources one postulates, the higher the possibility that a theory is no longer acceptable. Thus, few scholars are persuaded by multiple-source hypotheses.

Although some scholars have always held to an oral influence in the composition of the Gospels, few have thought that the Synoptic Gospels were written independently with no direct literary influence.25 Recently, however, the oral or literary independence solutions theory has been revived by Eta Linnemann, John Wenham, and Robert L. Thomas.2" Linnemann's theory is based on detailed statistical evidence that, in theory, demonstrates that the Gospels are independent creations.27 She concludes, "Not only the two-source theory but also the Griesbach hypothesis, with their underlying assertion of literary dependence among the three Synoptic Gospels, are both finished when the Synoptic data has been sifted. No room remains for free-floating hypotheses."2x Wenham, though, while "denying literary dependence as the primary explanation of the likenesses of the gospels," remains open to the possibility of the Evangelists writing "with knowledge of the early gospels ... but they are not seen as systematically altering their predecessors' work"z9

The last option of the five primary theories suggests that the Synoptic Problem is, in the final analysis, insoluble.30 It is true, as Dungan said, "As time goes on, matters are getting more confusing, not less."" Walker, at the close of the "Colloquy on the Relationships Among the Gospels," concluded, "The possibility that the problem of Synoptic sources is finally insoluble may turn out to be the most significant and far-reaching suggestion made at the Colloquy.""

Out of the historical development of various theories regarding the Synoptic Problem have emerged the views that will be discussed in this volume. At the outset, we must state that no view is conclusive, and we will likely learn the final answer only when we get to heaven. (We doubt, though, that these will be the first questions we ask!) Although none of the various options is conclusive, the evidence more clearly points toward a literary dependency among the Synoptic Gospels, the most probable solution to such a literary relationship being found in the MH.

A Synoptic Relationship of Literary Dependence

Before arguing that the MH is the best literary solution to the Synoptic Problem, one must first show that the Synoptic Gospels are indeed related literarily. In other words, literary dependence is not a presupposition of Markan priority but a conclusion based upon the evidence of the synoptics. The Synoptic Problem, briefly stated, regards the explanation of how Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree, yet disagree, in three areas: content, wording, and order. An examination of each of these areas will reveal whether the evidence leans toward a literary relationship between the Gospels or whether literary independence is a more probable choice.

Content

The content of these three authors is strikingly similar. About 90 percent of Mark's material is found in Matthew whereas about 50 percent is found in Luke.33 In other words, of Mark's 661 verses, 500 appear in Matthew and 350 in Luke. These parallels include both narrative and sayings material. Also, about 250 verses parallel each other in Matthew and Luke (see on Q below). For further consideration is the clumsy wording such as "and he says to the paralyzed man" (see below) or identical parenthetical material (for example, "let the reader understand" in Mark 13:14 and Matt. 24:15), such being unlikely if the authors used solely oral sources .31

Wording

In the places where agreement occurs between the content of the three Gospels, incredible similarities sometimes appear in the precise wording, even down to identical tenses and moods for every word in an entire verse (or series of verses). Here, it is essential that the student have access to a synopsis to see the parallels line by line.35 Several passages contain virtually word-for-word correspondence, such as the "ask, seek, and knock" passages (Matt. 7:7-11 = Luke 11:9-13) ...36

... the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12 = Matt. 9:1-8 = Luke 5:17-26, note especially the odd placement of "and he says to the paralyzed man" as well as "but that you may know . . " in all three), the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-9 = Matt. 13:1-9 = Luke 8:4-10), the incident with the children (Mark 10:13-16 = Matt. 19:13-15 = Luke 18:15-17), the Olivet Discourse (especially Mark 13:1-27 = Matt. note especially "let the reader understand" in both), and the question about the resurrection (Mark 12:18-27 = Matt. 22:2333 = Luke 20:27-40):37

Most interesting about the previous passage is the similarities and dissimilarities that occur in both the words of Jesus and the various introductions to the passage by the different Evangelists. In the introductions to these passages in Greek, one finds the following statistics:

The odds against writing an introduction to an action of Jesus and using almost exactly the same words as another independent author are astronomical. To analogize, consider the odds that, at the end of a class on theology, any two students will have class notes that are virtually verbatim. One may say that such an example has little in common considering the memorization techniques and abilities of the first century, to say nothing of the difference between the importance of a professor's words and those of the Son of God. Nevertheless, the point is the same: it is nearly impossible that independent editions of the same sayings or stories would have identical wording. The similarities in vocabulary and usage in many passages are too close to be accidental or the result of oral tradition. They strongly suggest written sources and some type of literary dependence.

An example of a pericope that contains similar material within a passage that consists not solely of the words of Jesus is found in Matthew 15:35-39 = Mark 8:6-10, where the Evangelists use nearly the identical wording to describe an entire event:

It seems extremely unlikely that two distinct authors would choose virtually the same words, and virtually the same word order, to describe this event. The Gospel writer cannot here rely upon oral tradition because these verses are not concerned with the actual words of Jesus but describe an event in a very condensed form (unless, of course, one posits that very soon after the historical event, the oral history of the event was recorded).

Two other factors make the evidence for literary dependence even stronger-the likelihood that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the use of Old Testament (OT) quotations by the Evangelists. It is noteworthy that these synoptic parallels occur in Greek, which might possibly be a translation of Jesus' original Aramaic (arguments that He taught in Greek have not been widely accepted). In three instances, Jesus spoke a sentence that was clearly a Semitic expression: Mark 5:41 (clearly Aramaic), Mark 7:34, and Mark 15:34/Matthew 27:46 (either Hebrew or Aramaic). Other than these sentences, many instances occur wherein single words clearly have a Semitic expression as their base." It is highly unlikely that such translations would have paralleled each other without some type of dependence.

Also, the form of OT quotations is remarkably similar, for example, Mark 1:2 = Matthew 3:3 = Luke 3:4, or Mark 7:7 = Matthew 15:9, pointing to some measure of dependence.39 The similarities in these quotations all the more point to dependence when it is seen that many of the OT quotations are not direct translations from the Hebrew or from the LXX. In other words, the Evangelists cite the same OT text in the same form, but, as far as we know, that precise form did not exist at that time. Thus, it is all the more probable that some type of literary dependence existed between the Evangelists in these cases. One might, of course, assume some form of a dictation theory of inspiration based upon the idea that the Holy Spirit spoke the same exact words to the synoptic writers. Such could account for the similarities in wording but not for the many differences.

Proponents of literary independence agree that many similarities exist between the Synoptics but argue that the many differences demonstrate that the synoptics could not have been dependent upon one another or copied from one another. Thomas, for example, believes that we find "a random combination of agreements and disagreements that are explainable only through an independent use by each writer of tradition based on personal memories of eyewitnesses."' Because Linnemann finds only 46 percent similarity between the texts of Matthew and Mark and 36 percent between Mark and Luke 41(Edgar finds that Matthew and Mark share "only" 68 percent of their subject matter whereas Luke and Mark share 41 percent),42 she concludes that we must find near 100 percent agreement to conclude that the Evangelists were dependent upon one another.

Linnemann's conclusion, however, is not convincing. Sixty-eight percent is a relatively high percentage of agreement between two different authors. Why require near 100 percent agreement before concluding that the authors are literarily dependent? Nor should we expect 100 percent agreement if it is true that Matthew and Luke in fact used Mark as a source. Should we not expect differences based upon their writing different Gospels to different communities? Moreover, it is likely that the Evangelists wrote differently than their sources rather than merely duplicated them, especially given that most ancients regarded the rewriting of what had already been written as an exercise in redundancy.a3

In addition, are we certain of the exact method that the ancients used in copying from their sources?' Would not the very logistics of writing in the first century argue for the difficulty of copying word for word from scrolls over a long period of time?45 Perhaps McKnight is correct in saying that the Evangelists "appealed to short-term memory (read it, set it down-on a table or in a cylinder, write a new text)."46 Such methodology of using a source yet writing a new document would account for both the similarities and the differences among the three Gospel texts. The Independence View may have merit, but the evidence of the alternating agreements and disagreements in the precise wording of the texts supports a view of literary dependence. Thus, the only question remaining is the direction of the flow, that is, the order in which events are related.

Order

Apparently, in places, the order of events in the synoptics is too similar to be merely the result of chance or oral tradition. One need only glance through the index of Aland's synopsis to see the tremendous amount of similarity in order. Almost always at least two Gospels-many times all three-agree in order. The opening events of Mark 1-3, for example, are quite similar in order to those in Matthew 8-10 and Luke 4-6, and the events of Passion Week are virtually identical in the Synoptic Gospels. These are hardly the result of tradition or accidental similarity. Stein says, "Some of the material in the Gospels was arranged due to topical rather than chronological considerations, and this makes the agreement in order seen above all the more significant.""

Such considerations make some form of literary dependence likely. In other words, one may not always rely on the argument that the synoptics are "describing historical events; [but] the fact that the events actually occurred in that order explains the agreement in order between these gospels."48 Because many passages are not in chronological order, this similarity in order must be explained by other means.

An explanation is also needed to account for minor examples of order. For instance, the flashback to the death of John the Baptist in Mark 6:17-29 = Matthew 14:3-12 would be unlikely just on the basis of oral tradition (it interrupts the chronological flow). Luke's travel narrative (19:9-10) is filled with material common to Luke but still generally follows Mark's order. Also, Matthew tends to follow Mark's interspersing of Peter's denial into the account of the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus (Mark 14:53-72 = Matt. 26:57-75), whereas Luke relates them separately (Luke 22:54-7 1). It is unlikely that such similarities in technique would happen by chance. The point is that the similarity in relating the order of events demonstrates some interdependence between the Evangelists.

On the other hand, the differences among the content, wording, and order of the Synoptic Gospels are also critical. Somehow we must explain the many sayings and stories that were almost certainly the same historical event but are quite distinct in their wording and details. Each Evangelist has his favorite vocabulary, themes, and emphases. The alternating agreement and disagreement in order among the three Gospels is also disturbing. Sometimes Matthew and Luke relate many pericopes in a row in the same order as does Mark.49 At other times, very little agreement in order appears among the Gospels. Thus, any solution to the Synoptic Problem must account for why the Evangelists' writing is nearly identical in some instances and yet so different in other places.

The most famous area of difference relates to the empty tomb and the appearance narratives; so different are they from one another that the Gospels seem to tell of four different resurrections. 50 And even in the crucifixion narratives, where one would expect a high degree of uniformity, significant differences are found. Three of the "seven last sayings of Jesus," for instance, are found only in Luke, and John has several elements not found in the other Gospels. In individual stories such as Jesus' walking on the water (Mark 6:45-52 = Matt. 14:2233), Matthew adds Peter, too, walking on the water, and the two pericopes end in polar opposites, with the disciples' "hardness of heart" in Mark but with them saying, "Surely this is the Son of God" in Matthew.

Another question to be raised when positing literary independence between the Gospels is the problem of John. Why does the content, wording, and order more readily agree in the synoptics than they do with the Gospel of John? These differences show us that the similarities among Matthew, Mark, and Luke cannot simply be explained as a result of their fidelity to the historical ministry of Jesus. The events that appear in the synoptics appear differently in John, and absent from John are the types of agreements found within the synoptics. Even the words of Jesus, the content of which often agree in the Synoptic Gospels, are vastly different in the Johannine account. Note, for example, the differences between John 12:25 = Matthew 16:25 = Mark 8:35 = Luke 9:24:

In examining the pericope of the feeding of the five thousand, even more important differences are present. The introduction and the conclusion to the miracle contain almost no similarity between John and the Synoptics, whereas the account in each of the Synoptics is fairly similar. In the words of Jesus in John 6:7-10, where we should expect much similarity in all four Gospels (if we assume that the Evangelists wrote the precise words of Jesus), a small number of similarities are found: the two hundred denarii (also in Mark), bread (also in Mark), five loaves and two fish (in all three synoptics, but note that John adds that they are barley loaves), sit down (more similar to Luke), grass (in Matthew and Mark), and twelve baskets (in all three synoptics).

Besides these minor similarities between John and the Synoptics, John describes many actions that are also recorded in the other Gospels, but he uses different wording altogether: the action of taking the loaves, giving thanks, distributing them to those who were seated, and then, when they had eaten their fill, gathering them up. The Independence View needs to explain the major differences seen in John when compared to the synoptics. Those who accept literary dependence offer the simple explanation that the book of John is an independent Gospel and was not literarily dependent upon the Synoptics.

In short, the four Gospels contain both similarities and differences, and any theory must do justice to both. A likely conclusion is that the Evangelists were faithful to their sources (Luke 1:2, "[T]hey were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" Niv) but, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, emphasize details from the longer stories and from the sayings of Jesus. Paul Feinberg said that inerrancy does not demand ipsissima verba (the "very words" of Jesus) but ipsissima vox (the "very voice" of Jesus)." The Gospels do not give us everything Jesus said and did (John 21:25, "If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written"). Rather, they relate a carefully chosen trajectory through the four Spirit-inspired narratives. It seems likely that the writers used sources (including one another) and developed their own unique yet equally historical approaches.

Markan Priority: The Four-Source Hypothesis

It has been shown, then, that a literary relationship likely exists between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It remains to be shown the precise order of dependency. Among the plethora of solutions to the Synoptic Problem and the possibility that the problem is insoluble, we do not give up hope. The most probable explanation is the Oxford Hypothesis named earlier, also called the Two- or Four-Source Hypothesis. The first two sources are Mark and Q (the sayings material common to Matthew and Luke); Matthew and Luke used both of these sources and also had their own additional sources (M and L, respectively).

Although the Two-Source Hypothesis is the most plausible literary solution, most of the arguments used to "prove" the Two-Source Hypothesis are not altogether convincing. Further study on the Synoptics is required to demonstrate that this solution is indeed the most probable. But given that detailed studies have been performed for at least the past two centuries, as well as the numerous arguments proposed (and rejected by proponents of the Two-Source Hypothesis), the pursuit should nonetheless continue in that area in which most scholars think the solution may be found, that is, in textual criticism. Before explaining textual criticism, however, it will be helpful to examine B. H. Streeter's five heads of evidence for Markan priority52 as well as other arguments in defense of the TwoSource Hypothesis.

Streeter's presentation of the evidence for Markan priority remains the "classic statement."" Indeed, some scholars have said that no "new" lines of evidence have been suggested since Streeter."

Streeter's five heads of evidence for Markan priority are as follows: (1) Matthew and Luke reproduce 91 percent and 55 percent, respectively, of Mark's material, much of which is identical in wording; (2) Matthew and Luke use alternative wording for material found in Mark, using the exact wording 30 to 60 percent of the time; Matthew's and Luke's wording rarely agrees with each other when compared to the wording of Mark; (3) Matthew and Luke generally agree with the order of Mark-wherever Matthew departs from Mark's order, Luke supports Mark, and whenever Luke departs from Mark's order, Matthew agrees with Mark; (4) Matthew and Luke improve Mark's more primitive wording; (5) the distribution of Markan and non-Markan material throughout Matthew and Luke seem to be explicable only on the theory of Markan priority.

Analysis of the Evidence for Markan Priority

Streeter's evidence will now be examined, as will the arguments that are commonly used today to defend Markan priority.55 Streeter's first line of evidence is that Matthew and Luke reproduce 91 percent and 55 percent, respectively, of Mark's Gospel, much of which is identical wording. As has been shown over and over again in the literature, this statistic only proves that a literary relationship exists between the three Gospels and that Mark is somehow the common element but not necessarily the prior element.56 The Two-Gospel Hypothesis can, in fact, use this same data as evidence for that theory: in composing his Gospel, Mark reproduced much of the wording of his sources, namely Matthew and Luke. This line of Streeter's evidence thus does not prove Markan priority. On the other hand, a common criticism of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis states, "[U]nless Mark was the first to write, why would he bother, with so little new or distinctive to say?"57

Streeter's second line of evidence is that Matthew's and Luke's wording rarely agree with one another when compared to the wording in Mark. This argument has faced serious difficulties. Although Streeter went into great detail to explain away the similarities between Matthew and Luke," many scholars disagreed with him. In deed, the Two-Gospel Hypothesis uses the agreements between Matthew and Luke as an argument for that theory.59 Two-Gospel scholars suggest that the postulation of a Q document is unnecessary because the similarities between Matthew and Luke are explained by their direct literary dependence upon one another.

Streeter's third line of evidence is that Matthew and Luke generally agree with the order of Mark: wherever Matthew departs from Mark's order, Luke's order supports Mark; and whenever Luke departs from Mark's order, Matthew's order agrees with Mark. This argument has been conclusively rejected as proving Markan priority.60 Butler said that these data prove only that "Mark is necessarily the connecting-link between Matthew and Luke in these passages, but not necessarily the source of more than one of them.."61 In other words, as shown in the first head of Streeter's evidence, Mark is merely the common element between Matthew and Luke, not necessarily the prior element. This logical error is known as the "Lachmann Fallacy," although Lachmann himself did not formally commit this error.62

Streeter's fifth head-that the distribution of Markan and nonMarkan material throughout Matthew and Luke seems to be explicable only on the theory of Markan priority-is not a new argument but merely a summary of the previous four arguments. Thus, no critique is needed.

Before analyzing Streeter's fourth argument, it remains to examine other arguments used more recently for Markan priority. The arguments that follow are not necessarily conclusive or even helpful in defending Markan priority, but the reader should know the primary historical arguments.

First are the so-called eyewitness fragments in Mark, asides such as "after sunset" in 1:32, Jesus "sleeping on a cushion" in 4:38, "the green grass" in 6:39, or "one loaf with them in the boat" in 8:14Markan touches that make his Gospel more vivid than those of Matthew or Luke. Stein states that many scholars take these Markan touches as evidence that Mark is the "most primitive Gospel,"" but these fragments could be seen simply as Mark's colorful style rather than his originality. Even taken together, these stylistic elements provide little help in determining priority.

Second, Mark contains several Aramaic expressions that make his account more vivid, such as Boanerges (3:17), talitha koum (5:41), Corban (7:11), ephphatha (7:34), Abba (14:36), Golgotha (15:22), and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (15:34).M Most such expressions are absent in Luke (none) and Matthew (only Golgotha and the Hebrew form of the cry of dereliction). The historical argument has been that the Gospel with Aramaic expressions is the more original Gospel, but very few people argue this way today. There remains, though, one question concerning these expressions in regard to priority: Is it more likely that the other Gospel writers omitted the expressions used by Mark, or that Mark, in a Gospel most likely written to a Gentile audience, would add them when his sources did not contain them? The latter seems more difficult to explain.

Third, David New has made a similar point regarding the OT quotations in the synoptics.65 Matthew's freer form in many of his quotations would have probably led Mark, if he was using Matthew, to a similar approach. Instead, Mark stays close to the LXX. Matthew, on the other hand, follows the LXX form mostly when relying on Mark.

Fourth, although Mark's Gospel is shorter, his parallel accountsstories related in all three Gospels-are usually significantly longer. Note the following examples:66 on the stilling of the storm, Mark (4:3541) uses 120 words, whereas Matthew (8:23-27) uses 73 and Luke (8:22-25) 94; on the Gerasene demoniac, Mark (5:1-20) uses 325 words to Matthew's 135 (8:28-34) and Luke's 293 (8:26-39); on the death of John the Baptist, Mark uses 248 words (6:17-29) to Matthew's 136 (14:3-12) and Luke's 33 (3:19-20); on the demon-possessed child, Mark uses 270 (9:14-29) to Matthew's 133 (17:14-21) and Luke's 124 (9:37-43a). These numbers make it difficult to call Mark an abridgment of Matthew. Tuckett says,

Thus, if Mark were written first, Matthew and Luke must have reproduced practically all of Mark while omitting some of Mark's redundancies in wording, and also supplemented Mark with further material available to them from other sources. The converse is rather more difficult to envisage. If Matthew's gospel were written first ... (w)hy did (Mark) omit so much of the teaching of Jesus, including the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's prayer? Why too did he expand much of the material he did retain with such inconsequential details that the same story is often twice as long in Mark as in Matthew?6'

Tuckett's next to last point is critical. If Mark were building on Matthew, why would he have omitted such critical sayings and stories? Thus, this line of evidence points to Markan priority.

Fifth is the argument from theological phenomena. Using text-critical criteria, we would say that Mark is the more difficult reading. One of the best examples is the material on discipleship failure in Mark and Matthew. Two passages will suffice: in Mark 6:51 b-52 the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water ends on a note of absolute failure when Mark comments, "They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened." In the parallel passage, Matthew omits this observation, adds the story of Peter's walking on the water, and concludes with the disciples worshiping Jesus as they say, "Truly you are the Son of God" (14:33). It is difficult to imagine a more opposite conclusion from that of Mark. The same outcome is recorded by Mark regarding the feeding of the four thousand, when Jesus, exasperated by the disciples' failure to understand, chastises them with His diatribe and concludes, "Do you still not understand?" (8:2 1). In the parallel passage, Matthew concludes with, "Then they understood. . . (16:12). Which is the likelier explanation? Did Mark turn Matthew's positive presentation into a diatribe against the disciples? Or did Matthew smooth out Mark's more negative theological presentation? Before deciding, consider, too, that other negative comments about the disciples appear in Mark that are also omitted in Matthew and Luke (cf. Mark 4:13; 10:14 and parallels).

Generally, Mark's Christology also demonstrates the priority of his Gospel. Admittedly, making conclusions as to priority from theological or Christological categories is extremely difficult, but Peter Head shows that Mark's use of titles and the development of Christological themes are understood best if Mark's Gospel was written first.61 Consider the well-known passage in which Mark relates that the wealthy young man called Jesus "Good teacher" with Jesus responding, "Why do you call me good?" (10:17-18). In Matthew the young man asks, "Teacher, what good thing must I do," and Jesus responds, "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Again, which account best explains the theological development-Mark writing first or Matthew writing first?

Farmer seems to believe that the mere ability to explain why one author changed the wording of his source provides the evidence for one's conclusion as to priority. What is sought, however, in determining the order in which the Gospels were written is not an explanation but the most plausible explanation. To give one example of the mere ability to provide an explanation, one can examine Farmer's statement regarding the preceding text (Mark 10: 18; Matt. 19:17): "Luke's text reads exactly the same as that of Mark so that, if Luke copied Mark as Streeter assumes, this is not a convincing instance of a text in Mark which `might cause offence or suggest difficulty' to the later Evangelists. If it were such a text, why did Luke on the Marcan hypothesis copy it precisely as he found it in Mark?"69 Stein, responding to Farmer, says, "Farmer's explanation ... is far less convincing than numerous arguments for the two-source hypothesis that he criticizes. It is impossible to conceive of Mark and Luke as having changed Matthew's account to `Why do you call me good'? as the Griesbach Hypothesis demands.""' Blomberg states unequivocally, "[T]he major weakness in the Griesbach theory to date is that its proponents have not demonstrated how Markan style and theology emerge more consistently and coherently from their hypothesis than from the alternatives. Until I see such a demonstration, I will remain unconvinced. "71

Sixth, the redactional phenomena are another important consideration." An example is Peter's confession, which is recorded in all three Gospels:"

Tuckett points out that it is difficult to understand why Mark, if he were using Matthew as a source, would have omitted Matthew's reference to Jesus as the Son of God, given that the title has immense theological significance in Markan theology (Mark 1:1, 11; 9:7; 14:61 f.; 15:39). Another example is seen in Mark's theme of discipleship failure, as explained earlier. Would Mark redact Matthew and turn the account into a diatribe against the disciples? It is much more likely that Matthew rendered Mark's account in a more positive light. Also, consider Mark 6:5f. = Matthew 13:58:74 Mark reports Jesus as unable to "do any miracles except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them" whereas Matthew relates the simpler, "And he did not do many miracles because of their unbelief." Two differences appear in the passage-Mark's "any" versus Matthew's "many," and Mark's strange addition of healing miracles in a passage that said he was powerless to perform miracles. Once more, would Mark take a plausible, straightforward statement and turn it into a difficult, seemingly inconsistent circumstance? He certainly could have for theological reasons, but it is more likely that Matthew redacted Mark rather than vice versa. To date, only Mann has produced an entire commentary, from a Two-Gospel Hypothesis point of view, demonstrating the redactional tendencies of Mark .71

Seventh, Mark's candor and bluntness make him seem more "primitive," for he not only shows Jesus' strong emotions but also shows the disciples' own failures in detail. Guthrie says, "The emotions of compassion, severity, anger, sorrow, tenderness, and love are all in turn attributed to [Jesus] (1:41, 43; 3:5; 8:12, 33; 10:14, 16, 21)"76 Mark relates, too, that Jesus' family believes that He has lost His mind (3:21), and that the disciples are ignorant (4:13; 8:21; 9:10, 32) and hardened of heart (6:52; 8:17). In many of these passages, Matthew and Luke seem to have modified Mark's strong statements, probably to avoid misunderstanding or confusion on the part of their readers. Mark, for instance, tells us that when Jesus cursed the fig tree, "it was not the season for figs" (11:13), a detail that Matthew omits.

Eighth, expressions appear in Mark that also appear in Matthew and Luke. Although duplicate expressions could be evidence that Mark has conflated Matthew and Luke, such is unlikely. Tuckett points out that conflation is true of only 17 of the 213 cases of duplicate expressions."

Proponents of Markan priority agree that no single argument of those presented earlier is conclusive; rather, the cumulative effect constitutes the probability that the Two-Source Hypothesis is by far the best solution to the problem of synoptic relationships.

Analysis of Streeter's Fourth Head of Evidence

Streeter's fourth head of evidence-that Matthew and Luke improve Mark's more primitive wording-holds great importance. The following discussion is quite extensive because here, and only here, is firm evidence that demonstrates Markan priority. Streeter listed examples of improvements to "more primitive wording": (1) the elimination or moderating of phrases that might cause offense or suggest difficulties (such as Mark 6:5: "he could do there no mighty work"); (2) stylistic changes (elimination of repetitions, redundancies, and digressions, such as Mark 1:32, "evening coming on, when the sun set") or grammatical improvements."

Scholars after Streeter usually agree on the importance of the fourth argument. Butler, a defender of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, although disagreeing with Streeter's overall conclusion, did agree that "only the fourth head of evidence contains any argument tending to support the theory of Marcan priority to the exclusion of all other solutions."" 0. Lamar Cope, another defender of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, comments that "most critics would probably agree that the crux of current belief that Mark is the earliest Gospel is the evidence that Matthew has altered Mark in several instances in unmistakable ways.."R0 Davies and Allison's massive commentary on Matthew admits that "Matthew's style is superior to Mark's.""' They comment, in fact, that as they began work on their commentary, they were open to the recent criticisms of Markan priority. They found, however, as they analyzed verse by verse the texts of Matthew and Mark, that "the theory of Matthean antecedence has failed to commend itself while the postulation of Markan priority has consistently brought illumination."" John Wenham comments, "All that is left of Streeter's evidence is his head number 4."83 Finally, Graham Stanton notes that Matthew "abbreviates Mark's verbosity and improves his clumsy Greek style; he clarifies many of the Marcan theological enigmas."84

Although the majority of scholars, both defenders of the Two-Source Hypothesis and supporters of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, agree with Streeter concerning the importance of this fourth head of evidence, a few scholars have disagreed.

Farmer commented long ago, "In literary criticism there is no canon by which questions of literary dependence can be settled on the basis of good or bad grammar," and, "If it is true that one Evangelist wrote better Greek than another it probably indicates more about his private education or that of his intended readers than it does about the date of composition of his Gospel, or its relationship to the other Gospels."85 Soon thereafter, Farmer was seconded by H. P. Hamann: "[Mark] is capable of marring beyond recognition the best bit of Greek. It is just as easy to imagine clumsy Mark botching up competent Matthew as to imagine competent Matthew tidying up some of Mark's inelegancies"86 Dungan agrees:

We may argue back and forth about aspects of Streeter's literary criteria, what they mean, and so forth, "till the cows come home," and fail to come to a much more fundamental problem at the root of this entire tree of arguments. When has a single one of these four arguments ever been itself scientifically tested to see whether and to what extent it is a reliable criterion for deciding between early or late traditions?87

Although these critics have accused Streeter and his followers of failing to provide "scientific evidence" that Mark's inferior grammar is evidence of Markan priority, they also have failed to prove their case that Streeter's fourth head of evidence is invalid. E. Earle Ellis said, "[these] advocates have been more successful in their critique than in the establishment of their alternative."" They have placed the burden of proof upon Steeterians without taking up the challenge themselves.

In other words, it remains to be shown that an author who is using a source uses the same style as he or she would if composing a work without an existing source. The MH as presented in this volume agrees with Farmer and others that different authors write in better or worse Greek depending upon their educational background. It is one thing to say that Mark composed his Gospel in grammatically unrefined Greek, but it is quite another to say that Mark wrote his Gospel in grammatically unrefined Greek while using a grammatically sophisticated source (i.e., Matthew's Gospel). Herein lies the crux of the argument: Could Mark have been as dependent upon Matthew's grammatically refined Gospel as defenders of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis claim, yet still have written a grammatically "worse" Gospel? Thus, the question as it regards Gospel origins is not simply one of linguistic style but of source criticism, namely, the influence upon one's style from another, more refined, source.89

Studies on the Linguistic Argument

A few scholars have furthered Streeter's fourth head of evidence by examining in detail either the Gospel texts or the ideas behind Streeter's argument. B. C. Butler, in 1951, sought to "undertake an investigation ... of the actual point-to-point relations revealed by a comparative study of the texts of ... Matthew and Mark "90 He examined nearly all of the Matthew-Mark parallels for signs of priority. Because of Butler's lack of objective criteria by which to judge priority, many of his conclusions are too subjective to be of any ultimate value. For example, he compares Matthew 23:5b (planynousin gar to phylakteria auton kai megalynousin to kraspeda, "for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long") to Mark 12:38 (ton thelonton en stolais peripatein, "who like to go about in long robes") and concludes,

Clearly Mark, unwilling to explain what Jewish phylacteries and fringes were, and why specially large ones were signs of religious ostentation, has substituted his own bizarre phrase, which suggests at most mere childish vanity. Matthew cannot possibly be supposed to have invented his version from Mark's jejune phrase.91

By what criteria, though, did Butler reach such conclusions? Regardless of whether Matthew used Mark as a source, one must admit that Matthew invented the preceding phrase. Nothing proves, however, which is more likely-that Matthew invented the saying or that Matthew was triggered by Mark's "bizarre phrase" and then invented the saying? Butler's argumentation does not merit the confident conclusions that he draws, namely, "The conclusion must be accepted that Mark is here excerpting from Matthew."- Butler fails to provide the necessary objective criteria by which to decide prior texts.

The next author to examine texts linguistically was W. R. Farmer, in 1963.9' Farmer devised a sixteen-step plan for proving that Mark was written after and dependent upon Matthew and Luke.94 The sixteenth step lists four canons of criticism (actually, three, because he omits one in the revised edition) by which to judge secondary texts: (1) The form that reflects an extra-Palestinian, or non-Jewish, provenance is to be adjudged secondary to a form of the same tradition that reflects a Palestinian or Jewish provenance. (2) The second canon was retracted after E. P. Sanders's study showed that there is not a tendency to become more specific. (3) The form of a tradition that exhibits explanatory redactional glosses and expansions aimed to make the tradition more applicable to the needs of the church is to be adjudged secondary. (4) That form of a tradition that exhibits words or phrases characteristic of a redactor whose hand is clearly traceable elsewhere in the same Gospel is to be adjudged secondary.95

To respond, Farmer's first canon is inconclusive because the Jewishness of a saying may be more related to both the particular author and his audience than to chronological development.96

The third canon is useful, but it must be used with caution because explanatory glosses may be due more to the author's audience than to chronological development. In Mark 2:7, for example, is an explanatory phrase after hlasphemei (he blasphemes), namely, tis dynatai aphienai hamartias ei me heis ho theos (Who can forgive sins except God alone?). Matthew 9:3 does not contain this explanation. It cannot be concluded, however, that Mark's text is secondary, as Farmer proposes. Mark may have added the phrase to Matthew, but it is just as plausible that Matthew deleted this phrase from Mark's Gospel because his Jewish audience would not need this explanation.

Farmer's fourth criterion is helpful, and it was used in our own analysis of Matthew and Mark. Although Farmer followed his sixteen-step plan with specific examinations of the Gospels, because of his brief discussions (for example, Mark 1:1-20 receives a mere page and a half of analysis), his work remains inadequate.

In 1969, E. P. Sanders initiated a study on the Synoptic Gospels, using the known criteria for determining secondary texts. He soon halted his study, realizing that these criteria were not as objective as he had previously thought. As a result, his study became an examination of the criteria for determining secondary texts. Which criteria are useful?9' He concluded, "There are no hard and fast laws of the development of the Synoptic tradition. On all counts the tradition developed in opposite directions.""

Although this statement is oft quoted, it should not be understood as applying to all criteria used to judge priority; it must be understood in light of the actual study that Sanders did and be taken in context. Sanders examined only three general criteria: length, amount of detail, and amount of Semitism. Thus, his conclusions cannot be applied to all criteria for determining chronological development.

A final example of a linguistic study that furthers Streeter's line of evidence was done by C. M. Tuckett in 1983.99 After an analysis of some of the criticisms of the Two-Source Hypothesis, Tuckett minutely examines numerous Gospel texts to determine which synoptic relationship hypothesis best explains these texts."" Tuckett's study is by far the most complete pericope-by-pericope analysis of Gospel texts to date. He concludes, "In the detailed examination of the wording of the individual pericopes, the results frequently suggested some form of 2DH [Two-Document Hypothesis]," and "Insofar as the 2DH can often apparently give a more coherent and consistent set of explanations of why the later changes were made (i.e., by Matthew and Luke on the 2DH), that hypothesis is to be preferred"10'

Tuckett's conclusion challenged the Two-Gospel Hypothesis to "give a more detailed explanation for Luke's and Mark's behaviour."ioz As one reads through Tuckett's study, though, one is again struck by the lack of objective controls on his redactional analysis. Certainly defenders of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis could answer many of Tuckett's explanations of the data.103

Other studies have analyzed Streeter's linguistic argument on a smaller scale: T. R. W. Longstaff, J. A. Fitzmyer, G. M. Styler, and S. McKnight, the last of whom, after examining the linguistic argument himself, concludes, "So far as I can see, the Griesbach proponents have not dealt with the most decisive argument favoring the Oxford Hypothesis, namely, the argument from primitive language. The most telling argument against the Griesbach Hypothesis is the accumulated answers to this question: which reading most likely gave rise to the other readings"; '0' and "the Griesbach proponents have yet to come up with a counter argument to the cumulative force of the linguistic

Although they contribute valuable insights, a recurring failure of these linguistic studies is the lack of objective criteria by which to judge secondary texts. "Not tens but hundreds of thousands of pages have been wasted by authors on the Synoptic Problem not paying attention to errors of method, which are extremely common." 106 A set of scientifically based criteria is needed by which to determine chronological priority in the Synoptic Gospels.

Relationship Between Text Criticism and the Synoptic Problem

Such criteria may be available. Because of the similarities between textual criticism and source criticism, text-critical criteria may be used in an analysis of the Gospel texts in an effort to determine priority. Gordon Fee said,

Textual criticism may yet have a contribution to make to the historical task. If we allow, as the majority of scholars on both sides do, that there is a direct literary relationship between any two of the Synoptists, then the kinds of questions textual criticism brings to such literary relationships are a pertinent part of the analytical task.1°'

Streeter's fourth head of evidence is, in fact, similar to many of the text-critical criteria. It has even been said that "one would expect that the same general principles which apply to scribes copying texts would also apply to Matthew and Luke copying Mark."" In other words, "that Gospel is to be preferred as having priority which best explains how the others came into existence."109

Thus, the following examination applies text-critical principles to the Gospel texts to determine priority. First, however, the precise relationship must be shown between textual criticism and the Synoptic Problem, that is, between textual criticism and source criticism. Matthew did not, after all, treat the text of Mark in the same manner as would a scribe; scribes merely transcribe a document.

But whereas scribes were merely supposed to duplicate the manuscript before them, many scribes were clearly more than just copyists. Not only did scribes make unintentional errors but also they often made intentional changes to the text they were copying.'"' Aland writes, "They [scribes] also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standards of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively"''' Peter Head agrees:

The scribes were interested in "transmission" of texts, rather than in the creation of new texts. Nevertheless the transmission of gospel texts should not be seen as a neutral activity. The scribe of the NT was a participant in the life and faith of the church, and this life and faith clearly influenced the process of transmission. The "improvements" examined here have not affected the general reliability of the transmission of the texts in any significant manner; they do, however, point to the scribe's involvement in his work understood as an act of devotion to the divine Christ."'

Thus, although the methods of scribes and those of the Evangelists differ, one may nonetheless conclude that many of the types of changes made by scribes might also have been made by the Evangelists. Because of these scribal changes, no two NT manuscripts are identical. Determining which textual variant in any given variation unit is origi nal is known as the art and science of textual criticism. As scholars saw that different texts had different readings, they began to draw up criteria by which they could determine the earliest or original reading.

These text-critical criteria are now in use by the majority of scholars and were used to determine the main NT texts used today, including the United Bible Societies' and Nestle-Aland's texts. Because these criteria are widely used and widely held to be valuable guides for determining the original reading from among multiple readings, these "scientifically" developed criteria will also be valuable for determining priority between the Synoptic Gospels.

How, then, should text-critical criteria be used? The best manner would be in a direct comparison of parallel portions of the Gospel texts, pericope after pericope. The legitimacy of such detailed comparison is nearly unanimously agreed upon in the literature. "It is now generally agreed that the only legitimate approach to the question of the relation of Matthew to Mark is the detailed comparison of their "Ultimately the problem can be solved only by minute study of the actual texts"""; "We believe that the most formally relevant evidence is ... that which consists of the results of a direct comparison of parallel passages in their respective contexts"'"; "It is right that one should examine various individual pericopes within the Gospels to see which hypothesis can best explain the texts""6 Finally, Reginald H. Fuller said, "Farmer has compelled those who accept the twodocument hypothesis to demonstrate its tenability pericope by

One important scholar, however, disagrees with this methodology. In a reply to Fuller, Farmer said, "Such a demonstration is not likely ever to be completed; the time and energy required would be virtually prohibitive. For another, there is no consensus among scholars that demonstrating the tenability of any particular hypothesis `pericope by pericope' will ever solve the Synoptic Problem."' " Tuckett replied to Farmer, "If a source hypothesis is to be accepted as a viable solution to the Synoptic Problem, then it must be capable of explaining the detailed wording of the Gospel texts of each pericope. A hypothesis which fails to account for the detailed wording within each pericope can hardly be said to be satisfactory."'"

We should add here that Farmer's student, David Dungan, agrees with his mentor:

It is methodologically incorrect to begin with this type of [analysis of texts]. As the critical apparatus of Nestle-Aland26 = UBS; clearly indicates, there was widespread intentional and/or accidental manipulation of individual words and phrases in the gospel texts in the early centuries. At the individual word level, one is so confronted by sufficient textual uncertainty that the perceived microstructural phenomena can always be explained in a variety of equally plausible ways.12'

It is not within the range of this work to defend the reliability of the transmission of the early NT texts. Consider, however, the conclusion of Peter Head, noted expert in this field, regarding his examination of early scribal changes to manuscripts: "The `improvements' examined here have not affected the general reliability of the transmission of the texts in any significant manner."12'

Therefore, despite the minority opinion to the contrary, the goal here is to analyze and compare pericope after pericope from the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, using the criteria from text criticism to determine evidence for priority."' In essence, this study is an analysis of Streeter's fourth head of evidence. Thus, this study will answer Dungan's complaint that not a single linguistic argument for Markan priority has been examined scientifically."' The examination of Matthew and Mark is undertaken because all of the experts who agree upon literary dependency between the Gospels also agree that Matthew and Mark have some type of a literary relationship-either Matthew used Mark or Mark used Matthew as a source. On the other hand, not everyone agrees that Luke and Mark have this relationship. It is possible that Luke is dependent solely upon Matthew. Thus, a study of only the Gospels of Matthew and Mark will allow us a conclusion as to either Markan or Matthean priority.

The analysis was originally initiated by examining the criteria used today by text critics. After eliminating and redefining the criteria as proposed by Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testa ment,124 it was concluded that the following criteria may be used in a study of scribal changes to Mark's Gospel, and eventually of a comparison between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. 121

1. Source variant: That variant is more original that best explains the existence of all of the others and that cannot itself be explained by the others.

2. Generally, the more difficult reading is more original.

3. The variant that is most in conformity with the author's usage elsewhere is more original.

4. The less refined grammatical form or less elegant lexical expression is more original.

5. The text that is less smooth is more original.

6. The reading that is not a harmonization is more original.

7. The reading that is less orthodox is more original because of the influence of the Christian community upon the formulation and transmission of passages, as they generally produced more orthodox readings.

One final matter must be discussed. Although the criteria give the appearance that textual criticism is a straightforward, scientific endeavor, such is not quite the case:

Textual criticism is not a branch of mathematics, nor indeed an exact science at all. It deals with a matter not rigid and constant, like lines and numbers, but fluid and variable; namely the frailties and aberrations of the human mind, and of its insubordinate servants, the human fingers. It is therefore not susceptible of hard-and-fast rules.'26

Textual criticism uses the preceding criteria, but it is important to understand that these principles are a bit slippery, and this fact points to the basic problem of textual criticism: it is not mathematically conclusive. It is an art as well as a science. 117 One must proceed cautiously and weigh the evidence carefully.

This admission does not, however, imply that textual criticism is totally subjective. The methodology can be improved, but one must remember that the criteria for determining the original text have been worked out over many centuries by many scholars.1 ' The principles of textual criticism are criteria used not solely by NT scholars for determining the original New Testament; the criteria are used by all scholars who seek to determine the original text of any written document.'w When the text-critical criteria are used properly, they "appeal to objective reasons which are strong enough to give backing to serious judgment." 130

The next step was to examine the textual apparatus of Mark, using the text-critical criteria, the purpose being to categorize the types of actual changes made by scribes to the Gospel of Mark. These categories of scribal changes were then, for the purpose of determining priority, used as a control in analyzing the differences between Matthew and Mark. The method, then, was first to examine Mark's textual apparatus to find the types of changes that scribes made to texts and then to determine which Gospel writer made the same types of changes to the other Gospel.

It is important to reiterate that this analysis of the Matthew-Mark texts follows the same text-critical criteria that were used to determine the Gospel texts. In other words, this comparison of the wording of Matthew and Mark to determine priority is not simply "psychological reflection" on what authors nearly two thousand years ago might or might not have done to other texts.131 Used herein is a known and accepted set of criteria used by the majority of all scholars for determining priority between any two texts.

An Examination of Matthew and Mark Using Text-Critical Principles for Determining Priority

After a detailed word-by-word, pericope-by-pericope study of approximately 25 percent of Mark's Gospel, the Osborne and Williams dissertation concluded, "Time and time again we saw that the differences between the texts of Matthew and Mark are best explained as secondary features in Matthew's readings in comparison to primary elements in Mark's readings"; and, "If Mark were using Matthew as his source, he used it in a manner that is unlike virtually anything that scribes did to texts as they supposedly copied these texts.""' For a complete study, the reader is best served by examining the evidence presented in the dissertation itself, but a sampling of the evidence is presented here.

First, however, consider two examples of the "least likely reading" based upon text-critical criterion as applied by Scot McKnight.'33 First, Mark 7:31 has Jesus moving from Tyre through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee by way of the "middle of the regions of the Decapolis," a difficult and roundabout journey that begins by going north to reach a destination that is southeast. Matthew (15:29) simplifies the trip by having Jesus depart from there (from the regions of Tyre and Sidon) and proceed to the Sea of Galilee. It is much more likely that Matthew simplified Mark than that Mark inexplicably complicated Matthew.' 34

Second, Mark 4:31 begins with "as" (h5s), which assumes some unnamed verb, followed by a masculine gender relative clause with a passive verb hos hotan spar( ("which when sown") and then uses a neuter gender (on) to refer back to this previous masculine relative pronoun. McKnight's conclusion does not focus on the incompetent grammar but rather assumes that the grammar is peculiar. He asks whether it is more likely that Matthew and Luke "corrected" Mark in this instance, creating a more normal construction, or that Mark took normal constructions and created a gaffe.

Following are a few examples of the text-critical argument for Markan priority as presented in the Osborne and Williams dissertation. As previously stated, 173 verses, or approximately 25 percent of Mark's Gospel, were examined. Thus, with the few examples presented here, the reader cannot-without wading through passage after passage, using text-critical questions-feel fully the weight of this argument. The reader is cautioned that these examinations are a bit cryptic without the texts of Matthew and Mark at hand for reference.

Mark 2:12. Matthew says that the paralytic apelthen eis ton oikon autou ("departed to his home"). Eis ton oikon autou ("to his home") is exactly the same wording used in the command by Jesus to the paralytic in Matthew 9:6 and Mark 2:11 (hypage eis ton oikon sou). Thus, Matthew's eis ton oikon autou makes the paralytic's actions conform perfectly with Jesus' command. Mark, on the other hand, has the paralytic departing emprosthen panton ("before them all"), which is not exactly Jesus' command. Matthew's text may, therefore, be seen as an orthodox improvement, which shows total obedience on the part of the "faithful" (kai idon ho I sous ten pistin auton, "and when Jesus saw their faith") paralytic; therefore, Mark's text is more likely the primary reading.

The ending of this pericope is totally different in Matthew than in Mark. Matthew writes ton theon ton donta exousian toiauten tois anthropois ("God, who had given such authority to men") whereas Mark has ton theon legontas hoti Houtos oudepote eidomen (God saying, `We have never seen anything like this"'). It seems, though, because of the usage of exousian (authority) in the two Gospels, that Matthew's text is dependent upon and an addition to Mark's.'"s Given the importance of the "authority" theme to Mark, it is more difficult to surmise why Mark would have eliminated authority here if he were using Matthew as his source.

Mark 2:14. Whereas Mark names the tax collector as Leuin ton tou Halphaiou ("Levi the [son] of Alphaeus"), Matthew has anthropon ... Maththaion legomenon ("man ... called Matthew"). Although it is beyond the scope of this study to do a thorough examination of this difference, some text-critical comments can be made upon it.' 16 Mark's using the name Levi the son of Alphaeus is more difficult to harmonize in this context than in Matthew. In fact, we see that some Markan scribes changed the name from Levi to James to harmonize it with Mark 3:18 (Matt. 10:3), Iakobon ton tou Halphaiou ("Jacob, the [son] of Alphaeus"). In the same way, the name Matthew is a less difficult name because it harmonizes Matthew 9:9 with Matthew 10:3, Maththaios ho telones ("Matthew, the tax collector"). If Matthew were written first, it would be difficult to understand why Mark would have changed Matthew's Matthew to Levi, given that Matthew is named as both a tax collector (10:3) and an apostle.

Mark 2:16. Mark's unique and conceptually difficult hoi grammateis On Pharisaion ("the scribes of the Pharisees") is a more difficult expression than Matthew's more normal hoi Pharisaioi ("the Pharisees"),"' because scribes and Pharisees were never joined in such a manner in the Gospels. The scribes and the Pharisees appear together nineteen times in the Gospels, but only here in Mark 2:16 are the scribes said to be a part of the Pharisaic group. It is more likely that Mark is the primary source here.

In addition, Matthew's text is less redundant than Mark because it does not contain hoti esthiei meta ton hamartolon kai telonon ("Why does he eat with sinners and tax collectors?"), which occurs immediately afterward in this same verse.'" The point, however, is not the redundancy but whether it is more logical, considering text-critical principles, that one author is redundant when using as his source another author who is not redundant.

Mark's text has hoti whereas Matthew has dia ti. Both authors probably are asking a question. But Matthew's text is more clear because Mark's hoti may also be interpreted as a recitative hoti and would pose an interpretative difficulty. 1' Although not primary evidence for Markan priority, it nevertheless is the type of evidence that appears repeatedly, making one wonder how Mark could have changed a perfectly clear phrase into a less clear phrase.

Mark 2:26. Mark's problematic phrase epi Abiathar archiereos ("when Abiathar was high priest") certainly poses more difficulties for the reader. Its absence from Matthew is perhaps an orthodox improvement. Depending upon one's interpretation of epi,140 this phrase could be a historical error because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the house of God to eat the bread of the presence. 141

Matthew's dative tois hiereusin monois ("only for the priests") following exon in ... phagein ... ei me ("it is lawful ... to eat ... except") is a more normal use and is more grammatically refined than Mark's accusative tous hiereis ("the priests") because exon in (i.e., exestin, "it is lawful") normally takes the dative case. 141 Again, at issue is not simply Mark's writing normal or good grammar versus bad grammar. Of import is his using a case that normally is not used after this particular preposition, and Mark seems to be aware of the proper case because normally he uses the dative case after exestin ("it is lawful"). Thus, if Mark were using Matthew as his source here, Mark not only disregards Matthew's more normal construction but also forgoes his own typical style. To do so would be much more difficult than simply writing such a construction with no source before his eyes.

Mark 6:22-23. Mark's naming of the girl, tes thygatros autou Hergdiados ("his daughter, Herodias"), is the more difficult to explain. Matthew's he thygater tes Hergdiados ("the daughter of Herodias") harmonizes perfectly with Mark 6:24, to metri autes ("her mother") and eliminates possible historical problems (not to mention the potential moral problem) because, as Swete says, this reading "can scarcely be anything but an error, even if a primitive one; her name was Salome and she was the grand-niece, not the daughter of Antipas" (cf. Justin, Dial. 49).14i It would be hard to understand how Mark arrived at such a reading if he were using Matthew as his source. Thus, here Matthew's version seems to be secondary.

Mark 6:26. Both Matthew and Mark call Herod ho basileus ("king"). This fact is interesting because Matthew correctly used the title tetrarch at Matthew 14: 1, a place where Mark had called Herod king. Mark's dual use of king is more difficult than is Matthew's use. One might postulate that Matthew was dependent upon Mark here at 6:26 and copied Mark's less accurate title for Herod.' It is difficult to understand why Mark would change Matthew's more accurate title for a less accurate title if he were using Matthew as a source. 141 Thus, Mark appears to be the source variant, that is, the more original.

Matthew uses the plural tous horkous ("the oaths," as Mark has here in 6:26), even though he originally used the singular form in 14:7, horkou ("oath"). This plural makes little sense unless one concludes that Matthew was using Mark as his source and copied the plural in this instance. This is the second time in this verse where Matthew shows an incongruity with a previous Matthean statement, both difficult to explain unless one concludes that Matthew has been influenced by Mark. If Matthew were not using Mark as a source, how would we explain this difficulty?

Mark 6:50-51. Between Mark 6:50 and 6:51, Matthew contains a long section about Peter's walking on the water. If Matthew were original, it is difficult to understand why Mark would have omitted these verses, especially since church tradition says that Mark used Peter as the primary source for his Gospel. Added to this point is Mark's tendency to portray the disciples negatively. Even in this Markan passage, we see this tendency at the end of the pericope. Mark has "for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened" (Mark 6:52), whereas Matthew has "and those in the boat worshipped him, saying, `Truly you are the Son of God"' (Matt. 14:33). Certainly Peter's failure in Matthew while attempting to walk on the water would have been good material for Mark, given his tendency to show the disciples in a negative light. 146 Again, Mark seems to be the source variant.

Mark 8:15. Whereas Mark has diestelleto ("cautioned"), Matthew has eipen ("said"). Mark's use of the term is more difficult to explain because neither Matthew nor Mark used diestelleto ("cautioned") in a context outside of the messianic secret, except here. Thus, Matthew's term is more contextually appropriate. 147 It is hard to imagine Mark's changing Matthew's said to caution, a word filled with messianic secret connotations.

Mark's tes zymes Her&dou ("the leaven of Herod") is definitely more difficult and rare than Matthew's tes zymes ... Saddoukaion ("the leaven of the Sadducees") because the meaning of Mark's tes zymes Hergdou ("the leaven of Herod") is uncertain. If leaven is equated with teaching, as Davies and Allison suggest, one must ask what Herod taught. Therein lies the difficulty with Mark's text.148

Mark 8:35. Mark has an followed by an indicative construction, whereas Matthew's parallel has an followed by a subjunctive. Because Matthew's version is both an assimilation of the same construction earlier in the verse and a more typical Markan and Matthean style,149 it seems more likely that Matthew has improved Mark's grammatical construction. It is less likely that Mark would have changed a more typical form to an atypical form, especially given that Mark himself had just used the more normal subjunctive form earlier in the verse (ean thel~, "whoever wishes").

Mark 12:27. Following this verse, Matthew 22:33 adds, kai akousantes hoi ochloi exeplessonto epi tg didache autou ("And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished with his teaching"). If Mark were using Matthew as his source, it is more difficult to say that Mark would have deleted this verse from his source because Mark records the same idea on five other occasions (1:22; 6:2; 7:37; 10:26; 11:18). ° In other words, the failure of Mark to use this phrase would be difficult to explain if he were dependent upon Matthew, given his theological tendency. This is exactly the type of evidence that lends weight to an argument for Markan priority.

Mark 13:14. Mark's vague hestekota hopou ou dei ("set up where it ought not to be") is written more specifically and grammatically correct in Matthew: to hrethen dia Daniel tou prophetou hestos en topq hagiq ("spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place"). Mark's text is more grammatically difficult because hestekota ("set up") does not agree in gender with its modifying noun, to bdelygma ("desolating")."' The conclusion is that Mark is primary, not because it has grammatically poor text but because using the principles of textual criticism, text that is more difficult is prior. In this case, it is Mark's text. In other words, Markan priority is not a matter of good or bad grammar but a matter of applying text-critical principles. Matthew is also more specific and less difficult because he gives more information than in Mark's veiled reference. In other words, there is less for the "reader to [mis] understand" in Matthew than in Mark.152 Mark's "vague reference" is in Matthew a "specific indication of a place of worship." I" Thus, Matthew eliminates some of the possible misunderstandings from Mark's more difficult text.

These samples show the reader how one would apply text-critical criteria in determining priority in the case of the Synoptic Problem. As was mentioned earlier, these examinations are not psychological reflections or simply possible explanations for priority. They are decisions based upon time-tested and accepted principles of textual criticism. Following is a summary of the types of changes, classified according to the criteria of textual criticism (see p. 51), that one finds when comparing Matthew and Mark.

Summary of Matthean-Markan Differences 114

1. Source variant: Mark 1:42; 2:3-4, 5; 4:11; 6:26, 41, 50; 8:19- 20, 27, 29; 9:2, 4, 7; 12:26

2. More difficult reading: Mark 1:43; 2:10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27; 4:2, 10, 12; 6:17, 19-20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 33(2x), 36, 47-48; 8:14, 15, 17-18, 29, 30, 31, 34; 9:6, 7; 12:8, 12, 16, 17, 24, 27; 13:6, 14

2A. Eliminate awkward readings: Mark 1:44; 2:9,18,22(2x); 4:2, 19; 6:33, 35, 43; 8:14, 33; 12:15, 19

2B. Eliminate possible misunderstandings or problems: Mark 1:41, 44, 45; 2:1-2, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23; 4:10, 11; 6:32, 44, 45, 49-50; 8:34; 13:14, 23, 29

3. Author's style, typical style or vocabulary: Mark 1:40(3x), 42; 2:3-4(2x), 5, 6, 12, 15, 24; 4:5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17; 6:33(2x), 34, 35,36,39-40,41,46(2x),50;8:15, 17-18, 27, 31, 34, 35, 38; 9:2, 4, 7; 12:6, 13, 15, 22, 24; 13:5, 8, 22, 23, 27, 30, 31, 32 3A. Change arbitrary style into unified style: Mark 2:6; 4:9, 18, 20; 6:45; 8:16, 20; 12:7; 13:20

4. Less refined expressions

4A. Less refined grammatical form: Mark 1:40, 41; 2:1-2, 26; 4:4(2x), 8,16, 17, 20; 6:29, 36; 8:27, 35, 36(2x); 9:7; 13:24, 25

4B. Less refined lexical expression: Mark 2:11, 22(2x); 4:6; 6:33, 46; 8:30, 31; 9:4, 5, 8, 9; 12:15, 16, 18, 19; 13:3, 16

4C. Grammatical improvements: Mark 8:28; 9:9; 13:14, 27

5. Smoother texts are later readings

5A. Make the text clearer: Mark 1:41; 2:8, 9, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24; 4:1, 10, 11, 12, 15; 6:17, 37-38, 39-40, 43, 44, 47-48, 49, 55; 8:14, 16, 21, 27(2x), 30, 31(2x); 9:7; 12:2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 23; 13:4, 5, 22, 27, 32

5B. Adding explicit subject/object: Mark 2:14, 16, 24(2x); 6:27, 37-38, 49, 50, 54; 8:14, 15, 17-18; 9:9; 12:3, 9, 14; 13:6, 18

5C. Make the text smoother: Mark 1:44; 2:10; 6:29, 47-48; 8:37; 12:1, 11, 14, 17(2x); 13:6(2x), 7

5D. Eliminate redundancy: Mark 1:40(3x), 41,42,44; 2:7(2x), 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26(2x); 4:1, 2, 3, 7, 8; 6:17, 18, 22-23(2x), 24-25, 27, 28, 29, 36, 37-38, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56; 8:19, 27, 28; 9:1, 2, 3; 12:7, 14, 19, 21, 23(2x), 27; 13:6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28

6. Harmonization/assimilation: Mark 2:11; 4:5,7,8,16; 6:20(2x), 22-23, 41; 8:17-18, 35, 37; 9:1, 3, 7; 12:6, 7, 15, 19, 25, 26; 13:16, 21, 31

7. Orthodox readings: Mark 1:41,43,45; 2:7, 8, 12, 15, 26; 4:13; 6:37-38; 8:22-23

7A. Later Christian community changes: Mark 4:10; 6:35,45; 8:31; 12:8

8. Others

8A. Add or delete personal pronouns: Mark 2:9, 17; 6:29, 56; 8:17-18, 28; 12:1, 15

8B. Insignificant stylistic/synonym changes: Mark 1:41, 44; 2:11, 19, 21; 6:39-40, 41; 9:1, 8, 9; 12:19; 13:22, 25

8C. Theologically motivated change: Mark 2:3-4,17,22,26; 4:13; 6:37-38,46,49, 51-52, 56; 8:27, 38; 9:1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10; 12:1, 3, 11, 14, 21, 26; 13:7, 18, 26

Conclusions to the Use of Text-Critical Criteria for Finding a Solution to the Synoptic Problem

Detailed comparisons of Matthew and Mark for all of the data that are seen in the preceding summary are not provided here. But the Osborne and Williams dissertation reaches some general conclusions after comparing approximately 25 percent of Mark's Gospel with Matthew's, using text-critical criteria for determining priority:155

1. Text-critical arguments clearly and consistently support Markan priority and Matthean posteriority. Markan priority must nevertheless be examined in any particular example because there may be sporadic instances of primary readings in Matthew. 15' The conclusion that just as the Nestle-Aland text is accepted as the original text,151 Markan priority is accepted, with a few exceptions.

2. The kinds of readings in Matthew in comparison to Mark are the kinds of readings one finds in Mark's apparatus in comparison to Mark's text. In other words, Markan scribes made the same types of changes to Mark's Gospel as did Matthew, if he used Mark's text as a source. On the other hand, assuming that Mark used Matthew's text as a source, the same types of scribal changes were not found. Thus, it is more likely that Matthew used Mark's text rather than vice versa. Is Matthew a scribe? Yes and no. His purported changes to Mark's Gospel are scribelike in their improvements. But many of Matthew's changes to Mark's text are the result of Matthew's being a theological rewriter of Mark's text and not just a copyist who makes minor changes or improvements here or there.158 "Matthew and Luke, it must be realized, were not mere scribes commissioned to produce an accurate copy of a particular ms.; they were historians combining and freely rewriting their authorities." "9

3. Anyone who uses the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and does not agree with Markan priority is inconsistent because the same text-critical arguments that were used to establish the present Nestle-Aland text also establish that Matthew has secondary readings and Mark has original readings. Text-critical criteria "so consistently move in the direction of Marcan priority that one is compelled either to adopt the Oxford Hypothesis or jettison text-critical procedures in use by all scholars today! 1160

This last statement is important, for both proponents of other literary solutions to the Synoptic Problem and those who hold that the Gospels are literarily independent. Authors who claim that no Synoptic Problem exists because they were written independently use the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament; such a use is logically inconsistent."'

Problems for the Two-Source Hypothesis

Despite the evidence given, one should not think that Markan priority is an assured result. Problems exist, of course, for the MH. The best-known problem is the so-called "minor" agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (see p. 68 regarding Q), that is, occasions where Matthew and Luke have the same reading against Mark, possibly suggesting some level of dependence between Matthew and Luke. Various proposals have been suggested to explain these agreements.

First, several scholars have posited an Ur-Gospel or earlier form of Mark's Gospel used by Matthew and Luke. Such is not likely because the existence of an Ur-Gospel is posited entirely on these particular passages with little other evidence.'62 Having said this, however, it is possible that in given instances the present text of Mark that we have may be different than the "Mark" that Matthew and Luke used.

Second, it is possible that many of these Matthew-Luke agreements might simply be the result of independent alterations to Mark's text that happened to agree, for instance, turning some of Mark's historic present tenses into past tenses.

Third, Tuckett adds that on other occasions Mark may have overlapped with another tradition used by Matthew and Luke (e.g., Q), which could explain phenomena in the temptation narrative, the mustard seed parable, and the Beelzebul controversy.'' This explanation was one of the favorites of Streeter, who thought that Mark and Q overlapped in some fifty verses, many of which resulted in the more original reading's being in Matthew's text.'64 Although this explanation cannot account for all of the data, it nonetheless remains a possibility that Matthew and Luke used Q material that was very similar but slightly different than Mark's material. This proposed overlap of Mark and Q has been dubbed the "blessed overlap" by the proponents of the Griesbach Hypothesis, a reference to the "magical" appearance of Q passages that happen to parallel Mark in a more primitive form.

A fourth possible solution for the apparent Matthew-Luke agreements is founded upon some of these passages' containing textcritical problems; thus, they must be considered carefully.

Finally, some scholars eliminate the problem altogether by suggesting that Luke knew and depended upon Matthew as a source."' This solution, however, brings with it greater problems than those encountered by the "minor agreements," as will be discussed below.

Stein notes Stoldt's estimate of 272 such agreements, placing them into two categorizes: agreements in omission (180 of them) and agreements in grammar and editing (most of the rest). 161 Stein then singles out the most problematic passages that cannot be set aside as coincidental editorial changes, such as Mark 1:7-8; 2:12; 3:24, 26-29; 5:27; 6:33; 9:2-4, 18-19; 14:65, 72; and parallels. On the whole, Stein sees the solution to minor agreements as a combination of coincidences that occurred during the redaction of Markan material, the overlapping of Mark and Q, textual corruption, the use of a different version of Mark's Gospel, and overlapping oral traditions. In a subsequent article, Stein uses John as an example of the latter. In those places where John agrees with one of the synoptics, no one believes that John was written first. Rather, most scholars assume a common oral tradition or perhaps some Johannine knowledge of the synoptic tradition. This argument is even stronger when one notes that John has material in common sometimes with all three synoptics, sometimes with two synoptics, and sometimes with one synoptic. 167 That is to say, all kinds of minor agreements exist between John and each of the Synoptic Gospels, yet very few scholars think that a direct literary dependence exists between them.

Although the problem of the minor agreements is usually raised by the proponents of the Griesbach Hypothesis to show a weakness of Markan priority, one must not think that the minor agreements are problematic for only the proponents of Markan priority. As Tuckett has shown, the Griesbach Hypothesis also has a hard time explaining these agreements between Matthew and Luke because, Tuckett claims, in these instances Mark chose not to follow both of his two sources. Tuckett concludes, "Overall, the 2DH (Two-Document Hypothesis) can often give a more coherent explanation of these agreements than can the GH (Griesbach Hypothesis).""' One example will suffice: both Matthew 21:23 and Luke 20:1 describe Jesus as "teaching." Mark 11:27, the parallel, however, does not have "teaching" Although Griesbach proponents point out the minor agreement here between Matthew and Luke as evidence that Luke was dependent upon Matthew, one must see that Mark chose not to follow this concurrent testimony, which is, according to Griesbach himself, the normal practice of Mark. In addition, given the theological tendency of Mark to emphasize Jesus as teacher, it is even more difficult to explain Mark's conduct in this particular example.

Several other problems must be considered by those who accept the Two- or Four-Source Hypothesis."' First, the Four-Source Hypothesis is much more complex (positing Q, M, and L as sources) than the Two-Gospel Hypothesis (which simply has the three Gospels relating to each other, with no other supposed documents). Griesbach proponents suggest that one should choose a theory that has two simple steps rather than "one which invents numerous imaginary `lost sources,' multiple `lost versions of the Gospels,' hypothetical `lost recensions' of Q, etc., to explain the literary data" 10 Although the Two-Gospel Hypothesis is a simpler solution, one must ask if the data of the Synoptic Gospels require a simple or a complex solution. In fact, even the proponents of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis admit that the Evangelists used sources. On many occasions, advocates of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis admit that Luke might have had access to another ordered source in addition to Matthew. "If this is the case, it becomes highly questionable how `simple' the Two-Gospel Hypothesis really is""' Although an overly complex solution might not have merit,"' the data might, indeed, require a more complex solution."' Furthermore, Downing concludes that the compositional conventions of the first century "rule out as impossibly complex the procedures presupposed but unstated in every proposed `solution' of the Synoptic Problem other than the two-document hypothesis.""' In other words, Downing has shown that the exacting and tedious procedure that the Two-Gospel Hypothesis requires of Mark-here taking a word from Matthew and here from Luke, here following the order of Matthew and here that of Luke-has no parallel in the use of sources by authors of Mark's day. Thus, while the Two-Gospel Hypothesis claims to be the simpler solution to the Synoptic Problem, Downing has shown that this "simple" solution is, in fact, an impossible solution.

The second problem to be considered by Two- or Four-Source proponents is that the evidence from the church fathers unanimously favors the priority of Matthew. This "fact" is usually used as one of the two main pillars of evidence for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Tuckett has shown, however, that much of the evidence from the church fa thers is rather ambiguous. He concludes, "It is thus probably highly precarious to build too much on an isolated sentence whose meaning is so uncertain.""' Thus, one must study the patristic evidence carefully before making dogmatic conclusions. In addition, such patristic testimony apparently points to a Hebrew version of Matthew and not to our current Matthew. 116 For these reasons, one must use caution when considering the order in which the Gospels were written as stated by the fathers. But even if we agree with the order that is normally claimed as being approved by the church fathers, this order also creates a problem for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis because the Fathers (apart from Clement) favored the order Matthew-Mark-Luke (the Augustinian Hypothesis) over Matthew-Luke-Mark (the Two-Gospel Hypothesis). So the patristic evidence, in essence, does not favor either the Two-Source or the Two-Gospel Hypotheses. Having said that, one must also conclude that Matthean priority was not accepted based upon a careful comparison of the texts themselves but apparently upon other reasons.

The third problem concerns material that appears in Mark but not in Luke and Matthew (e.g., the disciples' hardness of heart, the statement that Jesus' family thought that He had lost His mind in 3:20-21, the seed growing secretly in 4:26-29, or Luke's "great omission" of Mark 6:45-8:26), and it has caused some scholars to posit an UrMarkus that did not contain these passages."' But this is hardly a major difficulty, for if Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources, even more omissions would occur. It is one thing, for example, to explain from a Griesbach Hypothesis perspective why Mark did not use Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. It is even more difficult to explain why Mark did not follow both Matthew and Luke in the large quantity of shared material from the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, especially given that Mark's normal methodology was to use material that is common to both Matthew and Luke.

Fourth are cases of Markan redundancy, supposedly the result of Markan conflation of Matthew and Luke (places where Mark has duplicate expressions, whereas Matthew has one element and Luke the other). For instance,

Owen-Griesbach supporters posit it as being more likely that Mark collated Matthew and Luke rather than Matthew's and Luke's having by chance adopted different aspects of the redundancy. But Mark has many such redundant expressions (213 in all, see above), and it seems a feature of his style more than a collation of his sources.'78 Indeed, as was mentioned earlier, Tuckett points out that only 17 of the 213 cases of duplicate expressions have the potential to be explained as conflation of Matthew and Luke. 179

As Blomberg points out, however, although difficulties are noted, everyone in the debate agrees that the only way to establish the probable theory is to demonstrate "consistent and significant patterns of redaction-both stylistic and theological" behind the theory.180 Such has been demonstrated with Markan priority but not with Matthean.18' The Independence View also needs to produce some major works that demonstrate the viability of their position through actual exegetical insight.

The Existence and Meaning of Q

As was mentioned earlier, the great challenge to Markan priority has been the so-called "minor agreements" between Matthew and Luke against Mark, as well as the supposed existence of Q182 (Schleiermacher penned this as the Quelle or "source"). I" No mention exists of such a document in ancient sources, and no Q manuscript has ever been found (although the gospel of Thomas, discovered in 1945, is at least a similar document, consisting of a collection of sayings of Jesus)."' Q has been "fabricated" from the Two- or Four-Source Hypothesis to explain those verses containing sayings of Jesus that are found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark (called the Double-Tradition). 115 The quantity of verses that are included in Q varies. Proponents of the Two-Source Hypothesis tend, in general, to find less Q material: Hawkins lists 131 agreements, Stoldt 277, de Solages 393, Stoldt 57, Fitzmyer 6, and Neirynck 770.186 Originally, Q was a simple theory to account for the sayings material common to Matthew and Luke. In the past few decades, however, some widely divergent views have emerged, many of them the result of the growing belief that Q was not just a tradition but a community with a particular Christology.

According to Blomberg, one can distinguish five different understandings of the Q community: (1) One group believes Q originated in a community that portrayed Jesus as an itinerant preacher and a sage modeled after the countercultural, wandering cynic philosophers of the first century (Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, and others in the Jesus Seminar). (2) Others say the original community pictured Jesus more generally as a wisdom preacher and sage who proclaimed love for enemies and concern for the socially downtrodden (John Kloppenborg, Arland Jacobsen, James Robinson). Both groups reject any apocalyptic notions in the Q community. (3) Still others believe Jesus was presented as a wisdom teacher and prophet calling people to repentance in light of the coming end of the world (Christopher Tuckett, David Catchpole, Dale Allison). (4) Q is a community but has a Christology just as high as in the Synoptic Gospels (Edward Meadors, Alan Kirk). (5) Behind Q lie oral traditions, rather than finished documents, with no special final theology or community beliefs (I. Howard Marshall, Frans Neirynck).187

Although the speculative nature of some of the Q studies and hypotheses of Q communities is off-putting, there is likelihood that Q did, indeed, exist as an oral tradition and, even more likely, as a document. Such a conclusion is based on the following four reasons: (1) the likelihood of literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, (2) Markan priority, (3) the presence of material common to Matthew and Luke, and (4) the likelihood that Luke does not use Matthew. The first three reasons have already been discussed. Regarding the fourth, the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, of course, argues strongly that Luke, in fact, does use Matthew.'88 But does the evidence support this? In their infancy narratives and genealogies, Matthew and Luke have little connection. In addition, as Bock notes, the Matthean discourses are often "broken up and spread across Luke rather randomly when considered from the Matthean angle.""' This rearrangement of material is difficult to explain if Luke was using Matthew as a source, and the rearrangement clashes with Luke's careful handling of Mark (assuming, of course, that Luke used Mark as a source). Why would Luke have disrupted Matthew's order? Material from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is found in various locations in Luke's Gospel, and material from Matthew's Mission Discourse is found in seven different locations in Luke."' For this reason, most believe that Luke has faithfully followed Q, while Matthew has collected much of it into his five discourses. Also, if Luke were using the Matthean discourses, surely he would have used more of the incredible material from the Sermon on the Mount, the Mission Discourse, or the Olivet Discourse.

Furthermore, Luke does not use most of Matthew's modifications to Mark from Markan material, such as the expansive tribute to Peter as the "rock" (Matt. 16:16-19) or the exception clause in the divorce saying (Matt. 19:9). Stein goes so far as to say that Matthew's additional material to the triple tradition is, with a few minor exceptions, "`never' found in Luke.."191 Why does Luke not reproduce the longer form of the Beatitudes or the Lord's Prayer? If Luke were using Matthew, these and other passages would probably be included, considering that some of this special Matthean material fits in very well with Lukan theology. The visit of the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12, for example, fits in very well with the Lukan emphasis on Gentiles and outsiders. Dungan, in fact, states, "Some of Matthew's main themes needed modification if the Gospel were to address the needs and concerns of the wider Hellenistic world. Thus, the 2GH suggests that Luke is a revision of Matthew along more universalistic lines."92 This assertion makes it all the more difficult to explain Luke's motives if he were using Matthew as a source.

The preceding arguments make it unlikely that Luke was using Matthew, but they could explain the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke by positing mutual dependence upon independent oral traditions rather than on a common written source. The possibility of an oral source increases when one considers that many of the passages that would have depended upon Q contain significant differ ences (e.g., Matt. 7:21, 24-27 = Luke 6:46-49). The passage is obviously the same story, but the wording is very different. For this reason, some scholars suggest that different versions of Q existed, referring to the different versions as Q` and Q'-k ivs

But while many of the Q passages have quite different wording (e.g., Matt. 7:21, 24-27 = Luke 6:46-49), several have nearly identical wording (e.g., Matt. 6:24 = Luke 16:13; Matt. 11:21-23a = Luke 10:13-15). The following two examples may be given.

These two texts are very similar in both content and word order. Indeed, the parallel texts of the second of the preceding examples are almost identical in English and have only four minor differences in Greek. Would Matthew and Luke contain this degree of similarity if they had used an oral source? One could argue that because these passages are sayings of Jesus the Messiah and considering the capacity to memorize found in antiquity, the two Evangelists are dependent even here upon an oral tradition.194

Recent articles, however, such as Carlson and Norlin's analysis of the Q material, raise convincing arguments that Q may have been an actual written document. '91 The sayings in Matthew and Luke do have, as was mentioned earlier, a certain connected nature, and given the prevalence of such collected wisdom sayings in the ancient world (e.g., Kloppenborg, Formation of Q), it would be strange if the early Christians did not at some time develop such a collection of Jesus' sayings. 116

Evidence for a written source is provided by Hawkins, who noted many peculiar phrases that occur in Matthew and Luke and reasoned that it would be logical to think that at least one of the Evangelists would have altered the wording of an oral tradition, using a more common expression. Hawkins's examples of such peculiar phrases include hikanos hina (Q 7:6), eipe logq (Q 7:7), en gennetois gynaikon (Q 7:28), phobethete apo (Q 12:4), homologes~ en (Q 12:8).197 To this list may be added various verbs that are rare or unattested in the LXX and the rest of the New Testament: amphiennumi (Q 7:25), saroo (Q 11:25), and dichotomeo (Q 12:46).195 That both Matthew and Luke contain these rare words and expressions increases the likelihood of a written rather than an oral source behind the Double-Tradition.

One additional line of persuasive evidence remains, however, that Q may have been a written source: another group of sayings in the DoubleTradition does follow the same chronological order. Stanton notes the following Lukan passages that "appear in Matthew in the same order: 3:7-9, 16-17; 4:1-13; 6:20b-21, 22-23, 29, 30, 32-35, 36, 37-38, 4142, 43-44, 46, 47-49; 7:1-10, 18-23, 24-26, 27, 28, 31-34, 35"'99 Kloppenborg, too, concludes that approximately 85 percent of the Q passages follow the same order .21 This parallelism in order makes it unlikely that Matthew and Luke were following independent traditions or, for that matter, exclusively oral traditions. In short, Q seems to be a uniform tradition, probably a written document. And this written document-plausibly if not certainly-accounts for those passages in the Double-Tradition that follow the same order.

Some scholars have noted that the sayings of the Double-Tradition have similar theological themes and similar style. Is there a way to determine the actual contents or form of Q? Not in the way that many of the so-called Q specialists (e.g., Mack, Kloppenborg, Jacobson, Robinson) perceive it. Determining a Q community or a sitz im leben ("situation in life") or a history of tradition for such a hypothetical document is too fanciful a theory to accept. To do so becomes offensive, especially when some describe a Q community that does not know an apocalyptic or messianic Jesus or a suffering redeemer. What can be done, however, is to study Q as found in Matthew and Luke. Decisions regarding original form are as difficult in the Double-Tradition as they are in the triple tradition, for redaction can go many different directions. It is relatively simple, however, to suggest the primary themes and types. Using Luke as the basis, Allison notes five sections of Q material: (1) stories of John and Jesus (3:7-9, 16-17; 4:1-13; 6:20-49; 7:1-10, 18-35); (2) stories of Jesus and the disciples (9:57-62; 10:2-3, 8-16, 21-24; 11:213); (3) controversies with Israel (11:14-36, 42-52; 12:2-3; 13:3435); (4) the Father's care for His own (12:2-12, 22-32); (5) miscellaneous parenetic material with parables and exhortations (12:33-40, 42-56, 58-59; 13:18-21, 23-30; 14:11; 14:4-7,16-24, 26, 27, 34-35; 16:13, 16-18; 17:1-4, 6; 19:12-16; 22:28-30, 37).201 Bock suggests three main themes-introducing Jesus alongside John, mission and wisdom exhortation for disciples, and eschatologyand several main groups-the Baptist and Jesus, Jesus and His disciples, possibly Jesus and His opponents, practical aphorisms, and the future. Bock then concludes, "[A]lthough one can make a case for Q's existence and define the key elements of its character, its compositional history is likely to remain a mystery to us °'202

Indeed, a discussion of the supposed theology and contents of the Q material is beyond this chapter's principal task of showing the probability of the MH.213

McKnight points out three problems with the Q hypothesis:

(1) Problems with speculative theories. "Scholars have inferred a Q tradition to a Q document to a Q genre, from a Q document to a Q author and his community, from a Q author and his community to redactional layers and theological ideas of the Q author(s) and his (their) community(ies), even to the point that some scholars have convinced themselves that the Q community moved several times."204 Even more surprising about supposed conclusions concerning the Q community and theology of the different editions of Q is the confidence with which these conclusions are being posited.205 This emphasis on creativity over substance is a stumbling block. In accepting Q's existence, however, one does not have to accept all of the fanciful theories that have been proposed.

(2) Problems with original wording. The differences between Matthew and Luke (e.g., the long and short forms of the Lord's Prayer; "finger" or "Spirit" of God in Matt. 12:28 = Luke 11:20) make it impossible to determine the original wording, and in many cases there may well have been two or more occasions on which Jesus spoke, rather than His speaking one common saying. Obviously, a theory of redactional choices (as is true with Markan or Matthean priority as well) is needed to account for the differences.

(3) Differences in order. As was stated earlier, some passages in Matthew and Luke follow the same order, but many others do not. The final three sections of Allison's list above exhibit the greatest change in order. There, many of the passages may not be from Q alone but represent different sayings of Jesus.

M and L: The Other Sources

Finally, a word must be said about material that is peculiar to Matthew and Luke and that is generally referred to by the symbols M and L, respectively. Streeter postulated written documents for these two sources, saying that M was written in Jerusalem and L was written in Caesarea in approximately A.D. 60. The majority of scholars view his dates and locations as speculative. Whether these "sources" are written documents or a collection of oral and/or written traditions is still debated.

The existence of L is fairly likely, because in 1:2 Luke states clearly that he used more than one source in writing his Gospel.'-" So L is a convenient symbol for those sources from which he derived those pericopes peculiar to his Gospel-for instance, the infancy narratives,207 several stories in the travel narrative, and the Emmaus Road journey (564 verses in all). Some scholars have posited that much of the foregoing was composed before Luke had become familiar with Mark and so was a "Proto-Luke" (B. H. Streeter, 1924; Vincent Taylor, 1926). Such postulations are, however, both speculative and unnecessary. Guthrie breaks the material down into (1) the nativity material (1:5-2:52), possibly from a Semitic source to explain the Hebraic style; (2) parables (7:41-43; 10:29-37; 11:5-8; 12:13-21; 13:6-9; 14:28-33; 15:8-32; 16:1-9, 19-31; 17:7-10; 18:1-14); and (3) narrative, which itself is categorized as the Galilean period (4:1630; 5:1-1 1; 7:11-17, 36-50; 8:1-3), the "travel narrative" (9:51-56; 10:1-16, 38-42; 11:27-28; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; 17:1-19; 19:1-10), the passion narratives (22:15-30, 40-53; 22:54-23:31; 23:39-43), and the resurrection narratives (24:1-53).201 Much of the distinctive content and theology of Luke is, of course, found in the L material, including fourteen unique parables, many stories about women, warnings about riches, and Luke's special emphasis on prayer.209

The existence of M material (333 verses in all) is more difficult to determine, for if the tradition that it was written by the apostle Matthew is correct (as we believe), then Blomberg is right in saying that M might well stand for "memory. "210 As with the L material, scholars have posited a pre-Matthean written document that contained much of the M material, which had a strong Jewish-Christian nature and was highly polemical toward the scribes and Pharisees.21 Guthrie divides this material into (1) a sayings collection with a strong Jewish character (4:11; 10:9-15; 12:22-32; 13:1-32; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 21:28-32; 22:11-14; 25:1-33); (2) the book of testimonies, made up of OT fulfillment citations (1:23; 2:6, 15, 18, 23; 3:3; 4:15-16; 8:17; 12:18-21; 13:35; 21:5; 27:9); (3) the birth narratives (1-3); and (4) other narratives that could be divided into Petrine stories (14:28-31; 16:17-19; 17:24-27; 18:15-22), passion and resurrection stories (26:52-54; 27:3-10, 19, 24f., 51-53, 62-66; 28:2-4, 9-20), and miscellaneous stories (3:14f.; 4:23; 9:35; 15:22-24; 17:6f., 21:1Of., 14-16).212 Guthrie does not, however, classify all of the M material; he has not included, for example, the antitheses of 5:21-48, where Jesus is presented as the authoritative giver of the Law.213

Obviously, M and L are little more than symbols for a wide range of sayings and narrative material peculiar to each Gospel. Still, they are handy and probably accurate symbols for that special material. But arguments that they were individual documents similar to Q are singularly unconvincing.

Conclusion

For many people, discussions about the Synoptic Problem, Markan priority, Q, etc., are irrelevant and another example of the impractical nature of academic studies. But the relationship of the Gospels to one another is not a trivial matter but relevant for matters of apologetics, exegesis, and the theology of the individual Gospels.214 It makes a difference whether Mark used Matthew or vice versa, or whether the Gospels were written independently of one another. Any of the views represented in this volume are viable; the only question is which is more plausible or more likely. No view can claim certainty, a circumstance to be expected in historical matters. As in most interpretive issues (such as the meaning of verses or many doctrinal issues such as the rapture question or predestination), we can at best determine the theory with the greatest likelihood (or the one with the fewest problems). On the basis of data from the Gospels themselves, the evidence points to the Four-Source Hypothesis as the more probable theory, namely, that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as well as their own sources (M and L) in producing their Gospels.

The determination of the correctness of this solution is based upon the evidence, and not upon theological predisposition, rhetoric sometimes used by proponents of the other theories notwithstanding, that those who follow the Two-Source Hypothesis do so based upon the influence of German liberal scholarship from the past century. As evidence against some proponents of the Griesbach Hypothesis camp who bring to light supposedly hidden motives and agendas are the many valuable studies of the synoptic texts, as was discussed earlier. In other words, the history of the Synoptic Problem bears little relevance today because of the extensive studies that have been performed on the Synoptic Problem.

Some proponents of the Independence View suggest that a conclusion that points to any kind of literary dependence is, by definition, a theologically dangerous position. The important issue, however, is the correct solution to the relationship between the Synoptics. The solution that correctly affirms what the Evangelists historically did as they wrote their Gospels would be the correct solution, and not necessarily the solution that labels a literary relationship between the Gospels as dangerous. The position of literary independence is not, by definition, a "superior response"215 but one of many different conclusions derived from the evidence. Could it not be possible that the Evangelists, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the available gospels as sources for their writing? Would this be all that different than using oral traditions to help them organize their thoughts and compose a Gospel that gives honor to the risen Messiah?

Championing a particular synoptics hypothesis is not, as Linnemann believes, an either-or theological issue: "Either we follow our Lord Jesus in our theological work and cling loyally to his Word, or we pursue theology in the train of poets and philosophers who are declared enemies of our Lord Jesus."216 If, indeed, the Evangelists used the other Gospels as literary sources, one must conclude that to interpret these Gospels without seeing and taking into account this literary relationship would be hermeneutically and theologically incorrect. If the Synoptic Gospels are, indeed, literarily dependent upon one another, we, the proponents of various hypotheses, can be loyal to the Word of God only by seeing this fact and by interpreting in light of this fact. If the Synoptic Gospels are, indeed, dependent and we claim that they are not, then we are not following the Lord Jesus in our theological work.

To reiterate, then, the evidence points toward the Four-Source Hypothesis as the more probable theory. At the same time, it is a working hypothesis, and not an absolute conclusion, to be held humbly until further evidence is brought to light.

Endnotes

1. Cited in Dale C. Allison Jr., "A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology," Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 113 (1994): 667.

2. See the list of recent conferences (from 1970-1984) in W. R. Farmer, ed., New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Conference and Beyond (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), vii-xxiii. The most recent conference was the Symposium at Southeastern Theological Seminary held in May 2000, the fruits of which have been published in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. David Alan Black and David Beck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001).

3. At the beginning of the bibliographical section on the Synoptic Problem, Scot McKnight and Matthew C. Williams, The Synoptic Gospels: An Annotated Bibliography, IBR (Institute of Biblical Research) Bibliographies, no. 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 37, write, "The number of studies devoted to the Synoptic Problem is immense and no longer controllable."

4. An early historical survey of the Synoptic Problem along with evidence for the Griesbach Hypothesis may be found in Wilhelm Martin Leberecht deWette, Lehrbuch der historisch kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen Bucher des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1826), 128-71. More modern historical surveys include David L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition and the Interpretation of the Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1999); and W. R. Farmer, "The Present State of the Synoptic Problem," photocopied from www.bham.ac.uk (an earlier version appeared in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson [Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998], 11-36). See also Robert L. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001); C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (SNTSMS) 44 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 37; Bo Ivar Reicke, "The History of the Synoptic Discussion," in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M. E. Boismard-W. R. Farmer-F Neirynck. Jerusalem 1984, ed. David L. Dungan (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 291-316; Bo Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 1-23; Hans-Herbert Stoldt, Geschichte and Kritik der Markushypothese (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), ed., English translation: History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, trans. and ed. Donald L. Niewyk (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1980); E. Earle Ellis, "Gospels Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art," in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 33-37; W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Dillsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina, 1976), 1-198; and H. J. Meijboom, A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis 1835-1866, trans. and ed. J. J. Kiwiet, New Gospel Studies 8 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1993), 9-96.

5. Because of the numerous views, not all solutions to the Synoptic Problem will be examined. Not included, for example, are Lukan priority solutions, such as Robert L. Lindsey, "A New Approach to the Synoptic Gospels," Mishkan 17, no. 18 (1992): 87-106, who suggests that Luke was the first written Gospel, followed by Mark and then Matthew, all of which were dependent upon an earlier Greek translation of a Hebrew document. Cf. his "A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence," Novum Testamentum (NovT) 6 (1963): 239-63.

6. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6.14.5. Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987 [all page numbers in what follows will be from the 1987 edition of Stein]), 16, though, mentions Tatian (c. 110-172) as the first serious attempt to resolve the problems of unity and diversity in the Gospels.

7. Henry Owen, Observations on the Four Gospels; Tending Chiefly, to Ascertain the Times of Their Publication; and to Illustrate the Form and Manner of Their Composition (London: St. Martin's, 1764). J. J. Griesbach, "Commentatio qua Marci Evangeluim totum e Matthaei et Lucae Commentariis Decerptum esse monstratur," in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976, ed. Bernard Orchard and T. R. W. Longstaff (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 74-102; English translation may be found in Bernard Orchard, "A Demonstration That Mark Was Written After Matthew and Luke (A translation of J. J. Griesbach's Commentatio qua Marci Evangeluim totum e Matthaei et Lucae Commentariis Decerptum esse monstratur)," in J. J. Griesbach, 103-35. For a study that shows that Griesbach was dependent upon Owen for the basis of his theory, see Matthew C. Williams, "The OWEN Hypothesis: An Essay showing that it was Henry Owen who first formulated the so-called `Griesbach Hypothesis"' Journal of Higher Criticism 7 (2000): 126-58.

8. See bibliography in Stoldt, Geschichte and Kritik der Markushypothese, 265-67.

9. See bibliography in William Sanday, Studies in the Synoptic Problem: By Members of'the University of Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911); John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem, 2d rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968); Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew, 3d ed., International Critical Commentary (ICC) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912); The Gospel According to Saint Mark with Introduction and Notes (The Oxford Church Biblical Commentary; London: Rivingtons, 1915); Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates (New York: Macmillan, 1925).

10. V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, part 2, The Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 30-31.

11. Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der LebenJesu-Forschung (Tubingen: Mohr, 1906), 201.

12. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London: Macmillan, 1952), 11.

13. David G. Buttrick, ed., Jesus and Man's Hope, vol. 1, A Perspective Book (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970), 7-8.

14. 0. Lamar Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series (CBQMS) 5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976), 5 n. 25. Markan priority is still assumed in many circles. In the Matthew Seminar at the Society of Biblical Literature annual meetings in both 1994 (Chicago) and 1995 (Philadelphia), nearly every paper was presented under the presupposition of Markan priority (for example, Frances T. Gench, "A Response to Donald J. Verseput's `The Davidic Messiah and Matthew's Jewish Christianity,"' [Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, 1995, photocopied]). See also, for example, Graham N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; Louisville: WJKP, 1992), 51: "After a century of discussion of the synoptic problem, Matthew's dependence on Mark is the single most assured result."

15. B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951).

16. J. Bernard Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark, The Griesbach Solution to the Synoptic Question I (Manchester: Koinonia, 1976); Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study in the Synoptic Problem, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series (SBLDS) 28 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1977).

17. W. R. Farmer's "A `Skeleton in the Closet' of Gospel Research," Biblical Research 6 (1961): 18-42, was his foundational work prior to The Synoptic Problem. See also Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Scripture, and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), for a historical reconstruction of the events that led up to the writing of the Gospels. While Farmer has provided a useful historical summary in The Synoptic Problem, overstatements abound. He says, for example, concerning the influence of the Ur-Gospel theory and Schleiermacher's interpretation of Papias's Logia on the Two-Source Hypothesis, "Without these two ideological presuppositions, pure products of the creative imagination of Lessing and Schleiermacher, the Marcan hypothesis ... would probably never have been accepted by New Testament scholars acquainted with the realities of the Synoptic Problem." Such statements by Farmer falsely suggest that there are no precise linguistic data upon which the Two-Source theory was founded.

Critiques of Farmer's monograph are abundant. Perhaps the most important are those by C. M. Tuckett, "The Griesbach Hypothesis in the 19th Century," Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT) 3 (1979): 2960; idem, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, esp. 9-11; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Priority of Mark and the `Q' Source in Luke," in Jesus and Man's Hope, 131-70. Fitzmyer says, "Though [Farmer] sets out to 'investigate the history of the Synoptic problem,' the number of American, English, French, and German writers who have dealt with some phase of the Synoptic question and who are passed over in silence is surprising. Farmer proposed to write a `critical review of the history of the Synoptic problem,' but it has turned out to be a sketch interlaced with value judgments and remarks of a `non-scientific' or `extra-scientific' character" (160). Tuckett agreed: "In fact a study of the history of the debate in this period does not support Farmer's claims." He continues, "[T]he study of the history of research can have only limited value in seeking to solve the Synoptic problem today" (Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 7). Sherman E. Johnson, The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 41 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 4, said it well: "The Two Document Hypothesis is now defended by scholars who represent a wide variety of theological positions, so that [Farmer's] observations are not very relevant to the present state of the debate." In other words, no matter how the Two-Source Hypothesis began, one must examine the present evidence for the theory.

18. A full bibliography of Farmer's works before 1988 may be found in Longstaff and Thomas, The Synoptic Problem: A Bibliography, 1716-1988, New Gospel Studies 4 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988), 42-47.

19. William O. Walker, ed., The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion 5 (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978), 3.

20. Farmer, New Synoptic Studies, xx. See the original version in "The Shaking of the Synoptics: A Report on the Cambridge Conference on the Synoptic Gospels, August 1979," Reformed Theological Review 39 (1980): 33-39.

21. While Stoldt, History of the Marcan Hypothesis, 248, includes B. H. Streeter in the multiple-source camp; this present work does not.

22. L. Vaganay, Le Probleme Synoptique: Une Hyopthesa de Travail, Bibliotheque de Theologie Serie III, Theologie Biblique I (Paris: Descle & Co., 1954). German "multiple-source" scholars may be found in Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, 248. Further bibliography may be found in Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr., ed., The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985), 11 nn. 17-20.

23. Boismard, "Theorie des Niveaux Multiples," 231-43. His solution is very complex: he believes that our Matthew is independent of our Mark, and is instead dependent upon an earlier version of our Matthew and Mark. Responses by Boismard to the theories of the Two-Source and Two-Gospel Hypotheses can also be found in this monograph (259-65 and 265-88, respectively). See also his "The Two-Source Theory at an Impasse," New Testament Studies (NTS) 26 (1979): 1-17. Cf. Philippe Rolland, "Les Predecesseurs de Marc: Les Sources Presynoptiques de Mc, II, 18-22 et Paralleles," Revue Biblique (RevBib) 89 (1982): 370-405, and idem, "La Question Synoptique Demande-t-elle une Reponse Compliquee?" Biblica (Bib) 70 (1989): 217-23.

24. "The different theories of Multiple Sources have in common a fundamental principle.... [T]he relationship between these Gospels is not due to direct dependence, but take us to the most ancient hypothetical sources upon which they depend" (M. E. Boismard, "Thdorie des Niveaux Multiples," in Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. David L. Dungan [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 19901, 231).

25. Historically, though, many scholars have concluded that our present Gospels were descendants of an "Ur-Gospel" or "Ur-Markan" Gospel. Few scholars today accept this view. J. C. O'Neill, "The Synoptic Problem," NTS 21 (1975): 273-85; idem, "The Lost Written Records of Jesus' Words and Deeds Behind Our Records," Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991): 483-504; and Robert C. Newman, "The Synoptic Problem! A Proposal for Handling Both Internal and External Evidence," Westminster Theological Journal 43 (1980): 132-51, though, conclude that our Gospels are independent translations of a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel.

26. Eta Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992); J. W. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992); Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, eds., The Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998). This view, of course, is not entirely new. In 1981, Charles H. Dyer, "Do the Synoptics Depend on Each Other?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (1981): 242-43, concluded that the Gospels were independent. The reason for the similarity in wording resulted from the "supernatural work of the Holy Spirit which would enable the disciples to recall all of Christ's words" (243). Cf. B. Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 181-89, who holds that the "relative parallelism between the Synoptic Gospels is fundamentally due to common traditions of the early church"; and Hugo McCord, "The Synoptic Problem," Restoration Quarterly 1 (1957): 51-69; R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer. Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Uberlieferung, 3d ed. (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1988), 2-6, 512-14.

27. Although her statistical data are impressive, they nonetheless remain unconvincing. See a critique of Linnemann's data and conclusions by Matthew C. Williams, "Review of Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, by Eta Linnemann," in Trinity Journal, n.s., 14 (1993): 97-101. See also R. Yarbrough, "Eta Linnemann: Friend or Foe of Scholarship?" The Master's Seminary Journal 8, no. 2 (1997): 163-89; and Thomas and Farnell, The Jesus Crisis, 158-84.

28. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 152.

29. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, xxiii. Wenham, with his desire for literary dependence and independence, seems to want his cake and to eat it too! See a critique of Wenham's earlier article by Douglas J. Moo, "`Gospel Origins': A Reply to J. W. Wenham," Trinity Journal, n.s., 2 (1981): 24-36.

30. See, e.g., Fitzmyer, "The Priority of Mark," 132, followed by Moo, "Gospel Origins," 34.

31. Dungan, The Interrelations of the Gospels, xi.

32. Walker, The Relationships Among the Gospels, 11. Walker's conclusion was endorsed by Albert C. Outler, "I regard this whole problem as formally insoluble" (12).

33. J. B. Tyson and T. R. W. Longstaff, "The Computer Bible 15," Synoptic Abstract "15," (Wooster, Ohio: Biblical Research Associates, 1978), provide exhaustive statistics for verbal agreement between the Synoptic Gospels. Cf. A. M. Honore, "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem," NovT 10 (1968): 95-147. Honore concludes, based on his data, that (1) Mark is indeed the middle link, (2) Matthew and Luke used Mark, (3) Matthew and Luke used sources other than Mark (135).

34. Some scholars argue that these words are not a parenthetical addition but the original words of Jesus Himself. So, for example, Thomas and Farnell, The Jesus Crisis, 17. See Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 481.

35. The best is Kurt Aland, Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 7th ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1984). Many people have claimed that a bias is inherent in the synopsis used to examine the data. See, for example, Thomas R. Edgar, "Source Criticism: The Two-Source Theory," in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 137; Dungan, Interrelations of the Gospels, 317-42; idem, A History of the Synoptic Problem, 332-37; and idem, "Two-Gospel Hypothesis," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:673: "It is impossible to construct a totally objective, neutral synopsis." His criticisms have been answered by J. K. Elliott, "L' importance de la Critique Textuelle pour le Probleme Synoptique," RevBib 96 (1989): 57: "le texte lui-meme ne revele pas une preference quelconque de la part de 1'editeur et dans cc sens it pent etre appele «neutre»" (the text itself does not reveal any type of editorial preference, and in this regard we may declare the text neutral). Cf. J. K. Elliott, "The Relevance of Textual Criticism to the Synoptic Problem," in Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. David L. Dungan (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 348-59; idem, "An Examination of the Text and Apparatus of the Three Recent Greek Synopses," NTS 32 (1986): 557-82; idem, "Printed Editions of Greek Synopses and Their Influence on the Synoptic Problem," in The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al., Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium (BETL) 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 1: 337-57; Frans Neirynck, "The Order of the Gospels and the Making of a Synopsis," "Once More: The Making of a Synopsis," in Evangelica 11, 1982-1991, Collected Essays, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), 357-62, 363-76; and J. Bernard Orchard, "Are All Gospel Synopses Biased?" Theologische Zeitschrift 34 (1978): 149-62.

36. Although it would be better to examine such similarities in Greek, the passage will be cited in English (NRSV): word order differences will be italicized, and word differences underlined.

37. See Stein, Synoptic Problem, 30-32. We will not underline or italicize this passage because of the various and complicated differences and similarities.

38. M. O. Wise, "Languages of Palestine," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 442. See the classic study of the Aramaic background of Jesus in G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), along with M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967). For the conclusion of this Aramaic background in terms of the Synoptic Problem, see C. L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 87.

39. R. Stein, "Synoptic Problem," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 785. See also D. S. New, Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two-Document Hypothesis (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991).

40. Thomas and Farnell, Jesus Crisis, 17, 233-46, esp. 245.

41. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 109.

42. Edgar, "Source Criticism," 139, though he greatly reduces his percentages based upon analyzing exact agreements. The fact that these percentages of shared material between two scholars who claim that the Evangelists were independent shows us the lack of an objective measuring tool for determining exactly what is or is not "shared material."

43. S. L. Mattila, "A Question Too Often Neglected," NTS 41 (1995): 208.

44. See, for example, F. G. Downing, "Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem," JBL 107 (1988): 69-85; idem, "Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels (I)," JSNT 8 (1980): 4685; and idem, "A Paradigm Perplex: Luke, Matthew and Mark," NTS 38 (1992): 15-36, who argues that the normal compositional convention in antiquity was to follow just one author at a time, and very uncommonly two parallel accounts. S. L. Mattila, "A Question Too Often Neglected," 199-217; and A. R. Millard, "Writing and the Gospels," Qumran Chronicle 5 (1995): 55-62.

45. See, for example, Bruce Metzger, "The Furniture in the Scriptorium at Qumran," RevQ 1 (1958-59): 509-15; idem, "When Did Scribes Begin to Use Writing Desks?" in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, New Testament Tools and Studies 8 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 121-37; and G. M. Parassoglou, "A Roll upon His Knees," Yale Classical Studies 28 (1985): 273.

46. Scot McKnight, "A Generation That Knows Not Streeter: The Case for Markan Priority," in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. David Alan Black and David Beck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001).

47. Stein, Synoptic Problem, 37.

48. Edgar, "Source Criticism," 142.

49. Examine, for example, the nearly identical parallel order of Matthew and Luke compared to Mark 1:21-3:19; 8:27-9:50; and 10:1-52.

50. For attempts to harmonize them and underscore their historical validity, see G. E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 91-93; J. Wenham, The Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984); M. J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 157-63; Grant R. Osborne, Three Crucial QuestionsAbout the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 339-4 1.

51. P. D. Feinberg, "The Meaning of Inerrancy," in Inerrancy, ed. N. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 296-97.

52. Streeter, Four Gospels, 157-69.

53. J. M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 32:1.

54. Farmer, in the introduction to Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis, xvii.

55. Critiques of Streeter's evidence abound in the literature. See, for example, David L. Dungan, "Mark-The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke," in Jesus and Man's Hope, vol. 1, A Perspective Book, ed. David G. Buttrick (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970), 54-71; reprint (partial) in The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal, ed. Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr. (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985), 143-61; Butler, Originality of St. Matthew, 62-71, 161-64; and Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 118-77.

56. See Butler, Originality of St. Matthew, 62-67, who treats the first three heads of evidence as one general theme; Dungan, "Mark-The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke," 55.

57. Blomberg, Jesus, 89.

58. Streeter, Four Gospels, 168-81.

59. Farmer, "Two-Gospel Hypothesis," 138, 143.

60. Although this argument has been rejected and shown to be logically inconclusive, some scholars continue to claim that this is the decisive argument for proving Markan priority; see, for example, the recent article on the "TwoSource Hypothesis" by M. E. Boismard in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:680; and Edgar, "Source Criticism," 135, who claims that the "argument from order is foundational. It is the main argument." Not since the study of Butler in 1951, however, has this argument been seen as the main argument for showing Markan priority.

61. Butler, Originality of St. Matthew, 65.

62. See full discussions in Butler, Originality of St. Matthew, 64-67; and Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 65-67.

63. Stein, Synoptic Problem, 84.

64. For wider discussion, see M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Although he overstates the evidence, he does make a valid case for Mark's more literal translation on several occasions of Jesus' words.

65. New, Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels.

66. A list of fifty-one pericopes is given in Stein, Synoptic Problem, 50. He points out that of these Mark's are the longest twenty-one times, Matthew eleven times, and Luke ten times.

67. C. M. Tuckett, "Synoptic Problem," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:263-70, cf. 264.

68. Peter M. Head, "Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic Gospels," NovT35 (1993): 105-29; idem, Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); and Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). For Matthew C. Williams's study of orthodox improvements, see "Is Matthew a Scribe? An Examination of the Text-Critical Argument for the Synoptic Problem" (Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity International University, 1996), wherein is discussed the following texts: Mark 1:41, 43, 45; 2:7, 8, 12, 15, 26; 4:13; 6:37f.; 8:22f. See also New, Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels.

69. Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 160.

70. Stein, Synoptic Problem, 133.

71. C. L. Blomberg, "The Synoptic Problem: Where Do We Stand at the Start of a New Century?" in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. David Alan Black and David Beck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 32.

72. Stein, Synoptic Problem, 76, says this is "probably the most weighty argument used today in favor of a Markan priority."

73. Tuckett, "Synoptic Problem," 265-66.

74. See ibid., 6, 265.

75. C. S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 27 (New York: Doubleday, 1986). Most, however, have labeled Mann (in his commentary on Mark, which supports the Griesbach Hypothesis) a disappointment because of the paucity of exegetical insights contained in it.

76. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1990), 62.

77. Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 61.

78. Streeter, Four Gospels, 162-64. Streeter was not, of course, the first scholar to notice the primitive nature of Mark's text. See C. H. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte: Kritisch and philosophisch Bearbeitet, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Drud and Berlag, 1838), 1:67; H. J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863), 289; E. A. Abbott, Diatessarica-Part II: The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke (London: A. & C. Black, 1901).

79. Butler, Originality of St. Matthew, 68.

80. O. Lamar Cope, "The Argument Revolves: The Pivotal Evidence for Markan Priority Is Reversing Itself," in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Conference and Beyond, ed. W. R. Farmer (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 144.

81. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991), 1:103.

82. Ibid., 1:98.

83. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, 90.

84. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, 326.

85. Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 122, cf. 121. Cf. Butler, Originality of St. Matthew, 164-67.

86. H. P. Hamann, "Sic et Non: Are We So Sure of Matthean Dependence on Mark?" Concordia Theological Monthly 41 (1970): 463.

87. Dungan, "Mark-The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke," 68. Cf. Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987), 82; G. W. Buchanan, "Has the Griesbach Hypothesis Been Falsified?" JBL 93 (1974): 550-72; David Wenham, "The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New Suggestions About the Composition of Mark 4:1-34," Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972): 8-9; Gordon D. Fee, "A Text-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem," NovT 22 (1980): 16-17; David Alan Black, "Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and the Problem of Markan Grammar: Some Methodological Considerations" (Society of Biblical Literature, Kansas City, Kans., 1992, photocopied); idem, "Some Dissenting Notes on R. Stein's Synoptic Problem and Markan 'Errors,"' Filologia Neotestamentaria 1 (1988): 95-101.

88. E. Earle Ellis, "The Historical Jesus and the Gospels," in EvangeliumSchriftauslegung-Kirche: Festschrift P. Stuhlmacher ed. O. Hofius (Tubingen: Mohr), read in manuscript form.

89. For comments on the unlikelihood of such changes, see G. D. Kilpatrick, "Matthew on Matthew," in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett, JSNT Sup 7 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 179; idem, The Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays of G. D. Kilpatrick, ed. J. K. Elliott, BETL 96 (reprint, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 252.

90. Butler, Originality of St. Matthew, 69-70.

91. Ibid., 74.

92. Ibid.

93. Farmer, Synoptic Problem.

94. Ibid., 199-232. Cope, Matthew, 5 n. 26, himself a defender of the TwoGospel Hypothesis, said that Farmer's sixteen-step plan is "too simplistically stated to be compelling" (5 n. 26). Walker, Relationships Among the Gospels, said, "I have always seen them [Farmer's canons of criticism] as an unnecessary weakness" (283).

95. Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 227-32. One quickly sees, though, that Farmer's argumentation lacks objectivity as he makes assertion after assertion regarding priority. We should also mention that Ernest De Witt Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904), 198, lists six criteria by which to judge secondary texts. See Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 229, for a critique.

96. See, for example, Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 10, and Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 190-255.

97. Sanders, Tendencies, xi.

98. Ibid., 272.

99. Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis. For a critique of Tuckett, see Allan J. McNicol, "The Two Gospel Hypothesis Under Scrutiny: A Response to C. M. Tuckett's Analysis of Recent Neo-Griesbachian Gospel Criticism," Perkins Journal 40 (1987): 5-13; W. O. Walker, "The State of the Synoptic Question," in The Relationships Among the Gospels, 14-21. Tuckett responds to these critiques in "The Two Gospel Hypothesis Under Scrutiny: A Response," Perkins Journal 40 (1987): 25-3 1.

100. Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 95-185.

101. Ibid., 186-87.

102. Ibid., 187.

103. A good example of the differing explanations for the differences within the same pericope can be found in Dungan, Interrelations of the Gospels, 6376, 157-200, 265-88. In this volume, Two-Source, Two-Gospel, and Multiple-Source Hypotheses defenders give a textual explanation of the eschatological discourse. Such alternative explanations for the source history of the same pericope is a reminder of the need for objective criteria.

104. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? 104; cf. Fitzmyer, "The Priority of Mark and the `Q' Source in Luke"; Geoffrey M. Styler, "The Priority of Mark," in The Birth of the New Testament, ed. C. F. D. Moule, 3d rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982), 285-316; Scot McKnight, "Source Criticism," in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, ed. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 74-105; and idem, "A Generation That Knows Not Streeter," 81.

105. McKnight, "A Generation That Knows Not Streeter," 83.

106. Michael Goulder, "Some Observations on Professor Farmer's `Certain Results ..."' in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983, ed. C. M. Tuckett, InterVarsity Sup 7 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 99.

107. Fee, "Modern Text Criticism and the Synoptic Problem," in J. J. Griesbach, 168; reprint in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee, Studies and Documents 45 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). See the similar conclusion in G. D. Kilpatrick, "Some Thoughts on Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels," NovT 19 (1977): 283, and Burton, Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem, 3: "Indeed, the work done in formulating the task of textual criticism may well furnish the starting-point for the effort to formulate corresponding principles applicable to the problem of the relation of the gospels to one another."

108. James R. Royse, "Scribal Habits in the Transmission of New Testament Texts," in The Critical Study of Sacred Texts, ed. Wendy D. O'Flaherty (Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1979), 149.

109. Fee, "Text-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem," 13.

110. B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 186-203. See Larry W. Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the PreCaesarean Text: Codex Win the Gospel of Mark, Studies and Documents 43 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 68, 77-80, for some examples of significant changes to the Gospel of Mark made by the scribe of codex W; see W. D. C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 121-79, indicates specific textual corrections that scribes made to Codex Bezae (D).

Ill. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2d rev. ed., trans. E. R. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 69.

112. Peter M. Head, "Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic Gospels," 128f. Further examples of changes may be found in Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem, and Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

113. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, 12. Cf. J. B. Orchard, "The Solution of the Synoptic Problem," Scripture Bulletin 18 (1987): 11.

114. I. Howard Marshall, "How to Solve the Synoptic Problem: Luke 11:43 and Parallels," in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. William C. Weinrich (Macon Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984), 2:315.

115. Butler, Originality of St. Matthew, 163, cf. 70.

116. Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 95.

117. Fuller, "The Synoptic Problem: After Ten Years," Perkins Journal 28 (1975): 67.

118. Farmer, "Basic Affirmation with Some Demurrals: A Response to Roland Mushat Frye," in The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. William O. Walker, Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion 5 (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978), 310.

119. Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 207 n. 1.

120. David L. Dungan, "Two-Gospel Hypothesis," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:673.

121. Head, "Christology and Textual Transmission," 129.

122. Williams, "Is Matthew a Scribe?" 181-306.

123. Dungan, "Mark-The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke," 68. Note that only two Gospels were examined, Matthew and Mark, in spite of Dungan's caution that one cannot divide the Gospels for analyzing the Synoptic Problem (see, for example, "Two-Gospel Hypothesis," 6:673). This methodology is appropriate, however, since, as explained above a textual examination of Matthew and Mark using text-critical principles will indeed show evidence for either primary or secondary readings.

124. B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: UBS, 1971), xxv-xxviii. See also idem, Text of the New Testament, 209-19. Similar lists may be found in most introductions to textual criticism (e.g., Aland, Text of the New Testament, 280-82).

125. Williams, "Is Matthew a Scribe?" 48-80.

126. A. E. Housman (1921), cited in Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 219.

127. One example may be cited: Royse, "Scribal Habits," says, "[O]ne reading will be judged superior on one criterion, but another reading is judged superior on another criterion. In the face of such a conflict, and in the absence of a clear understanding of the foundations for such criteria, the critic is free to choose that reading which `seems' best, and thus to introduce what often appear to be simply arbitrary choices of one reading instead of another" (145). He then shows the apparently arbitrary reasoning of Metzger for deciding on the original text in Matthew 3:7 (based on lectio brevior potior) versus that of Matthew 3:12 (based on a "natural expansion by scribes").

128. See a brief history of textual criticism in Williams, "Is Matthew a Scribe?" 48-55. See also M. R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1899); Lion Vaganay and C. B. Amphoux, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 2d rev. ed., trans. Jenny Heimerdinger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 129-71; Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 95-146; Aland, Text of the New Testament, 3-47.

129. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, with Notes on Selected Readings (New York: Harper, 1882: reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), 19. Georg Luck, "Textual Criticism Today," American Journal of Philology 102 (1981): 164-94, a nonbiblical scholar, lists the criteria used by textual critics of all traditions. His criteria are almost exactly those listed by Metzger.

130. Vaganay and Amphoux, New Testament Textual Criticism, 84.

131. See the critique of McKnight's use of the text-critical argument for Markan priority in Edgar, "Source Criticism," 136, 145-47. It is unfortunate that Edgar does not interact with the recent scholarship on this topic, such as Peter Head and Bart Ehrman. The use of text-critical criteria answers the objection of Edgar by appealing to "objective grounds." It should be noted that Thomas and Farnell, Jesus Crisis, do not have an extensive critique of textual criticism because they see value in its use. Robert L. Thomas concludes that "textual criticism [is] free of the ideological presuppositions that pervade Historical Criticism" ("Historical Criticism and the Evangelical: Another View," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society [JETS] 43, no. I [2000]: 110). Such an acceptance brings one a long way toward the acceptance of Markan priority and literary dependence if the conclusions, as described below, to the Osborne-Williams study are accurate.

132. Williams, "Is Matthew a Scribe?" 307-8. Note that a few Matthean texts were found that appear to be primary.

133. McKnight, "A Generation That Knows Not Streeter," 84-85.

134. Mann, Mark, admits that there is a "confusion of geography in Mark" (322).

135. Mark mentions exousian ("authority") being given to Jesus (1:22, 27; 2: 10; 3:15; 11:28, 29, 33), to the Twelve (6:7), and possibly to all Christians (13:34). Matthew mentions exousian ("authority") being given to Jesus (7:29; 9:6; 21:23, 24, 27; 28:18) and to the Twelve (10:1).

136. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:98-99, for a brief survey of possible reasons for the name change from Levi to Matthew. Mark Kiley, "Why 'Matthew' in Matt. 9, 9-13?" Bib 65 (1984): 347-51, suggests that Matthew was chosen because of the "etymological link" between Maththaion (Matthew) and Matthew's theological foci in this passage, namely, discipleship and learning, mathetes ("disciple") and manthano ("to learn").

137. Similar improvements were made by Markan scribes to this unique expression.

138. Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology, 74.

139. Allen, Matthew, 90, calls this a "grammatical correction."

140. F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §234 (8), followed by Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 140, solves the apparent textual difficulty by saying that epi plus the genitive signifies a "temporal relationship," that is, "in the time of Abiathar the high priest." Henry Barclay Swete, The GospelAccording to St Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices, 3d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1913; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 48, notes that the confusion between Ahimelech and Abiathar began in the Old Testament, where "we read of Ahimelech the son of Abiathar as high-priest in the time of David (2 Sam. viii. 17, 1 Chron. xviii. 16, xxiv. 6)." Taylor, Mark, 217, calls the error about Abiathar either a "primitive error or a copyist's gloss occasioned by the fact that, in association with David, Abiathar was better known than his father." Mann, Mark, 240, cites an Arabic custom by which a father would be known by the name of a more famous son. Thus, Ahimelech would be known as "the father of Abiathar." Mann says the original Greek text would thus read "Ab(ba)-Abiathar," "the father of Abiathar." Scribes then simply made a dittographical error, eliminating the first Ab in order to produce a text that reads only "Abiathar." While this hypothesis is possible, the use of the term Ab orAbba (abba) is found only three times in the entire New Testament, all in the context of God the Father (abba ho pater). It is never used to refer to any other father in the New Testament; pater ("father") was used for this designation. Thus, Mann's suggestion is unlikely.

141. Alan Hugh McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London: Macmillan, 1915), 168, suggests that the phrase epi Abiathar archierepos "was perhaps a later erroneous gloss in Mark" McNeile is followed by W. E. Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), 178. No evidence for this claim, though, has been found.

C. H. Talbert and E. V. McKnight, "Can the Griesbach Hypothesis Be Falsified?" Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974): 355-56, list evidence that Mark was prior. One piece of evidence for this conclusion "consists of the agreement of Matthew and Luke in their omission of the phrase epi Abiathar archiereos in Mark 2:26. Inclusion of this phrase is a Marcan error, they say, since at that time, according to I Sam 21:1; 22:20, Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, held office"

Buchanan, however, "Has the Griesbach Hypothesis Been Falsified?" 562, replied to Talbert, "The suggestion that Matthew and Luke have omitted the reference to Abiathar because Ahimelech was really the priest in charge is not certain. According to the LXX, well known to all three Evangelists, the priest who gave David the Bread of the Presence was Abiathar. It is not likely that either Matthew or Luke would have omitted the LXX account just because it did not agree with the MT." Buchanan seems to have satisfactorily answered the problem.

Unfortunately for Matthean prioritists, that was not the end of the story. C. Shannon Morgan, "When Abiathar Was High Priest," JBL 98 (1979): 409, examined available LXX versions for Buchanan's claim that the Evangelists read "Abiathar" in their LXX text. She could find no LXX version with this reading, not even in variant readings. She concluded, "This investigation reveals emphatically that no text of the LXX reads `Abiathar' in I Kgdms 21:1(2) or 21:6(7).... Matthew (12:4) and Luke (6:4) ... simply corrected the error by omission."

142. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:3 10. Swete, Mark, 49, says this is a change to the more usual style, namely, the dative case after exestin ("it is lawful"). Taylor, Mark, 217, says the accusative case was used rarely after exestin + an infinitive. Mark follows this construction with the dative case four times (2:26; 3:4; 6:18; 10:2) and the accusative case one time (12:14).

143. Swete, Mark, 125. See Taylor, Mark, 314-15, for a listing of the alternative harmonizations of Mark 6:22 and 24 and scholars who hold to each; and Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, Word Biblical Commentary (WBC) 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 320, for a discussion of some of the issues involved in making a decision.

144. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:463, 466, 474. Mann, Mark, 295, agrees that tetrarch is the correct title but justifies Mark's change from a more correct title to king by suggesting that "Mark's use of king here may represent local popular usage" He fails, though, to provide any evidence that king may have been a local title for Herod. Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, Black's New Testament Commentaries (London: A. & C. Black; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 159, reminds us that "It was Herod's request to Rome for the title of king which led to his deposition and banishment." She adds, though, "Mark's mistake may reflect popular usage, which was unconcerned with the niceties of Roman officialdom." Cf. Philippe Rolland, "La Question Synoptique Demande-telle une Reponse Compliquee?" Bib 70 (1989): 218-19.

145. Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 65-66, says that if Mark were using Matthew as his source, "there is no reason why Mark should alter the concurrent testimony of his sources incorrectly." Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, Matthew 14-28, WBC 33A, 33B (Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995), 2:410, suggests that Matthew changed Mark's king to tetrarch to "distinguish him clearly from Herod the Great, who figured so largely in chap. 2."

146. Mann, Mark, 306, says "At this point the matter of priority in sources is of some difficulty.... It is difficult-both on an assumption of Petrine reminiscences as a source for the Gospel of Mark, and also on any assumption of Markan dependence on Matthew-to see why Mark should have omitted this story. Moreover, since it is commonly said that Matthew and Luke treat the disciples with more respect than Mark, it is worth noting that the Matthean narrative casts Peter in anything but a favorable light." Unfortunately, Mann does not suggest a solution to this difficulty.

147. The term contextually appropriate is used because Matthew and Mark only use diestelleto ("cautioned") in the context of the messianic secret. Only here at 8:15 does Mark go against the normal usage of this word. Perhaps for this reason we can suggest that Matthew changed Mark's usage to a more appropriate word because the context is not the messianic secret.

148. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:588. Mann, Mark, 333, says, "The reference to Herod in Mark is odd, indeed so odd that we must conclude that it has all the marks of authenticity." This seems to misunderstand the textcritical criterion of the most difficult reading. Mann concludes his comments on Mark 8:16 thus: "It must be freely admitted that this is one instance where the two-document hypothesis is on the face of it more convincing as an explanation of the relationship between Matthew and Mark" (ibid., 334). Commentators have various interpretations of Mark's "leaven." Leopold Sabourin, S. J., The Gospel According to St Matthew, 2 vols. (Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1982), 1:666 n. 75, suggests that the Aramaic word for teaching sounds identical to that for leaven. Thus, Jesus may have said teaching, but the disciples misunderstood.

149. This same type of difference is seen in Mark's textual apparatus, Taylor calling this change a "grammatical correction." Mark uses an plus a future indicative only two times but an plus subjunctive seventeen times; Matthew never uses a future indicative after an, but the subjunctive follows it thirtysix times. It would be nearly impossible to think that Mark has changed Matthew's text here.

150. Matthew records this idea in only three instances (7:28; 13:54; 19:25). Thus, it is a theme that is more Markan than Matthean. It is interesting that Mann, Mark, does not comment on the reason that Mark did not borrow this verse from Matthew.

151. The change from the masculine hestekota ("set up") to the neuter hestos ("standing") is a "grammatical correction" so that it agrees with its noun, to bdelygma ("desolating"), per McNeile, Matthew, 348; David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse, Gospel Perspectives 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 193; Gundry, Matthew, 482; Hagner, Matthew, 2:698. Rist, Independence of Matthew and Mark, 81, thinks that "Mark's version is probably somehow corrupt"

152. That both Matthew and Mark have this reference to the reader, ho anaginoskon noeito ("let the reader understand") is strong evidence for a direct literary relationship between the two; see Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 56, and Stein, Synoptic Problem, 37-38. For a contrary opinion, see Thomas and Farnell, Jesus Crisis, 17. It seems that Matthew has filled in some of the information concerning the "abomination that causes desolation," about which Mark only hints from references to Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. Matthew notes that this abomination will take place en topq hagiq ("in the holy place"), based upon Daniel's writings: 9:27: epi ton hieron ("upon the temple"); 11:31: to hagion tou phobou. As Cranfield, Mark, 403, says, "Mark's mysterious phrase is no doubt correctly glossed by Mt xxiv. 15, en topq hagiq, `in the holy place."'

153. Gundry, Matthew, 482. So also Fee, "A Text-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem," 19.

154. The categories of this summary are based upon a critique and refinement of those criteria listed by Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. See Williams, "Is Matthew a Scribe?" 55-80, for detailed explanation.

155. Williams, "Is Matthew a Scribe?" 322-24.

156. Boismard, "Theorie des Niveaux Multiples," 232, is correct; "Le probleme synoptique est complexe; it ne peut etre rdsolu que par une solution complexe" ("The Synoptic Problem is complex; it can only be solved with a complex solution").

157. Williams, "Is Matthew a Scribe?" 81-180, wherein a total of 178 verses of Mark's Gospel were examined with the finding that five instances did not agree with the Nestle-Aland text: Mark 1:41; 6:22, 41; 12:9; and 13:22.

158. So, David E. Orton, The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal, JSNT Sup 25 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989).

159. Streeter, Four Gospels, 295.

160. McKnight, "Source Criticism," 84.

161. As we stated in note 131, Thomas and Farnell, Jesus Crisis, do not have an extensive critique of textual criticism because they see value in its use. Thomas, "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical," 110, concludes that "textual criticism [is] free of the ideological presuppositions that pervade Historical Criticism."

162. See, however, the more recent argument by Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 1985, 201-8.

163. Tuckett, "Synoptic Problem," 267. See the discussion of recent research in C. M. Tuckett, "Mark and Q," in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. C. Focant (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 155-75.

164. Streeter, Four Gospels, 187, 242-43. Cf. B. H. Streeter's discussion in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, ed. W. Sanday (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 171. See E. P. Sanders, "The Overlaps of Mark and Q and the Synoptic Problem," NTS 19 (1973): 453-65.

165. Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q," in Studies in the Gospels. Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955); Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974); idem, "Is Q a Juggernaut?" JBL 115 (1996): 667-81; Allan J. McNicol, David L. Dungan, and David B. Peabody, Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke's Use of Matthew (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996).

166. Stein, Synoptic Problem, 114-28.

167. R. H. Stein, "The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: Insight from John," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 482-502. See also Peder Borgan, "John and the Synoptics," in Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. David L. Dungan (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 408-37.

168. See Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 61-75.

169. Some of the following material comes from Grant R. Osborne, "Response," in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. David Alan Black and David Beck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 146-47.

170. Dungan, "Two-Gospel Hypothesis," 6:671 If.

171. C. M. Tuckett, "Response to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis," in Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. David L. Dungan (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 61.

172. For example, Boismard, "Theorie des Niveaux Multiples."

173. It may be that in the end Sanders is right, Tendencies, 279: "I rather suspect that when and if a new view of the Synoptic problem becomes accepted, it will be more flexible and complicated than the tidy two-document hypothesis. With all due respect for scientific preference for the simpler view, the evidence seems to require a more complicated one"

174. Downing, "Paradigm Perplex," 35. David Peabody, Mark as Composer, New Gospel Studies 1 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987); and Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? show throughout their studies vastly different conclusions to the evidence of conflation in Mark.

175. Tuckett, "Response to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis," 49.

176. See, for example, Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:7-17, 128-29.

177. Tuckett, "Synoptic Problem," 266.

178. Ibid. See also F. Neirynck, "The Minor Agreements and the Two-Source Theory," Evangelica II (Collected Essays, 1982-1991) (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), 3-42.

179. Tuckett, Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, 21.

180. Blomberg, "Synoptic Problem," 23.

181. See Johnson, The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism, which shows the superiority of the four-source theory. Note also such significant commentaries as Carson, Hagner, Davies and Allison, and Keener on Matthew; Guelich and Gundry on Mark; and Fitzmyer, Marshall, Nolland, Bock, and Stein on Luke, all of whom show in major commentaries the validity of Markan priority. On the other hand, as stated above, most have labeled Mann on Mark (supporting the Griesbach Hypothesis) a disappointment because of its paucity of exegetical insights. See also Peabody, Mark as Composer. Professor Farmer, in the Symposium at Southeastern Theological Seminary, held in May 2000, announced that Griesbach proponents are currently working on these linguistic phenomena.

182. See Osborne, "Response," 147-50.

183. Doubt remains in Britain as to whether Q ever existed. See Ronald A. Piper, "In Quest of Q: The Direction of Q Studies," in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. Ronald A. Piper, Supplements to NovT LXXV (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 5-6; C. M. Tuckett, "The Existence of Q," in The Gospel Behind the Gospels, ed. Ronald A. Piper, 19-47. See also David Catchpole, "Did Q Exist?" in The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993). On the other hand, see Dieter Liihrmann, "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?" in The Gospel Behind the Gospels, ed. Ronald A. Piper, 96: "I consider the existence of Q] to be assured, despite all criticism."

184. On the other hand, if Q were a written document, and if the majority of the Q sayings were incorporated into Matthew and Luke's Gospels, there would be less of a need to preserve such a document, and the fact that we have not found a Q document is less of a problem.

185. See a brief survey of Q studies in John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 8-40; Piper, "In Quest of Q," 1-15. Helpful bibliography can be found in the bibliographies of D. Scholer in the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. In addition, reports of the International Q Project can be found in various JBL articles, starting in 1990.

186. Stein, "The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark," 482f. Stein himself puts the number at about 235 verses (Synoptic Problem, 89). See John Kloppenborg, Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes and Concordance (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988); or Frans Neirynck, Q-Synopsis: The Double Tradition Passages in Greek, Studiorum Novi Tesamenti Auxilia 13 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1988), in order to compare these Q passages.

187. Blomberg, "Synoptic Problem," 24-27.

188. The study by McNicol, Dungan, and Peabody, Beyond the Q Impasse, was noted earlier.

189. D. L. Bock, "Questions About Q: On Its Possible Existence and Character as Well as the Use and Abuse of Q," in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, ed. David Alan Black and David Beck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 48.

190. G. Stanton, "Q," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 647. As Downing has shown (see the bibliographical information in n. 44 above), unless Luke had Matthew's text unrolled before him on a table, which would have been unlikely, it would be very difficult to explain how he moved the Matthean discourses to so many different contexts. Downing concludes, "A first-century Luke ... would have worked very differently and produced a book very different from our third gospel" ("Paradigm Perplex," 23). Goulder's explanation that Luke broke up Matthew's wellordered discourses because "long discourses were indigestible and wasteful" does not seem an adequate explanation ("Is Q a Juggernaut?" 678).

191. Stein, Synoptic Problem, 91. For exceptions, see his note. See also, Goulder, "Is Q a Juggernaut?" 676.

192. Dungan, "Two-Gospel Hypothesis," 677.

193. See Stanton, "Q," 645.

194. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1961); and H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1957). However, not all scholars have been convinced by these arguments: see W. D. Davies, "Reflections on a Scandinavian Approach to `the Gospel Tradition,"' Neotestamentica et Patristica, NovT Sup 6 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), 14-34; Howard Teeple, "The Oral Tradition That Never Existed," JBL 89 (1970): 56-68; C. K. Barrett, Jesus and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1967), 9-10; Jacob Neusner, "Oral Torah and Oral Tradition: Defining the Problematic," in Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism, Brown Judaic Studies 10 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1979), 59-75.

195. Charles E. Carlston and Dennis Norlin, "Statistics and Q-Some Further Observations," NovT 41 (1999): 108-23. Stein, Synoptic Problem, 104, notes that some pericopes have incredible exactness of wording: Matthew 6:24/ Luke 16:13 have twenty-seven of twenty-eight identical Greek words and in the same order; Matthew 7:7-8/Luke 11:9-10 have all twenty-four words identical and in the same order.

196. See also Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 42-51, for further evidence for a written Q document.

197. John C. Hawkins, "Probabilities as to the So-called Double Tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke," in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (see p. 93 n. 164), 99.

198. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 47.

199. Stanton, "Q," 645.

200. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 80.

201. D. Allison, The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity International Press, 1997). This is slightly different than the classic categories composed by T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1957).

202. Bock, "Questions About Q," 56.

203. One can find more information on this aspect of Q, along with the history of studies, in Allison, The Jesus Tradition in Q.

204. McKnight, "A Generation That Knows Not Streeter," 93.

205. See Goulder, "Is Q a Juggernaut?" 667.

206. Note that in German scholarship L is referred to by the symbol S (Sondergut, "special material").

207. According to K. Giles, "L," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 431, some do not include the infancy narrative in the L material because its language and style are different from the other special Lukan material.

208. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 191-208.

209. Ibid., 432.

210. Blomberg, "Synoptic Problem," 29.

211. F. W. Burnett, "M," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 511.

212. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 180-91.

213. For more on the theology of M material, see Burnett, "M," 511f.

214. See J. S. Kloppenborg, "The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem," in The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. E. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden, BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 93-120.

215. As Thomas and Farnell argue in Jesus Crisis, 246.

216. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 42.

John H. Niemela

Discussions with the Jesus Seminar

Assume that three theological conservatives speak with someone from the Jesus Seminar (which accepts Markan prioirty). Each conservative wants the Seminar to abandon radical views. The first conservative favors the MH but is unsure that the Synoptic Problem is finally soluble; the second conservative holds the Independence View; and the third conservative accepts the 2GH.

The similar synoptic views of the first conservative and the Jesus seminarian force them to focus on their divergent theological presuppositions. The holder of the Independence View also must argue from theology. The holder of the 2GH, however, may challenge the MH to account for order and content (see my main article). Which argument would lead the Jesus seminarian to become more open-minded: conservative theology or seeing that order and content pose difficulties for the MH? If the Jesus seminarian begins questioning the MH, he or she may be more open to considering even more basic issues.

Where's the Beef?

In the ongoing war among fast-food chains, one old commercial stands out. A hungry customer receives a minuscule patty buried inside a massive pair of hamburger buns. She asks, "Where's the beef?" Drs. Osborne and Williams (Osborne and Williams) offer a veritable smorgasbord of MH arguments, but, as even they seem to ask, "Where's the meat?" The following response reviews their article page by page and point by point, determining whether the MH or 2GH has the meatier case.

Osborne and Williams note yet unresolved issues: "At the close of the Cambridge Gospel Conference, on August 18, 1979, B. Ward Powers wrote that there was general agreement among the participating scholars: `To speak of the Two-Source Hypothesis as an "assured result" of scholarship is no longer possible, the past consensus of the past century or so concerning this hypothesis has gone."' Although not refuting the logic of scholars who see the Synoptic Problem as insoluble, Osborne and Williams cling to the MH.

Walker, at the close of the "Colloquy on the Relationships among the Gospels," concluded, "The possibility that the problem of Synoptic sources is finally insoluble may turn out to be the most significant and far-reaching suggestion made at the Colloquy."

Out of the historical development of various theories regarding the Synoptic Problem have emerged the views that will be discussed in this volume. At the outset, we must state that no view is conclusive, and we will likely learn the final answer only when we get to heaven. (We doubt, though, that these will be the first questions we ask!) Although none of the various options is conclusive, the evidence more clearly points toward a literary dependency among the Synoptic Gospels, the most probable solution to such a literary relationship being found in the MH. [emphasis added; see p. 24]

These admissions do not inspire confidence in Osborne and Williams's final conclusion. They, in fact, have greater confidence in the preliminary conclusion (that a literary relationship exists) than in their own final conclusion (that the MH is true). They devote pages to arguing for an intersynoptic literary relationship, showing that evidence points to a literary synoptic solution. But their final conclusion lacks-as they repeatedly admit-meat.

Osborne and Williams suggest that the MH is the best theory in an uncertain world, but do they offer convincing reasons for opting for their opinion?

Among the plethora of solutions to the Synoptic Problem and the possibility that the problem is insoluble, we do not give up hope. The most probable explanation is the "Oxford Hypothesis [e.g., the MH]." [see p. 35]

Osborne and Williams preface their case for the MH with ambivalence:

Although the Two-Source Hypothesis is the most plausible literary solution, most of the arguments used to "prove" the Two-Source Hypothesis are not altogether convincing. Further study on the Synoptics is required to demonstrate that this solution is indeed the most probable. But given that detailed studies have been performed for at least the past two centuries, as well as the numerous arguments proposed (and rejected by proponents of the Two-Source Hypothesis), the pursuit should nonetheless continue in that area in which most scholars think the solution may be found, that is, in textual criticism. [see p. 35]

That is, few historic MH arguments have any meat, although some scholars suppose that a few reversible arguments contain a tidbit. Osborne and Williams search for the best arguments but see them all as reversible. They admit, for example, that Streeter's order-only point proves nothing beyond a literary relationship:

... Matthew and Luke reproduce 91 percent and 55 percent, respectively, of Mark's gospel, much of which is identical wording. As has been shown over and over again in the literature, this statistic only proves that there is a literary relationship between these three Gospels, and that Mark is somehow the common element. [see p. 36]

Osborne and Williams support the MH argument by compartmentalizing issues. They bifurcate content from order and Matthew-Mark from Luke-Mark, but atomistic analysis yields reversibility. Suppose, for example, that a professor teaches observation skills by showing a movie of an equatorial island beach. The tripod-mounted camera shows only sand, ocean, sky, and sun. Is it sunrise or (reversed) sunset? Most of the students say, "Everything is reversible." One student, however, says, "The waves were coming ashore normally, so it is the right direction. It is sunrise." Only the student with a comprehensive view solves the problem.

Yes, Streeter's first (noncomprehensive and content-only) point is reversible. Although content provides a key to the Synoptic Problem, a solution (like a safe-deposit box) requires two keys, and order is the other key. Osborne and Williams also reject Streeter's second point that "Matthew and Luke rarely agree with one another in wording against Mark. This argument has faced serious difficulties." Nor do they find meat in Streeter's third point.

... Matthew and Luke generally agree with the order of Mark: whenever Matthew departs from Mark's order, Luke's order supports Mark; and whenever Luke departs from Mark's order, Matthew's order agrees with Mark. This argument has been conclusively rejected as proving Markan priority. [see p. 37]

Again, compartmentalization yields reversibility. Order arguments typically (1) consider Matthew-Mark apart from Luke-Mark or (2) examine only passages common to all three. Neither is comprehensive. By contrast, William Farmer rose above reversibility by noting that Matthew often departs from Mark's order or content, as does Luke. If Matthew and Luke were independent, why are fraternal-twin departures (see the following discussion) so rare? The first four of the five types of twin departures are rare:

• Matthew and Luke have the same order, but Mark has a different order;

• all three have a different order;

• Matthew and Mark have a different order, but Luke omits;

• Luke and Mark have a different order, but Matthew omits; and

• Matthew and Luke both omit.

Types 1-4 are summarized into, "Why is it so rare for one synoptic to transpose a Markan passage that the other omits or transposes?" Streeter noted that Matthew transposes Mark more often than he omits, whereas Luke omits more often than he transposes. Since 1900, chi-square (see the 2GH presentation in this volume) has enabled statisticians to test the independence of two categorical variables. Matthew's use of Mark is one categorical variable and Luke's use of Mark is another. Thus, order and content enable testing statistically a vital tenet of the MH, the independence of Matthew and Luke.

A partial precedent exists: Swithun McLoughlin compared statistically Matthew's use of Mark's content with Luke's use of Mark's content (cf. the 2GH presentation in this volume). Frans Neirynck applauds his former student's statistical comparison as a valid approach, as does Christopher Tuckett (cf. Niemela dissertation, p. 66 nn. 40-41). McLoughlin, however, ignored order, rendering his content-only model incomplete voiding his inference.

Osborne and Williams are correct in saying that Streeter's orderonly point lacks meat. The MH holds both content and order as keys to the safe-deposit box but uses one key at a time. Only a comprehensive order-and-content model of the three synoptics can unlock the Synoptic Problem.

Osborne and Williams dismiss Streeter's fifth point before branding other issues as meatless: "We cite the arguments below not because we think that all of them are conclusive or even helpful in defending Markan priority but because we want the reader to know the main arguments which have been used historically."

They dismiss the first argument: "The historical argument has been that the gospel with Aramaic expressions is the more original gospel, but very few people argue this way today." There is no meat here, just as their three-sentence mention of the form of OT citations lacks meat. Comparing the relative length of Mark's pericopes with those of Matthew or Luke is also fruitless. If, for example, a test question tells students to explain a paragraph, some students will expand it and others will condense it. Therefore, relative length does not establish priority.

Osborne and Williams express bewilderment that Mark would omit, if he knew it, the Sermon on the Mount: "If Mark were building on Matthew, why would he have omitted such critical sayings and stories. It seems that this line of evidence points to Markan priority as the better option." The dilemma is an illusion. God knew the Sermon but inspired Mark to omit it. Putting Mark first does not explain why God omitted it.

Osborne and Williams's psychological reflection on the writers is subjective; they admit that the Gospels are not exhaustive: "We do not have everything Jesus said and did in the Gospels (John 21:25, `If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written') but rather a carefully chosen trajectory through the four Spirit-inspired narrations." Nonetheless, they use omissions to support their argument. Mark 14:51-52 may, in fact, be autobiographical. Barnabas (Mark's cousin) appears in Acts 4, so it is reasonable for Mark to be present even before the Cross. Thus, Mark knew many things that he did not record. But this view denies that Mark omitted much that he knew, claiming instead that omissions prove Markan priority. The finite knowledge of people living two thousand years later is hardly a sure foundation for a synoptic view. That the MH so regularly emphasizes its incredulity at Mark's omitting the Sermon on the Mount is a sad commentary, resorting to ad hominem arguments.

The next argument by Osborne and Williams, a redactional one, fails to read Matthew and Mark closely. They suggest that it is easier to explain Matthew's twisting a negative statement by Mark into a positive one than the reverse.

Context clearly shows that Mark 8:21 (A) matches Matthew 16:11 (C), so why do they pit Mark 8:21 (A) against Matthew 16:12 (D)?

Did Mark turn Matthew's positive presentation into a diatribe against the disciples? Or did Matthew smooth out Mark's more negative theological presentation? Before deciding consider, too, that other negative comments about the disciples appear in Mark that are also omitted in Matthew and Luke. [emphasis added; see p. 39]

Matthew did not omit the negative statement about the disciples. For Osborne and Williams to focus so microscopically that they see Matthew opposing Mark's meaning is unfortunate. It is unfortunate, too, that redaction criticism has led many people to assume that these kinds of differences imply corrections and that the later writers corrected the earlier ones. Posing the question as Osborne and Williams have done in the preceding excerpt has spawned speculation over which Gospel corrects the other. The mere presence of different emphases, however, does not imply correction. One account may refer to Mr. X as a father, another as a husband, and another as a baker. Unless one person cannot be a father, a husband, and a baker simultaneously, no one should leap to the conclusion that the differences are corrections instead of supplemental emphases.

In the argument about Christological titles, Osborne and Williams cite Blomberg:

[T]he major weakness in the Griesbach theory (2GH) is that its proponents have not demonstrated how Markan style and theology emerge more consistently and coherently from their hypothesis than from the alternatives. Until I see such a demonstration, I will remain unconvinced. [see p. 40]

Blomberg assumes, however, the very point that he must prove: that the later Gospel writers sought to differentiate their theology from that of their predecessors. Would Matthew deny everything that Luke or Mark expresses differently? Would Luke argue against every difference in Matthew or Mark? What suggests that the Synoptics had an adversarial relationship?

Out of this smorgasbord of reversible and often fanciful arguments, then, Osborne and Williams offer a tendentious preliminary conclusion, but even it overstates the case.

Proponents of Markan priority agree that no single argument of those presented earlier is conclusive; rather, the cumulative effect constitutes the probability that the Two-Source Hypothesis is by far the best solution to the problem of synoptic relationships. [emphasis added; see p. 42]

Can a series of reversible arguments prove anything? Suppose that a paper contains one hundred algebraic equations, each of which allows x to be either +2 or -2. Can anyone claim that all one hundred equations together prove that -2 is by far the best solution? To do so defies logic. Although Osborne and Williams have indeed made a case for a literary relationship, they fail to establish the MH (-2) as by far the best solution against the 2GH (+2). Running after inconclusive arguments resembles running on a treadmill-one chases the arguments but never gets any closer to a proof.

Streeter's Fourth Argument

At the outset, Osborne and Williams suggest that this argument lets them off the treadmill. Although it is their favorite argument, does it bring them any closer to a proof?

That Matthew and Luke improve Mark's more primitive wording-holds great importance. The following discussion is quite extensive because here, and only here, is firm evidence that demonstrates Markan priority. [emphasis added; see p. 42]

The 2GH argues that Mark's style hints at his background without revealing writing sequence. Osborne and Williams acknowledge that education and other background issues underlie an author's style, but they surmise that consulting a predecessor's work (with "better" style) should improve Mark's style. If this point were granted, would it prove anything? If a scholar assigned to Matthew's style an 8 (on a scale of I to 10) and a 5 to Mark's style, how does that scholar know that Mark's style would not have merited even a 2 had he not consulted Matthew? The stylistic argument assumes the very thing that must be proven. No control text-that is, a large sample of Mark's writing that lacks parallels to Matthew or Luke-exists.

Another reply is possible. Many scholars believe that 2 Peter 2 depends upon Jude (rather than the reverse). But the Greek in 2 Peter often receives unfavorable reviews over that of chapter 3. The question is whether anyone contends that Jude caused the Greek of 2 Peter 2 to improve over that of chapters 1 and 3. Therefore, assuming the dependence of Peter upon Jude, 2 Peter and Jude do not bear out Osborne and Williams's stylistic argument. And if dependence were true regarding 2 Peter, the thesis cannot be tested on Mark because, as was stated earlier, no large sample of his writing lacks Matthean or Lukan parallels.

Matthew as a Scribe-Author

The title of Williams's dissertation, "Is Matthew a Scribe?" hints at how he hopes to expand Streeter's fourth point. The argument hinges upon Matthew's being a scribe-author but opens a Pandora's box.

Is Matthew a scribe? Yes and no. His purported changes to Mark's gospel are scribe-like in their improvements. But many of Matthew's changes to Mark's text are the result of Matthew's being a theological rewriter of Mark's text and not just a copyist who makes minor changes or improvements here or there. [see p. 61]

Osborne and Williams and the present author agree that first-century scribes and authors lacked writing desks, so they read and wrote in their laps (see the Niemela dissertation, pp. 404-8). Consulting an earlier manuscript required setting aside one scroll for the other. If viewing two scrolls at once in one's lap would be a challenge, writing in one while consulting the other would be even more so.

Thus, a scribe read aloud from his exemplar before setting it aside. After placing his manuscript in his lap, he recited the text from shortterm memory and transcribed. Although this process allowed both accidental and intentional changes, few changes occur outside the realm of short-term memory. The fundamental differences between the Gospels occur, however, in their respective macroscopic outlines, that is, in order and content. A microscopic focus would not yield those differences but would yield a slavish replication of one exemplar's outline. (Note Eta Linnemann's similar supposition that a literary solution would require the Synoptics to be virtually identical.) No, the later Evangelists read their predecessor as would authors, not as would scribes.

Consider the following illustration. A secretary receives a tape recording of a professor's paper. The secretary listens to a short section and transcribes it, repeating this process over and over again. After the secretary has transcribed for several hours, the professor demands, "Summarize my argument orally." Oral transcription emphasizes shortterm memory of short sections of the tape, so the professor has shackled his secretary with a demand that would require superhuman ability to fulfill. The same professor also hands a graduate student the same taped message, asking the student to render the argument and the evidence in written form but not to transcribe manually word for word. After several hours, the professor interrupts, asking for an oral sum mary. The student answers easily because he or she listened to the tape as an author, not as a scribe.

Williams, then, does not differentiate sufficiently scribes from authors. His proposal resembles Pharaoh's burdening the Israelites with gathering their own straw without reducing their quota of bricks. Williams wants Matthew to gather Mark's data in his lap, as would a scribe, and at the same time not allow the microscopic focus to interfere with Matthew's organizing the narrative and discourse into a book, the flow of which differs macroscopically from Mark, Q, and M. Pharaoh wanted to break the Israelites, but does Dr Williams see how his proposal requires Matthew to be superhuman? A scribe focuses microscopically. Even when encroaching on the author's role by making intentional changes, a scribe does so microscopically. He does wordsmithing. By contrast, each Evangelist (under any view of literary sequence) never lost sight of the big picture. Certainly, later writers did not preoccupy themselves with putting a predecessor's words into short-term memory and tweaking them. Before writing, authors must plan their books to avoid becoming bogged down in source material. Most differences between earlier and later synoptics arose at some time prior to the writer's final perusal of a target pericope and before the writing of his own account. Later writers did not focus microscopically as scribes. Williams lowers Matthew's role to that of a semiscribe who changed Mark word by word.

It has even been said that "one would expect that the same general principles which apply to scribes copying texts would also apply to Matthew and Luke copying Mark." In other words, "that Gospel is to be preferred as having priority which best explains how the others came into existence." [see p. 48]

If the master plan of the latter author's book (as he is moved by the Spirit), rather than a scribal reaction against a predecessor's words, is what determined his emphases, then the canon from textual criticism is a rabbit trail. If this is Osborne and Williams's big proof of Markan priority, the meat has escaped.

Problems for the Markan Hypothesis

Osborne and Williams do not deny that the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark is a problem for the MH. Instead, they apply damage control: "Tuckett has shown that the Griesbach Hypothesis also has a hard time explaining these agreements between Matthew and Luke because in these instances Mark has chosen not to follow both of his two sources [emphasis added]." Nonsense. This author's dissertation dispels this myth that the 2GH expects Mark to follow Matthew and Luke whenever their texts are similar (cf. pp. 117-23 in the Niemela dissertation). Although the 2GH says that Mark follows Matthew and Luke, it means that he follows them one at a time, not both simultaneously. In other words, no one should construe an orderand-content agreement between Matthew and Luke as an irresistible magnet to the MH. Rather than a fatal flaw of the 2GH, this is a flawed response to the 2GH. Minor agreements cause no problem for the 2GH, but the allusion to Tuckett admits that they still vex the MH.

Regarding the church fathers, Osborne and Williams contend that both the 2GH and the MH have problems. This contention is, again, damage control. Evidence regarding church fathers is at best second tier. Only the Fathers who give evidence, rather than opinion or silence, may be taken into account. Of those Fathers who carry weight, their opinions help the 2GH. Augustine clearly articulates the 2GH. But which Father supported the Markan priority?

Osborne and Williams claim that Mark's omissions of material found in Matthew and Luke are as great a problem for the 2GH as Matthew's and Luke's omissions from Mark. The 2GH presentation in this volume shows the MH faces a nightmarish task in overcoming statistical analysis of order and content. The question is whether Osborne and Williams's response article reiterates the claim that the 2GH has as big a problem with single-attestation passages as the MH.

Q, M, and L

The various bases that Osborne and Williams offer for Q depend upon Markan priority and the independence of Matthew and Luke. Order and content place both of those assumptions in doubt. The 2GH, on the other hand, does not depend upon proving that every verbal parallel between Matthew and Luke represents a literary connection. A father who says, "My younger son sometimes sits next to me at dinner," does not say that they always sit together. To indicate that a literary relationship exists, the 2GH needs only to establish that Luke sometimes follows Matthew. The 2GH presentation in this volume allows for Luke's writing (at times) without consulting a Matthean parallel. But the MH and the Independence View must prove that Luke never consulted Matthew. All of Osborne and Williams's arguments for Q depend upon their supposition that Matthew and Luke independently consulted Mark. After a review of a series of equations wherein x could be -2 (MH) or +2 (2GH), the fact that Osborne and Williams offer a few more reversible equations hardly constitutes a compelling case for Q.

Order and content challenges the viability of both Q and the independence of Matthew and Luke, so it is hardly necessary to discuss M and L. The MH claims that Q, M, and L are positive entities (+Q, +M, +L) upon which Matthew and Luke drew to supplement Mark. The 2GH sees Q, M, and L as nonentities (-Q, -M, -L)-that which Mark omitted that was in Matthew and/or Luke. Order and content are strong evidence for the 2GH view. On the other hand, does the gospel of Thomas prove that Q was a positive entity? No, Thomas may resemble Readers' Digest, famous for its condensed versions of earlier works. If so, Thomas would point to -Q, not +Q. Until the MH accounts for the distribution of order and content, discussing Thomas is merely a distraction from the real issue (order and content). The Q-Thomas hypothesis yields no beef.

Conclusion

The striking feature of the MH is that it lacks a comprehensive, nonreversible line of evidence. Osborne and Williams admit the reversibility of argument after argument and assert the nonreversibility of none. Statistical analysis of order and content potentially offers a definitive answer, and it is time for the MH to apply technology that has existed since 1900 (chi-square statistical analysis) and to account for order and content.

It is also time for evangelicals to take a stand for a high view of Scripture. On this point, Dr. Farnell and I concur. The essay by Osborne and Williams, however, suggests equivocation. They ought not to see Matthew and/or Luke as correcting Mark's theology. Augustine's clear exposition of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis held Scripture in the highest regard, and even today the Lord has seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal. The 2GH still allows upholding the Bible and high scholarly standards before those who challenge it. We ought to stand on bedrock and without equivocation give a reason of the hope that lies within us. Standing firm on His Word is what allows confident proclaiming that Christ guarantees eternal life to everyone who believes in Him (John 6:47).

F. David Farnell

Introduction

Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C. Williams (Osborne and Williams) are to be commended for their presentation of the Two-/Four-Source (Markan Priority) Hypothesis. Their willingness to team together to present the strongest possible case for that view is appreciated. The collegial tone of their presentation represents a good example of how those who disagree should conduct themselves.

Their presentation contains, however, several significant problems-both general and specific-that raise strong doubts about the viability of their theory of the origins of the Synoptic Gospels. The following response summarizes those problems.

The Problem of Presuppositions

Because chapter 3 of this work ("The Case for the Independence View of Gospel Origins") deals extensively with the problem of presuppositions, only a brief summary of the main points is offered here. (1) For seventeen hundred years, the church accepted literary independence among the Synoptics. Then literary-dependency concepts developed when Spinozistic rationalism, combined with other essential philosophical ideologies (deism, romanticism, the Enlightenment, skepticism, evolution, etc.), infiltrated the church, resulting in a radical skepticism and rejection of the Synoptic Gospels as inspired documents. (2) No objective, scientific investigation of the Synoptic Gospels by advocates of literary-dependency hypotheses ever occurred to prove literary dependence. (3) Literary dependency inevitably entails an errancy view of inspiration inherited from the presuppositions from which it was derived. (4) Evangelicals who opt for literary dependency are no exceptions to this general rule.

In their chapter, Osborne and Williams give "A Brief History of the Synoptic Problem" but mention nothing of the presuppositions that spawned their hypothesis. As yet, no evangelical has been able to sanitize the dehistoricization of the Gospels from the theories of literary dependency because dehistoricizing is innately a part of literary dependency.

The Problem of Church History

Osborne and Williams's "A Brief History of the Synoptic Problem" devotes only two sentences to what early church history contributes to the question of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. As chapter 3 of this volume indicates, early Christian writings have abundant information on this subject, but none of it supports Mark as the earliest Gospel. That leaves proponents of Markan priority two options: they can either explain away or ignore the evidence. Osborne and Williams have taken the latter path. The two Fathers whom they cite, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine, both support Matthean, not Markan, priority, a fact that Osborne and Williams do not mention. They emphasize instead the ambiguity of the early Fathers' writings on this subject.

Osborne and Williams also fail to mention the absence of evidence for literary dependence in the early church. They must skip centuries to the time of Owen and Griesbach, Enlightenment rationalists, to begin a historical overview of literary-dependency positions. After surveying the origins of both the 2GH and the MH, they conclude that none of the theories of Gospel origins is conclusive and that we must wait until we get to heaven to find the answer.

That uncertainty ignores the facts of church history, which are anything but uncertain. The clear, consistent, and unanimous testimony of the early church was that Matthew was composed first and that no literary dependency existed. Church history is a most important witness against any literary-dependency hypothesis, especially the MH.

The Problem of Logic and Acute Subjectivity

Osborne and Williams support their position for the MH exclusively on the basis of internal evidence. They choose this basis over "some kind of theological disposition" that looks upon their view as "dangerous." Several observations about their exclusive use of internal evidence are in order. First, exclusive use of internal evidence ignores vital external antecedents such as philosophical presuppositions and church history. To dismiss that type of evidence as mere "rhetoric" indicates the closedmindedness of one who knows his or her conclusion before weighing all of the evidence. Osborne and Williams acknowledge that most of the arguments from internal evidence that are used to prove Markan priority are not overly convincing, but they still cling to that view as "the most plausible literary solution." Later in this response, the author will show how those arguments assume what they are trying to prove.

Second, Osborne and Williams point to "extensive studies" on the Synoptic Problem that have enabled evangelicals to overcome influences of the liberal German scholarship that first proposed Markan priority. Yet, at no time has an objective, scientific study been conducted on the Synoptic Gospels. "Extensive studies," however, have been conducted that a priori assume literary dependency, especially regarding the Two-Source Hypothesis, and proof was then found for what was initially assumed at the outset of the studies (see chap. 3 of this volume for additional discussion on this). Avid Markan prioritists now admit that Streeter's internal-evidence arguments-cited by Osborne and Williams-are weak and inconclusive. The arguments simply assume what they professed to prove.

Third, Osborne and Williams's internal arguments in the synoptic research do the same as a psychological Rorschach test. The Rorschach test is a psychological projective test of personality by which a subject's interpretations of standard abstract designs are analyzed as a measure of emotional and intellectual functioning and integration. The test reveals the predisposition of the person's thinking. If an investigator comes to the Gospels, too, with a predisposition toward literary dependency, the results "discovered" will reflect that investigator's psychological disposition toward what he or she has already assumed. Osborne and Williams's position, based exclusively on internal evidence, overwhelmingly assumes what it is trying to prove.

In citing Streeter's fourth head of evidence, for instance, Osborne and Williams state, "[I]t is here, and only here, that firm evidence is found that demonstrates Markan priority." Their question is, "Could Mark have written a grammatically `worse' Gospel given that he had Matthew's grammatically `refined' Gospel before him as he wrote." Notice that they begin with the assumption of literary dependency and of Mark's primitiveness, which indicates that he wrote first. They then go to Matthew's text to confirm that his refined grammar affirms what they have already assumed. Their reasoning starts where they want it to end and ends with the conclusion they wanted. And that is their proof of Mark's priority or of literary dependency.

Note also the evolutionary assumptions behind Markan priority: the simple precedes the complex. Mark's being grammatically unrefined was developed into Matthew's grammatically refined Gospel. Yet grammar, sophisticated or simple, has nothing to do with order of composition. It merely reflects the personality of the writer, his purposes in writing, his education, his style of writing, or perhaps the background of his readers.

Fourth, both the MH and the 2GH use internal arguments to prove the correctness of their views. The reason they do so lies in the subjective nature of internal evidence. Both literary-dependency positions use, for example, the argument from order. One side contends that the order supports Mark's priority; the other side contends that it supports Matthew. In both contentions, subjective logic explains the conflicting arguments. The Independence View says that the argument from order sheds no light on dependency because order in the Gospels, in most cases, reflects the order of historical happenings.

The agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark provide another piece of internal evidence. Here, Two-Gospel advocates assert that these phenomena support the posterior position of Mark. The MH, echoing Streeter, dismisses this evidence as irrelevant. The Independence View, however, notes what the other two positions ignore: agreements of all combinations of two Gospels against the third exist-Matthew and Mark against Luke, Matthew and Luke against Mark, and Luke and Mark against Matthew. This internal evidence supports neither dependency theory. Random combinations of agreement and disagreement occurred as each Gospel writer reported words and events based on stable traditions from apostolic eyewitnesses. The Independence View best explains the internal phenomena but does so with substantial support from the external considerations of church history and philosophical, presuppositional history.

The same randomness exists in connection with Streeter's other arguments: similarity in content, similarities in precise wording, similarities in order of events, the primitiveness of Mark, and the distribution of Markan and non-Markan material throughout Matthew and Luke. In the following section, "The Problem of Presuppositional Effect on Practice," this response examines Streeter's fourth argument and the use of text-critical principles in proving the primitiveness of Mark. But to comment for now, Streeter's three "similarity" arguments are unconvincing because disagreements between the Gospels also exist. Three writers working separately gave their individual versions of historical happenings as reported by eyewitnesses. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they recorded some matters identically and others differently. One can account for the similarities and disagreements in content, precise wording, and order most readily from a literary independence perspective (see chap. 3 of this volume for more on this subject). As for the distribution of Markan and nonMarkan material in the other Gospels-Streeter's fifth argumentthat, too, was a result of random reporting of the writers working independently.

Osborne and Williams cite a number of passages to demonstrate agreements in precise wording among the Synoptic Gospels. But in responding to the Independence View (see p. 28), they give only passing notice to the memorization techniques in ancient times in contrast to those of the present day. One of them compares the Gospel writers to a class of students: "Consider the odds that, at the end of a class on theology, any two students will have class notes that are virtually verbatim?" That type of comparison ignores the difference between the more highly developed memories of the ancients and the reliance of moderns on more plentiful written resources instead of their memories. But more importantly, the comparison ignores completely the activity of the Holy Spirit in recalling to the minds of the Gospel writers the words that Jesus had spoken (see John 14:26). We dare not compare note-taking ability in current classroom situations to the inspired writings in the Synoptic Gospels and the writers' highly developed memories under the enablement of the Holy Spirit.

Osborne and Williams also raise another question: If no literary dependence occurred between the writers of the Synoptic Gospels, why is content of the three so radically different than the Gospel of John? Church history supplies the answer. According to Eusebius, the historian for the ancient church, Clement of Alexandria reported that John was conscious that "the outward facts of the Gospel had been set forth in the [other] Gospels" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7) and that John deliberately avoided duplicating what Matthew, Mark, and Luke had written. John simply wrote about aspects of Jesus' life that, for the most part, the other three had not covered.

In short, none of the arguments that Osborne and Williams present proves literary dependency. Equally viable alternative explanations are available in each case; in fact, the variations of agreement and disagreement constitute strong evidence for literary independence.

By combining a view of literary dependence with Markan priority, Osborne and Williams raise a serious problem for themselves: where Luke and Matthew got the material not found in Mark. Osborne and Williams solve that problem by postulating the existence of a document called Q. Their discussion of Q, however, is full of equivocations, indicating their doubt about whether such a document ever existed. Their citation of the gospel of Thomas as evidence for the existence of Q is questionable because the gospel of Thomas was a heretical Gnostic writing of the second century A.D. that hardly resembled the alleged form of the hypothetical Q.

The Problem of Presuppositional Effect on Practice

The most revealing aspect of Osborne and Williams's defense of the MH lies in their inability to separate their practice of historical criticism from the liberal presuppositions that gave birth to the ideology. They dismiss history and presuppositions in their discussion as irrelevant to synoptic discussion, classifying them as "rhetoric"; apparently, they believe that they can practice the MH independent of any such negative considerations. Their words are, "[T]he history of the Synoptic Problem bears little relevance today." Their discussion stands, however, as a witness that they have not been able to separate historical-critical techniques from the roots of the ideology, and they fall into the same patterns as do their liberal counterparts of denigrating the inspiration of Scripture.

Although Osborne and Williams refer to the Gospels as "four Spiritinspired narratives," they nonetheless refer to the phrase "and he says to the paralyzed man," found in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 9:6 = Mark 2:10 = Luke 5:24), as "clumsy" wording. They not only call the wording clumsy but also speak of the "odd placement" of the phrase in all three Gospels. That is a strange way for those with a high view of Scripture to speak of what the Holy Spirit has inspired. Rather than attributing clumsiness or oddity to what the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to put down, why not recognize that they were simply passing on the tradition received from eyewitnesses, one of whom was Matthew himself? The writers did not smooth over how things were said or expressed in these traditions; rather, they recorded them exactly as they received them and exactly as they happened.

Furthermore, Osborne and Williams cite Matthew 24:15 and its parallel in Mark 13:14, "let the reader understand," as identical parenthetical comments by the Gospel writers, but those comments originated with Jesus, not with the writers. The words are Jesus' admonition that readers of Daniel should understand the meaning of Daniel's words (see the discussion of this point in chap. 3 of this volume). Working independently, both Gospel writers, rather than one copying a parenthetical remark from another, recorded Jesus' words faithfully.

In considering "theological phenomena" and "text-critical criteria," Osborne and Williams conclude that Mark's readings are "more difficult" in Mark 6:51 b-52 and 8:21 than are the parallels in Matthew 14:32 and 16:12. From this they decide that Matthew must have changed Mark rather than Mark changing Matthew. They call these two instances of discipleship failure the best examples of theological alteration by a Gospel writer. In the former incident, Mark closes the account of the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus' walking on the water with a negative theological picture of the disciples, whereas Matthew gives a positive picture of the disciples' reaction. The same types of reactions are recorded by both writers in the second instance, following the feeding of the four thousand. Osborne and Williams understand that Matthew, for theological reasons, made redactional changes to Mark's account to reflect the opposite conclusion. For Osborne and Williams, historical accuracy was not important to the writers. The writers, for theological reasons, could embellish their sources creatively by fabricating or inventing such changes to the historical narratives to convey theological phenomena. The Independence View says that both writers were accurate, with Mark conveying the reaction of some of the disciples who were slow to believe and Matthew reporting on another group whose faith was more discerning.

In Mark 6:5f. = Matthew 13:58, Osborne and Williams argue for the priority of Mark over Matthew, citing Mark's strange addition of healing miracles. Mark's passage states that Jesus was unable to "do any miracles." According to Osborne and Williams, Matthew redacted Mark's account by changing "any" to "many" and by omitting the mention of the healing miracles. They call Mark's account "a difficult, seemingly inconsistent description," a strange criticism coming from those who label the Gospels as "Spirit-inspired narratives." Also, they again allow for creativity on Matthew's part, a step that smacks of the negative presuppositions of historical criticism. Which is historically accurate-that Jesus did no miracles except a few or that Jesus did not do many miracles? The Independence View would say that both writers reported the same incident accurately, one through the eyes of eyewitness Matthew, who described the fewness of miracles one way, and the other through the eyes of eyewitness Peter (as recorded by Mark), who described the fewness another way. Both accounts are accurate.

In connection with Matthew 23:5b, Osborne and Williams comment on the phrase "for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long," the parallel of which in Mark 12:38 reads "who like to go about in long robes." After discussing Butler's view that Mark copied from Matthew here, Osborne and Williams assert, "[O]ne must admit that Matthew invented this saying, whether he used Mark as a source or not. Which is easier to say-that Matthew invented the saying or that Matthew was triggered by Mark's `bizarre phrase' and then invented the saying?" Thus, for Osborne and Williams, one Gospel writer "invented" sayings, thereby attributing to Jesus words that He never spoke, and the other wrote "bizarre" phrases. Again, these are strange conclusions coming from those who refer to the Gospels as "Spirit-inspired narratives" and illustrate the impossibility of practicing historical-critical techniques without reflecting the antisupernaturalistic presuppositions that gave birth to the idea of literary dependence. The Independence View allows that Jesus spoke both phrases, each writer preserving one of the phrases, and that neither was "bizarre."

In commenting upon Mark 8:15, Osborne and Williams twice mention Mark's "messianic secret." The scholar who introduced the idea of a messianic secret was Wilhelm Wrede, a radical historical critic who suggested that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah and Son of God during His life on earth. After Jesus' death, according to Wrede, the disciples needed a rationale for their post-Easter belief and proclamation that He was the Messiah and the Son of God. Hence, they invented Jesus' commands for silence regarding His identity and inserted them into Mark's Gospel (e.g., 8:30; 9:9) to hide the fact that Jesus never made such a claim. The "messianic secret" is an expression coined by Wrede and viewed by him as a theological invention of the early church rather than as historical reportage of words actually spoken by Jesus. This positing of radical creativity is the starting point for the historical-critical disciplines of form and redaction criticism. Osborne and Williams seem to have embraced at least some of Wrede's theory about the messianic secret. That theory, of course, directly opposes the inerrancy of Scripture. The Independence View attributes the words of Mark 8:30 and 9:9 to Jesus, not to the early church.

The principal basis of Osborne and Williams's case for Markan priority comes from their use of text-critical principles for determining which is the "source" Gospel, Matthew or Mark. They write, "[A]lthough the methods of scribes and those of the Evangelists differ, one may nonetheless conclude that many of the types of changes made by scribes might also have been made by the Evangelists." They admit, "[T]hese [text-critical] principles are a bit slippery, and this fact points to the basic problem of textual criticism: it is not mathematically conclusive. It is an art as well as science. One must proceed cautiously and weigh the evidence carefully."

The following facts about principles of textual criticism are relevant.

1. Principles of textual criticism operate from an a priori assumption that error has occurred in the text and that the error must be detected to recover the original reading. Such principles are designed to recover the original text by discovering the errors introduced through intentional or unintentional scribal changes. To use these principles when comparing Gospel accounts assumes, therefore, that the Gospel writers also erred and that only one account is accurate and original.

2. Such comparisons between Spirit-inspired documents and error-filled scribal copies of the original documents is entirely baseless because the two situations-that of scribes and that of the Evangelists-are not analogous. The apostolic authors who composed the Gospels operated under unique conditions entirely different from the scribes, who are responsible for copying and transmitting those Gospel texts to later readers. The apostles and their associates wrote under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit of truth (John 14:26; 16:13), who constantly superintended the process and guaranteed the accuracy of each separate account (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). Scribes had no such superintendence in their textual responsibilities. The accuracy of the transmitted text was dependent upon the skill or lack of skill of the scribe and the environments in which scribes performed their duties. Even the most careful scribe could not avoid errors; an inerrant copy was impossible because of the inevitability of human error.

3. Use of text-critical principles in a study of Gospel origins reduces Gospel writers to the level of scribal ineptitude and error in their writing abilities. Surely those who maintain an orthodox view of Scripture want to avoid thus impugning the inspired text.

The dangers specified in these three facts about text-critical principles are clearly illustrated in Osborne and Williams's application of those principles to various texts that they cite in their discussion. Based upon text-critical criteria, Osborne and Williams attribute the following to Gospel material.

1. See their discussion of Mark 7:31 = Matthew 15:29, wherein they speak of a complicated route of travel outlined in Mark, implying a Markan error that Matthew corrected in his Gospel. The Independence View says that Jesus chose the roundabout route to guard His privacy with the disciples, whose instruction was His primary purpose at this stage of His ministry, and that Matthew has simplified the route by describing only one part of it. No need exists to postulate that Matthew was correcting Mark. Matthew simply gave the route as he remembered it, his memory not furnishing as much detail as Peter's recollection transmitted by Mark.

2. See Osborne and Williams's discussion of Mark 13:14 = Matthew 24:15. They say that Mark gives a "grammatically difficult" text when he uses hestekota ("set up") to modify a noun of a different gender, to bdelygma ("desolating"), and that Matthew uses "a more specific and grammatically correct" hestos to modify the same noun. They write, "Thus, Matthew eliminates some of the possible misunderstandings from Mark's more difficult text"[emphasis added]. Hence, Mark is less correct than Matthew, they say, and is more difficult, leading to possible misunderstandings. The Independence View does not thus denigrate Mark's Gospel and its inspiration but proposes that Jesus, by repeating various parts of His sermon for emphasis, used both genders in His Olivet Discourse. In one instance, according to Mark, Jesus used a masculine participle (agreement according to sense) to modify the neuter abomination to show that a person would be guilty of committing the abomination. In the other, according to Matthew, He used strict grammatical agreement (neuter with neuter) to show that the abomination would occur in a place of worship.

3. See Osborne and Williams's discussion of Mark 2:11-12 = Matthew 9:6-7, wherein they impugn Mark's accuracy in reporting an event. They have Matthew's report of the paralytic's actions in 9:7 conforming perfectly with Jesus' command in 9:6, but Mark has the paralytic responding not exactly as Jesus commanded. They see Matthew's text as "an orthodox improvement" [emphasis added] over what Mark has written, an improvement introduced "because of the influence of the Christian community upon the formulation and transmission of passages, as they generally produced more orthodox readings." Thus, Matthew's reportage corrects Mark's faulty account. The Independence View would never see one Gospel as more orthodox than another. It sees all four as equally inspired and equally accurate in what they record. In this instance, Matthew's recollection was that the man went home as Jesus told him to. Mark, on the other hand, does not say that the man did not comply with Jesus' instructions. He simply reported Peter's recollection that the man left the encounter in the sight of all of the onlookers. Nothing is unorthodox about that.

4. See Osborne and Williams's discussion of Mark 2:26 = Matthew 12:4. Because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the house of God to eat the bread of the presence, as Mark 2:26 says, Osborne and Williams say that this "could be an historical error." Because Osborne and Williams profess to hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, they surely do not mean that Mark's text is in error (their two endnotes at this point clarify this issue somewhat). Yet, under their assumption that Matthew copied Mark and omitted the problematic "when Abiathar was high priest," they call Matthew's text "an orthodox improvement" [emphasis added]. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit inspired Mark to write something less orthodox than Matthew? The Independence View acknowledges that the occasion referred to occurred when Ahimelech, Abiathar's father, was high priest, and proposes that the preposition epi refers to the section of the Samuel scroll that discusses Abiathar, not the timing of David's entering the house of God. That section of Samuel discusses both Ahimelech and Abiathar, but Abiathar was better known in his associations with David. Mark is not inferior to Matthew in his orthodoxy, as Osborne and Williams contend.

5. See Osborne and Williams's discussion of Mark 6:22-23 = Matthew 14:6-7. By accepting the reading on which the New Revised Standard Version is based, they conclude that Mark 6:22 names the dancer who entertained Herod Antipas as "Herodias" and calls her Herod's daughter. They call Mark's rendition "more difficult" than Matthew's "the daughter of Herodias" (Matt. 14:6), which indeed it is because Mark 6:24 indicates that the girl was the daughter of Herodias, not of Herod. Osborne and Williams then apparently concur with Swete, who says that Mark 6:22 is in error because the girl's name was Salome, not Herodias, and that she was the grandniece, not the daughter of Herod. Thus, they conclude that Mark's historical error makes his Gospel Matthew's "source" and that he corrected Mark's error. Because of its belief that Scripture is without error, the Independence View approaches Mark 6:22 with an entirely different outlook, not looking for how one inspired Gospel corrected an error in another inspired Gospel. Closer examination of the Greek text behind Mark 6:22 reveals a very high degree of doubt behind the Greek text supporting the NRSV rendering of the verse. Instead of tes thygatros autou Hergdiados ("his daughter, Herodias"), the reading thygatros autes tes Hergdiados ("the daughter of Herodias herself") has substantial manuscript support. In terms of internal evidence, "his daughter, Herodias" is so difficult that it is impossible because of the historical problem it creates within the context of Mark itself. Rather than attributing an error to Mark in this case, the Independence View simply chooses the reading that has good external support and corresponds most closely to principles of internal evidence as well.

This "Independence Response to Chapter One" has devoted much space to show that one cannot divorce evangelical historical criticism from the roots of nonevangelical historical criticism. Osborne and Williams insist that "the history of the Synoptic Problem bears little relevance today," but the previously cited examples as well as their other examples show that such is not true. Historical criticism, no matter who practices it, has an ideological bias against the inspiration of Scripture because it is impossible to assume literary dependence without denigrating the accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels. Osborne and Williams's expressions that suggest a lower view of inspiration include "clumsy wording," "odd placement," "theological alteration," "inconsistent description," "bizarre phrase," "invented sayings," "messianic secret," "difficult and round-about journey," "grammatically difficult," "an orthodox improvement," and "historical error." Such terminology reflects the influence of liberal originators of historical criticism and reflects that evangelicals have not separated themselves from the ideology of those who first suggested that literary dependence characterized the writing of the Synoptic Gospels. Such an approach is incompatible with the view that the Gospels are "four Spirit-inspired narratives." That incompatibility is not mere "rhetoric"; it is reality.

Summary Observations

This discussion has pointed out four problems with Markan priority and the Two-/Four-Source View: presuppositions, church history, logic and acute subjectivity, and presuppositional effect on practice. More remains to be said, of course, but the author hopes that these remarks will stimulate deeper thought and serve as a foundation for further dialogue regarding the positive features of the Independence View in contrast to the MH and regarding how the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospels (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).

John H. Niemela

Literary Collaboration and a High View of Scripture

Thomas and Farnell's The Jesus Crisis has a subtitle: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship. Although this chapter presents a different solution for the Synoptic Problem proper, its writer is likewise gravely concerned to see evangelicals accept liberal hermeneutical approaches that undermine the Bible, including the Synoptic Gospels. Serious scholarship must always remember John 17:17: "Your word is truth" Biblical scholars too frequently reject inerrancy, inspiration, and the need for a consistent hermeneutic. Is acceptance of intersynoptic literary collaboration another example of this wrongheaded scholarship? No, unless literary collaboration itself undermines Scripture or unless the Bible itself precludes it, acceptance of literary collaboration does not compromise inerrancy, inspiration, or the need for a consistent hermeneutic. Some conservatives see literary dependence as a source of stumbling: how can the inerrant and inspired Word of God be written by human authors who were dependent upon one another? Thus, Robert Thomas raises an important question:

To many, this assumption [literary collaboration] does no harm. After all, literary collaboration between the writers of Kings and Chronicles in the Old Testament is obvious, and did not Jude depend on 2 Peter in writing his epistle (or vice versa, as some would have it)?'

Literary collaboration exists between contemporaries, including writers of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, Thomas's choice of the phrase literary collaboration avoids a taint associated with literary dependence. Literary collaboration or literary consultation suggests that writers of Scripture practiced a much lighter use of existing materials, one restricted to observed/ nonobserved literary phenomena. Such lighter use describes the view presented in this chapter. Thomas continues,

Yet the consequences are more serious when dealing with Matthew, Mark, and Luke and their similar records of the life of Christ. McKnight elaborates on the nature of the consequences in his observations about comparing the Gospels and identifying authorial reasons for editorial changes: "For example, a redaction critic, usually assuming Markan priority, inquires into the nature of and rationale for Matthew's addition of Peter's unsuccessful attempt to walk on the water. ...."z

Is this a critique of literary collaboration? No, it identifies a problem rooted in McKnight's redaction criticism.? Scripture writers who drew upon earlier Scriptures did so with great respect, not with the reckless abandon suggested by redaction criticism. McKnight uses a hermeneutical approach that denigrates the authority of Scripture. Modern redaction critics say nothing about whether God led later Gospel writers to draw upon what He had already inspired. Who besides God holds the copyright for His Word?

The Independence View and Luke 1:1-4

The foregoing statements by Thomas, who is unquestionably a conservative scholar, indicate that the acceptance or rejection of literary collaboration cannot in itself be a litmus test of whether a scholar is conservative. Unless the Bible directly precludes intersynoptic collaboration, it remains a viable possibility. The crux of the issue remains whether any portion of Scripture precludes literary collaboration among the Synoptic Gospels.

Luke 1: 1-4 is the only biblical passage that could be said to address directly relationships between the Synoptic Gospels.

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.4

Regarding this passage, Drs. Thomas and Farnell write, "Luke himself describes his sources in the prologue to his gospel (Luke 1:1-4), a description that precludes his use of another canonical gospel (see chap. 7 of this volume [The Jesus Crisis] for further discussion)."' Paul Felix, in chapter 7 of the same book in which Thomas and Farnell write, states his point more cautiously but concurs with Thomas and Farnell.

Though epecheiresan ["have undertaken"] may not be so strongly negative in its reflection as Eusebius indicates, Luke's preface contains at least a slight allusion to the insufficiency of earlier attempts. Otherwise, Luke would not have undertaken the task of writing his gospel. The existence of it is evident testimonial to that.

Thomas and Farnell categorically state that Luke 1:1-4 "precludes his use of another canonical gospel," so why does Felix weaken this to a "slight allusion"?

Felix explains, "In itself the word [have taken in hand: Luke 1:1 ] speaks only about an attempt, not about a successful attempt [nor a failed attempt]. The context must tell whether the attempt was suc cessful."' He sees the fact that Luke wrote his Gospel as a decisive contextual feature, proving "the insufficiency of earlier attempts." Some scholars surmise that the prologue to Luke-Acts has a similar polemic function as that of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. The latter says,

Now of these several reasons for writing history, I must profess the two last were my own reasons also; for since I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew myself its particular actions, and what conclusion it had, I was forced to give the history of it, because I saw that others perverted the truth of those actions in their writings.'

Clearly, Josephus has a polemic aim, but Luke does not. Such speculation about Luke's hidden agenda raises a more important question: In light of the dual authorship of Scripture, does the proposition stated by Thomas, Farrell, and Felix (that Luke disparaged his predecessors) make sense in Luke's context?

God Is Scripture's Ultimate Author

The argument, as The Jesus Crisis states it, treats Luke as if he were the sole author of his Gospel. Syllogism, presents this argument:

Major Premise : Luke would not disparage a canonical Gospel.

Minor Premise,: (By writing) Luke disparages accounts that he knew.

Conclusion,: No canonical Gospel was among accounts that Luke knew.

This argument, however, is inconclusive. One should not focus on Luke exclusively because God (not Luke) is the ultimate author. Syllogism 2 clarifies:

Major Premise2: God would not disparage a canonical Gospel.

Minor Premise2: (By inspiring Luke) God disparages accounts that He knew.

Conclusion2: No canonical Gospel was among accounts God knew.

Assuming that Luke disparages other gospel accounts implies that he was ignorant of the first canonical Gospel (no writer in this volume sees Luke as the first synoptic). Does Luke's ignorance, assumed in minor premises, also imply God's ignorance? Such does not fit with verbal plenary inspiration unless God unknowingly inspired Matthew's account.' Instead, the minor premise is wrong: since Syllogism2 is false, Syllogism, is hardly tenable. They stand or fall together. Both God and Luke could know of Luke's canonical predecessors without denigrating them. Luke 1:1-4 is nothing less than the very Word of God,10 and that Luke wrote does not disparage earlier accounts.

Although the Independence View has the noble aim of putting a hedge around Scripture, Luke 1:1-4 does not preclude his use of another canonical Gospel. What, then, does Luke's prologue mean? The Greek word for "have undertaken," epecheiresan, does not discuss the sufficiency or insufficiency of earlier attempts. Neither does the fact that Luke mentioned his predecessors. If nothing else, Luke 1:3 links Luke with his predecessors positively: "It seemed good to me also" (emphasis added).

Luke's Total Contribution

Just as the writer of Chronicles consulted Kings in writing his account, the 2GH sees Luke consulting Matthew's Gospel: Matthew would be one of the "many" to whom Luke 1:1-2 refers. As Paul's companion on the Gentile mission field, Luke wrote a Gospel that uniquely anticipated Acts by emphasizing (1) Jesus' dealings with Gentiles and women, (2) the Holy Spirit, and (3) Christ's teaching on finances. Luke purposed for Theophilus to "know the certainty of the things in which you were instructed" (Luke 1:4). Theophilus apparently needed further establishment both in areas touched upon in the Gospel of Luke and in areas to be covered by Acts. Merely sending Theophilus a copy of Matthew would not accomplish what Luke's two-volume account does. Part of establishing Theophilus included, for example, the warning in Acts about Judaizers. Luke's writing of Luke-Acts in no way depreciates Matthew's account.

Luke 1:1. "The things which have been fulfilled among us" goes beyond Luke's Gospel, even to Acts. Luke's Gospel is only the first volume of an integrated two-part work, Luke-Acts. Craig Evans considers Luke's self-references through the use of the personal pronouns we or us:

The reference [Luke 1:1] to the things that have been fulfilled among us anticipates the accomplishments mostly recorded in the second volume, the book of Acts. Among us, by which phrase Luke includes himself as a participant, also anticipates Acts, particularly the "we sections" (Acts 16:1017; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16), where Luke is himself an eyewitness."

Marshall argues that Luke 1:1 most naturally includes a reference to the church (post-Pentecost). The events of Acts are part of the referent of Luke 1:1-4.

... Luke refers to the "things" which have "come to fulfilment" among "us". Granted that the "us" refers to Christians generally, the phrase is more easily explained if it refers to what happened in the experience of the readers and therefore includes the growth and establishment of Christian churches. The use of "things" in the plural is an odd way of referring simply to the life-story of one person. And the word "fulfill" may also suggest more than simply the life of Jesus, the more especially since Jesus himself spoke of things that were yet to be fulfilled in the activity of his followers (Lk. 24:47-[4]9).12

C. F. Evans observes that Luke 1:1 makes a stronger reference to Acts than to Luke's Gospel.

among us: This shows Luke writing as a member of an identifiable group, and presumes that Theophilus and the reader will know who us here and in v. 2 refers to.... It may also indicate that the preface is to L-A [Luke-Acts] as a whole, as the things which have been accomplished among us could refer as well, perhaps even better, to the events recorded in Acts as to those recorded in the Gospel."

Joel Green argues similarly:

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, then, narrate one continuous story, and the phrase from Luke's preface that describes the content of the work "the events that have been fulfilled among us," refers both to the story of Jesus and to the activity of the early church.14

Clearly, the link between Luke-Acts and the prologue in Luke 1:1-4 is well documented, but why then did Luke make it two distinct volumes?

Luke's Gospel is the longest New Testament book, with Acts being a close second. If Luke-Acts were a single volume, it would have been huge by first-century standards (twice the size of the largest literary scrolls), making it ungainly to handle. Splitting it solves the problem. Although Luke-Acts is two volumes, Luke 1:1 anticipates the content of Acts. Thus, David Aune's remarks are appropriate: "Conforming to the conventions of Hellenistic historiography, Luke begins his work with a primary preface describing the entire work (Luke 1:1-4), and he prefixes a secondary preface to Acts briefly recapitulating the content of Luke (Acts 1:1-5)."15 Luke would certainly praise Matthew's Gospel. Even so, Matthew lacks the integrated sequel about the apostles' ministry, which Theophilus also needs. Luke 1:1-4 anticipates Luke-Acts (not Luke alone or Acts alone) meeting Theophilus's need.

The connection between Luke 1:1 and 1:2. Luke indicates that "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us" It is important to deal with the intro ductory kathos ("just as"). Luke compares verses 1 and 2. The nature of the comparison, however, justifies close examination.

(1) Inasmuch as many [group A] have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, (2) just as [kathos] those [group B] who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us [emphasis added].

Felix distinguishes group A from group B, allowing no overlap:

A natural question to ask relates to the identity of the earlier accounts. Do they include canonical Matthew and/or Mark? Luke could not have referred to Matthew, for he distinguishes the "many" from the apostolic eyewitnesses of verse 2. Since Matthew was one of those eyewitnesses, Luke could not have had his gospel in mind.'

The kathos ("just as") that begins verse 2 gave rise to Felix's assertion that no one in group B could belong to group A. Kathos, however, does not require such an interpretation. Consider Ephesians 1:3-4: "[ 1:3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ [1:4] just as [kathos] He [God the Father] chose us in Him" (emphasis added). The kathos does not preclude God the Father from being the one blessed in Ephesians 1:3 as well as the one who elects in 1:4. The similar grammar of Luke 1:1-2 cannot preclude many (v. 1) from including an eyewitness and servant of the Word (v. 2). Thus, grammatical considerations allow groups A and B to overlap. A writer of an account referred to in Luke 1:1 may also be an eyewitness referred to in verse 2. This does not mean that all writers were eyewitnesses or that all eyewitnesses were writers. Matthew, however, was both an eyewitness and a writer.

Luke 1:2. The "eyewitnesses" and "servants" handed down content related to Luke-Acts. Luke 1:2's phrase from the beginning does not express a requirement for being "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" Some scholars claim that Luke stipulates that eyewitnesses must go back to the very beginning.

These "eyewitnesses" were not recent additions to the Christian movement. Rather, they were "from the beginning" (ap' arches) observant participants in the life and ministry of Jesus. That beginning was in particular the baptism of Jesus...."

This makes being an eyewitness of Jesus' baptism a requirement. Even so, Felix calls Matthew and Mark eyewitnesses, although they did not witness Jesus' baptism. This is an inconsistent approach.

Since Matthew was one of those eyewitnesses, Luke could not have had his gospel in mind. On the other hand, Mark was not an apostle. Yet, according to tradition, he was an eyewitness (Mark 14:51-52)....18

Matthew did not join Jesus until Matthew 9:9ff. Mark joined Him even later; neither observed Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3). In the light of these two obvious exceptions, treating the phrase from the beginning as a requirement to being an eyewitness makes Luke seem double tongued, thus, such treatment cannot be correct.

Instead, Luke means that these eyewitnesses and servants include even those who were so from the very beginning. In this regard, note that immediately after the prologue Luke considers Elizabeth and Mary. Certainly, Mary was an eyewitness from the beginning of events that lead to Christ's birth as well as John's because she enters the narrative six months after Elizabeth conceived (Luke 1:26).

Why is the approach to from the beginning important? Luke includes Paul among the "eyewitnesses [autoptes] and servants [huperetes] of the word" On the Damascus Road, Christ told Paul that he would be "a minister [huperetes] and a witness [martys] both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you" (Acts 26:16). In 1:2 Luke uses the same word for servant as Paul used for minister and as a synonym for witness." "Eyewitnesses and servants of the word" encompass Mary, Matthew, Mark, Paul, and many others. Remember that Luke's prologue (Luke 1:1-4) introduces both Luke and Acts. Paul did not witness the events of Luke's Gospel or Acts 1-8, but he certainly was an eyewitness and a servant of the Word. Did not Paul serve as Luke's eyewitness for the sections of Acts 9 and following that used third person pronouns, that is, the they sections? Luke does not say that every eyewitness went back to the very beginning but rather that he received testimony from those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.

These "eyewitnesses and servants of the word passed down" (paredosan) truth. The term paredosan is general, allowing for either oral or written communication. No difficulty arises from Luke's investigating what the eyewitnesses transmitted either orally or in writing (Luke 1:2). His research could even include consulting a canonical Gospel.

Luke 1:3-4. Luke did not disparage his predecessors. The phrase "to me also" is one word (kamoi). Luke does not dissociate from his predecessors; to the contrary, he joins with them, "to me also." Luke's contribution is unique, even among the writers of the canonical Gospels: he alone wrote an integrated sequel (Acts). Luke-Acts was just what Theophilus needed to know the certainty of the things in which he was instructed (Luke 1:4).

Summary of Luke 1:1-4

Luke-Acts is a carefully integrated account as the prologue, Luke 1: 1-4, evidences. Luke's transition between verses 1 and 2 does not preclude an eyewitness (v. 2) from writing an account (v. 1). In Luke 1:2, the phrase "from the beginning" does not restrict the meaning of "eyewitnesses and servants" solely to those who witnessed the Lord's baptism. In Luke 1:3-4, Luke not only refrains from negative comments about prior accounts but also more importantly joins himself to his predecessors. As the only direct statement of Scripture on the subject, Luke 1: 1-4 does not preclude literary collaboration among the synoptics. Therefore, does a secondary tier of nonbiblical evidence provide historical justification for literary independence?

Patristics: A Secondary Source

The Word of God stands sure, despite the concerted efforts of many people to discredit it. No such certainty characterizes patristic evidence, so the words of the early church fathers must remain at best a secondary resource of evidence.20 Are they a sufficient foundation for a groundbreaking case against collaboration between Synoptic Gospel writers, as presented in the The Jesus Crisis? no chapter of which is longer than "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church "21 In that chapter, Drs. Thomas and Farnell argue that patristic evidence favors a Matthew-Luke-Mark-John sequence and that each author wrote his account independently from the other Gospel writers.

The Need for Discernment

The need for caution in discerning patristic evidence reveals itself dramatically in patristic views regarding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint. The Letter ofAristeas to Philocrates purports to give the history of seventy Jews translating the Pentateuch into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (284-246 B.c.). The original letter is more of a propaganda piece than a historical narrative.22 Compared with those who followed him, however, Aristeas was rather modest; he claimed nothing beyond a translation of the Pentateuch (the Law), expressly noting that the translators conferred with each other to finalize translation decisions, nor did he claim inspiration for the translation.23

Two early Jewish writers (Josephus and Philo) drew upon Aristeas. Josephus mentions only the translation of laws, not the entire Old Testament.24 He says that the translators met in a "house that was built near the shore, and was a quiet place, and fit for their discoursing together about their work."25 Thus, Josephus transmitted these aspects of Aristeas accurately. Philo also said that the translators translated only the Law.26 In contrast with Aristeas, however, he added the notion that each translator worked in isolation under inspiration.

... [The translators] became as it were possessed, and, under inspiration, wrote, not each several scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter.27

Philo seems to have created the idea of inspired translators who subsequently discovered that their translations were identical. By contrast, Aristeas and Josephus are much more restrained.

Did the Fathers have access to Aristeas's letter itself? Tertullian mentions Aristeas by name,2" as does Jerome (who also mentions Josephus).29 Although most Fathers preferred Philo's notion, those who mention a source name Aristeas. Jerome's rebuke of those who speak of seventy isolated translators producing an inspired Greek Old Testament makes it clear that (1) the Fathers he addresses had access to Aristeas and (2) they knew that Aristeas was older than Josephus (or Philo). Jerome says,

I do not know whose false imagination led him to invent the story of the seventy cells at Alexandria, in which, though separated from each other, the translators were said to have written the same words. Aristeas, the champion of that same Ptolemy, and Josephus, long after, relate nothing of the kind; their account being that the Seventy assembled in one basilica consulted together, and did not prophesy. For it is one thing to be a prophet, another to be a translator.30

In Jerome's time, three matters were at stake: (1) Jerome faced opposition for planning to translate the Hebrew Old Testament (rather than the Septuagint) into Latin; (2) many of his contemporaries believed that the Septuagint was inspired; (3) thus, many of his contemporaries believed that the Apocrypha (contained in the Greek Old Testament) was inspired also.31

Although various Fathers spoke of Aristeas as being their source, they tended to follow Philo's rendering of events. Either they did not discern the difference or they found Philo's later version more appealing. From Justin Martyr to Epiphanius, certain Fathers-including Justin Martyr,32 Irenaeus,33 Clement of Alexandria,34 Augustine"' Chrysostom,36 and Epiphanius3'-accepted two false accretions that went beyond the account given by Aristeas: (1) that the translators produced identical translations independently and (2) that the translation extended to the whole Old Testament.

Who, though, among contemporary scholars supposes the Septuagint to be inspired Scripture? The Hebrew and Aramaic alone were inspired. Scholars must weigh patristic evidence carefully to avoid perpetuating the errant presuppositions and mistakes of the early church fathers. Thus, all patristic evidence is in nature a second tier. Does patristic evidence exist that indicates that the Fathers favor literary independence regarding the Gospels? If so, how consistent is that evidence? Is it any more reliable than their view of the Septuagint?

Papias (fl. A.D. 95-110)

Sometimes Markan hypothesists treat Papias's assertion that Matthew composed the logia as an assertion that Matthew wrote Q, not his Gospel. Papias's use of the word logia, however, refers to neither Q nor the so-called "sayings collection." Papias says that Mark "wrote accurately (but unarranged)38 whatever he remembered of either the things said or done by the Lord" but "not making an arrangement of the Lord's logia. "39 Papias's first sentence explains the meaning of arrangement. Kittel argues that these sentences are synonymous.40 In referring to Mark, though, Papias equated logia with "things said or done," referring to Mark's Gospel. In the same context, Papias says that Matthew "arranged the logia," the content of his own Gospel. Thus, both Gospels present what Jesus did and said (the logia), Papias saying that Matthew arranged events sequentially but that Mark did not. Papias does not, therefore, support a Q source.

Besides the logia issue, another controversy is whether Papias theorizes that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. The Jesus Crisis scrutinizes Papias's words: "Matthew arranged the logia in the Hebrew dialect ' "" arguing for a (lost) Aramaic proto-Matthew, "a shorter version that eventually came to be incorporated into (not necessarily translated from but contained within) an expanded Greek version, namely, the canonical Gospel of Matthew."42 Drs. Thomas and Farnell see little time elapsing between the Aramaic and Greek versions and regard the Greek Matthew to have preceded the other Gospels.43 The irony is that believing in a Hebrew proto-Matthew (an Ur-Gospel, i.e., the original Gospel) is not unlike believing in Q source: (1) no one has ever seen it (as no one has seen Q), (2) no one can prove that Matthew wrote two versions, and (3) Matthew's Greek Gospel would still precede Luke and Mark.

Arguments over a lost noncanonical document seem fruitless because such speculation can be proven neither true nor false. Although a hypothetical lost Gospel does not affect the priority of the Greek Matthew, if the Jesus Seminar were ever to abandon Q, might it embrace an Aramaic proto-Matthew (following Thomas and Farnell's logic)? The Independence View should seek to close that Pandora's box, not leave it open. Did Luke or Mark consult the Ur-Gospel? If the Fathers were always right, it would be one thing. The fact that they sometimes err bodes for caution.

Even Thomas and Gundry sometimes differ with Papias, who prefers Matthew's order of events over Mark's. One may observe the difference of sequence between the Gospels by examining a table (see p. 140) of parallel passages in any harmony or synopsis. Consider Thomas and Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels,' who prefer Mark's order over Matthew's, a divergence from Papias. The sections below proceed in the same sequence as Mark. Matthew's sequence, however, jumps between chapters (let alone verses) in Thomas and Gundry's arrangement (see the following chart). Thus, in this table Matthew is not sequential; only Mark appears in order. But Papias would differ with Thomas and Gundry, contending that Matthew's order is the true sequence.

Was it wrong for Thomas and Gundry to differ with Papias by disagreeing with Matthew's sequence? No, everyone differs with patristic evidence to one degree or another, despite its antiquity. Neither Papias nor any church father carries any more weight than the strength of his evidence. The question is not whether to differ with the Fathers but how much to differ. No one follows them 100 percent because they are merely a second tier of evidence, not inspired truth. At times, everyone has to admit that the Fathers erred.

Irenaeus (c. A.D. 115-200)

Irenaeus said, "Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and founding the church"45 Irenaeus said that Paul was not only preaching in Rome but also founding that church when Matthew wrote. Irenaeus was certainly inventive. Actually, Paul reached Rome in Acts 28:16 (long after writing the epistle to the Romans to an already founded Roman church). Acts ends with Paul still imprisoned, but Irenaeus depicts paired activities (preaching and founding) that would necessarily follow Paul's release. The simplest accounting for this would be that Luke finished Acts soon after Paul's two-year imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:30). Because Acts 1:1 refers to Luke's Gospel as "the former account," Irenaeus cannot place Acts before Luke. Irenaeus thus creates an interesting chronology: Luke's Gospel precedes the writing of Acts, whereas Matthew's "Aramaic" Gospel would follow Acts. After completing the Aramaic version, Irenaeus would say that Matthew wrote a Greek version.46 At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priority:

• Luke wrote his Gospel,

• Luke wrote Acts upon Paul's release,

• Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and

• Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek.

Even if, as The Jesus Crisis maintains," Irenaeus accepted Matthean priority, his chronology actually presents Lukan priority. Such a major contradiction disqualifies him from throwing any light on the order of the Synoptic Gospels.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215)

Clement says that Matthew and Luke, the Gospels with genealogies, were written first. Although his opinion is quite compatible with the 2GH, he does not explain his evidence. One statement in particular draws suspicion in light of 1 Peter 5:13, where Peter and Mark had a father-son relationship. The Gospels and Acts do not paint Peter as a timid man, but Clement depicts him as strangely indifferent regarding the writing of Mark's Gospel account: "And when the matter came to Peter's knowledge, he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward"48 Would not Clement's statement suggest a failure by Peter to recognize Mark's account as Scripture? The content of Clement's statement runs contrary to (1) the avowed relationship between Peter and Mark and (2) Peter's repeatedly demonstrated impetuous character. More importantly, if taken seriously, his statement would raise questions about Mark's canonicity, would it not? A careful reading of Clement's words shows him to lack credibility.

Clement also asserts that John consulted the texts of the synoptics, "But, that John, last of all, conscious that the external facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."49 On the other hand, Thomas and Famell suggest that one cannot harmonize books that have a literarily dependent relationship. They say,

[There is an] incompatibility of harmonization with literary dependence. A factor that demonstrates quite conclusively that the ancient church did not view the Gospels as dependent on each other is the consistent effort of early [patristic] writers to harmonize the gospel accounts with each other.50

Another statement in the same chapter of The Jesus Crisis reads, "In regard to the day of the Lord's crucifixion, he [Clement] adds, `With this precise determination of the days both the whole Scriptures agree, and the Gospels harmonize.""' Regarding John 18:28 versus Matthew 26:17, Clement harmonized the timing of the Crucifixion in relation to the Passover. Literary collaboration between John and the Synoptics did not preclude Clement from harmonizing these accounts. Those critics who refuse to harmonize parallels do so because of their hermeneutical approach. That is the real culprit, not literary collaboration. Literary collaboration does not preclude harmonizing Kings and Chronicles or Jude and 2 Peter.

Origen (A.D. 185-253)

The following citation of Origen by Eusebius mentions the Gospels in the order Matthew-Mark-Luke-John.

... [Origen wrote] somewhat as follows: ". . . as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first [proto] was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly [deuteron], that according to Mark.... And thirdly [triton], that according to Luke.... After them all, that according to John"52

Does this reflect canonical order or chronological sequence? Thomas and Farnell quote one writer as claiming,

Here Origen's statement reflects an order of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but nothing in the context requires this to be an assumed chronological order for Mark and Luke. Origen's explicit statement is that Matthew wrote first and John last, but otherwise Eusebius' discussion centers in Origen's view of the exact number of the Gospels rather than in the order of their composition.53

Construing Origen's words first and last as chronology but second and third as canonical order is special pleading, that is, Eusebius's purpose for citing Origen is a red herring because Eusebius's witness (Origen) discussed two issues, not one. Clearly, however, Origen regarded Mark as the second Gospel written.

The view that Eusebius speaks of canonical order is highly problematic. It is unlikely that a single volume held all four Gospels before the third century.54 The oldest manuscript containing all four Gospels (p45 of the third century) places Mark immediately before Acts.55 This placement accords with a variety of manuscripts (mostly early) that place the Gospels in this order: Matthew-John-Luke-Mark. Adding to the controversy, various other manuscripts place the Gospels in nine different sequences." It is anachronistic, then, to assume that the modern sequence (Matthew-Mark-Luke-John) was the standard throughout the patristic period. Eusebius knew that Origen saw Mark as the second Gospel written and allowed his statement to stand.

Nor is this the end of the controversy over order. The Jesus Crisis treats canonical order as Origen's point, asserting that Eusebius "accepted Origen's order as reflecting the canonical order of appearance in New Testament manuscripts."" If true, Eusebius affirms that manuscripts mixed Aramaic and Greek Gospels: Matthew's Aramaic version, the Greek Mark, the Greek Luke, and the Greek John. The preceding list does not refer to canonical order of manuscripts. The point is that no manuscript had one Aramaic Gospel and three Gospels in Greek. If an Aramaic version of Matthew existed at this late date, why are no copies extant? Eusebius quotes Origen, who believed in a Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. The Independence View treats the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John sequence as though it were universal until Augustine. Actually, as has been shown, the Fathers held various views.

Augustine

Augustine creates the strongest case within the patristic evidence, referring to alternating agreement patterns between Matthew-Mark and Luke-Mark and supports his conclusion with textual data. Alternating agreements are important as well to the 2GH.

Although Augustine's observation seems to focus on content (parallel passages), it is consistent with what synopsis (harmony) makers observe-alternating agreements regarding order and content between Matthew-Mark versus Luke-Mark. The following chart of Markan parallels draws section numbers and verse references from Thomas and Gundry, Harmony.SB Moving down any column with a bold nonitalic font finds numbers becoming progressively larger. That is, every bolded passage in Matthew, Mark, and Luke shares the same sequence. But every Matthean or Lukan italicized, nonbold reference represents a different order than Mark.

What should the reader notice? Usually, Mark agrees with (1) Matthew, (2) Luke, or (3) both Matthew and Luke. Only one Markan passage here (Section 84: Mark 4:26-29) lacks parallels in both Matthew and Luke-thus the shaded areas in Matthew and Luke-nor does any italicized Matthean or Lukan reference correspond to Mark 4:26-29. To summarize the whole chart, Mark (unlike Matthew or Luke) avoids having his passages in a unique section order, and (unlike Matthew or Luke) he rarely includes passages that are unique to him (this chart excludes those portions of Matt. 4:18-13:58 and Luke 4:31b-8:56 that do not parallel Mark). Readers should notice alternating agreements (those times when a shaded box appears only in Luke or only in Matthew). At those times, Mark has the same order and content as either Matthew or Luke. Sometimes Mark has the same order and content as (1) Matthew only, (2) Matthew and Luke, or (3) Luke only.

After Augustine perceived the alternating agreement pattern, he changed his opinion, no longer seeing Luke as the third Gospel but seeing Mark as third. Augustine's conclusion about Mark does not conflict with any biblical arguments or this chapter's survey of patristic evidence. Thus, Augustine is a precursor to later order-and-content argumentation for the 2GH.

Drs. Thomas and Farnell propose, however, that Augustine did not accept a literary solution to the Synoptic Problem.59 Their conclusion involves an unusual twist on a citation from Augustine: "And however they [the Gospel writers] may appear to have kept each of them in a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done."°0 Augustine is saying in this quotation that the later Gospel writers knew their predecessors' works, not merely the fact that their predecessors had written. According to Thomas and Farnell, however, Augustine allows the possibility of the Evangelists' choosing to write in ignorance of each other. How would an Evangelist choose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done? Refusal to read a predecessor's work is the only way one could choose to write in ignorance. Thomas and Farnell need to explain that, although according to them the Evangelists could have written in ignorance of one another's works, no "writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessors had done."

Thomas and Farrell believe, too, that Augustine regarded the repetition of similarly worded parallels in two or more Gospels as superfluous. If so, would he not charge God (the ultimate author) with superfluity? Thomas and Farrell propose the following interpretation:

... several indicators oppose such a conclusion ["that one writer copied from another"]. (1) One is the statement immediately before about the three synopticists adding "without any superfluity the cooperation of his own work." The expression indicates that the writers did not incorporate any extra material into their accounts, which presumably means that they did not precisely duplicate one another so as to provide two or more identical accounts of the same thing. The most natural meaning of the words excludes literary collaboration among the gospel writers, for copying from one another would have been an overkill." (emphasis added)

According to Thomas and Farnell, then, "without any superfluity the cooperation of his own work" presumably means that Augustine had a microscopic focus and viewed any similarly worded parallel as a superfluous addition only if a later writer knew that his predecessor had also included it. Thus, according to Thomas and Farnell, Augustine supports the Independence View: the Evangelists could not have been aware of one another's works or later writers would not have included the same material as did earlier writers. Does Augustine's context reflect this microscopic focus? Consider the following Augustine quotation:

But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labors any superfluous conjoint compositions. For [Nam] Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to construct the record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal lineage.... On the other hand, Luke appears to have occupied himself rather with the priestly lineage and character of the Lord .12

The word For (Nam) in the second sentence shows that it begins an explanation of the Gospel writers' abstention from "superfluous conjoint compositions." The sentence then speaks of the royal lineage. Augustine understands the lion as the royal image. He understands Luke as the priestly lineage, which Augustine compares to a calf. The first step is to understand Augustine's symbolic linkages between "the living creatures in the Apocalypse" and the four Gospel accounts. He says,

... of those who have interpreted the living creatures in the Apocalypse as significant of the four evangelists, those who have taken the lion to point to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and the eagle to John have made a more reasonable application of the figures than those who have assigned the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion to John. For, in forming their particular idea of the matter, these latter have chosen to keep in view simply the beginnings of the books and not the full design of the several evangelists in its completeness .61 (emphasis added)

Because Augustine saw Matthew presenting Christ as the lion (the king), Mark as the man, Luke as the calf (the priestly sacrifice), and John as the eagle (deity),' he did not regard the four Gospels as "conjoint superfluous compositions." He would regard as superfluous more than one book presenting the lion, more than one about the man, more than one about the calf, or more than one about the eagle. Instead, each Gospel makes its own contribution, so no Gospel is superfluous.

Thus, for Mark to have consulted Matthew's book (emphasizing the lion) would not prevent him from emphasizing the man. The fact that Augustine did not regard any Gospel as superfluous does not argue against literary consultation. By way of illustration, the writer of Chronicles consulted Kings," but that does not make Kings superfluous. Likewise, for one Gospel writer to consult another does not make either book superfluous. Each book of the Bible makes its own unique contribution, even though various writers consulted prior Scriptures.

David Peabody works carefully with the Latin text to show that Augustine changed from a Matthew-Mark-Luke-John order of writing to Matthew-Luke-Mark-John.66 He devotes much attention to discovering the flow of thought expressed by Augustine's conjunctions. Peabody boils down that flow to the following comment on an "either ... or ..." construction in Augustine: "Mark ... either appears to be preferentially the companion of Matthew ... or else ... he holds a course in conjunction with both [the other Synopticists]"67 Augustine's statement touches upon the important points without going into all of the details: Mark's order often follows that of Matthew and Luke. (1) When Matthew and Luke put parallels in the same sequence, Mark often (by following one or the other) agrees with both. (2) When one transposes or omits, Mark usually follows one or the other. Augustine accounted for synoptic similarities and differences by putting Mark third. Moreover, he explained how he reached his conclusions, which in turn makes his contribution to understanding synoptic order and content more valuable than that of other early church fathers, who often make unsupported assertions. Textual observations led Augustine to conclude that Mark consulted Matthew and Luke.

Chrysostom

Drs. Thomas and Farnell treat Chrysostom under the heading "Direct Statement of Literary Independence."" To do so, they needed to reinterpret a passage in which most scholars have understood Chrysostom to assume a literary synoptic connection.

In reasoning why Mark has no genealogy, Chrysostom wrote the following:

[ "Why then," one may say, "doth not Mark do this, nor trace Christ's genealogy, but utter everything briefly?" (an important sentence the block quote omits)]. It seems to me that Matthew was before the rest in entering on the subject (wherefore he both sets down the genealogy with exactness, and stops at those things which require it): but that Mark came after him, which is why [dio] he took a short course, as putting his hand to what had been already spoken and made manifest [emphasis added].

... Did he mean that Mark is an abridgement of the gospel of Matthew? Or did Chrysostom mean that Mark composed his gospel by independently putting his hand to the same historical material that Matthew had covered? Chrysostom answers that question decisively in favor of the latter alternative in an extended statement where he indicates explicitly that the gospel writers worked independently of one another: ... 11

Observe the bracketed sentence (which Thomas and Farnell omit in their citation) that immediately precedes the portion of Chrysostom cited by Thomas and Famell. Chrysostom is, in fact, answering a "Why then?" question with an inferential answer. The full proposition would be: "The reason Mark took a short course by writing about what Matthew had already covered is because he came after Matthew and knew Matthew's gospel." Thus, the either ... or ... interpretation suggested by The Jesus Crisis is not possible."'

The preceding passage shows that Chrysostom assumed literary collaboration. He believed that Mark knew Matthew. It is now appropriate to consider the citation that The Jesus Crisis regards as proof that Chrysostom held to literary independence.

[1] One [Evangelist] indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.

[2a] "But the contrary," it may be said, "hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance." [2b] Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers."

Because Thomas and Farnell regard the paragraphs as self-evident, they do not include their interpretation.72 The following interpretation, however, demonstrates that Chrysostom argues against the Independence View.

An alternate interpretation. Chrysostom uses a diatribe format, in which he dialogues with supposed objectors, the objections being presented in quotation marks. The first paragraph asserts, to paraphrase, that (1) the most credible witness would be if four independent Gospels were to speak independently with the same mouth. The block quote's second paragraph starts with a supposed objector's contrast, "But on the contrary" (Kai men tounantion).73 An objector (2a) not only denies that the four Gospels speak with one mouth but also that the Gospels contradict each other. Point 2b in the earlier block quotation counters the objector by arguing that the Gospels are self-validating because they do not contradict each other, despite not speaking with one mouth. It should be obvious that they do not speak with one mouth in the sense of being carbon copies of each other. In a separate quotation, Chrysostom uses "speak with one mouth" to refer to the identical words of a choir singing "Glory to God." A choir cannot sing together the simple song described via differing wordings:

These that are the lights of the world ... having made one choir, with their conscience bright, with one voice all, like as out of one mouth, they sing hymns unto the God of all, honoring Him and thanking Him for all His benefits, both particular, and common.... what is the difference between the angels and this company of them who on earth sing and say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men. 74

The four Evangelists do not have identical words. Indeed, they did not agree to write four identical accounts; this is not the same, however, as saying that they did not consult each others' works. Indeed, an author often consults many books while writing, but that does not imply that the author's work will be identical with any existing work.

Someone will object, "Could Chrysostom really entertain the idea of four identical Gospels written by four authors?" Yes, indeed. Earlier, in this chapter was mentioned (p. 138) Chrysostom's belief that seventy men independently produced translations of the Greek Old Testament that were identical word for word: ". . . the Seventy, as having entered upon this work [translating the Old Testament into Greek] an hundred years or more before the coming of Christ, stand clear from all such suspicion, and on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted."" As this chapter has demonstrated, many people in the early church believed that Ptolemy Philadelphus separated the seventy translators to test their fidelity,76 directly contradicting their ultimate source, the Letter of Aristeas.77 Chrysostom did not regard as incredible that seventy translators could independently produce identical translations. Neither did he say that he himself would have regarded four independently written identical Gospels as incredible. What he said was that, if they were identical, "none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact."7" In other words, he implies that it was hard to convince some people of his view of the Septuagint. Thus, Chrysostom expresses relief that the four Gospels are not identical. He did not mean that no Gospel writer consulted his predecessor.

Chrysostom's credibility. What if Chrysostom were affirming that no literary consultation occurred? His uncritical acceptance of accounts about seventy isolated translators producing word for word the same translation of the Old Testament in Greek does not speak well of his ability to discern truth from falsehood. Such a view would imply the inspiration of the Septuagint. Such a grave error in his bibliology does not generate confidence in the accuracy of his conclusions regarding similar issues.

The Septuagint includes a number of books of the Apocrypha. Thus, those who favored the Septuagint over the Hebrew were warned by Jerome against treating the Apocrypha as inspired.79 Yet, Chrysostom's Synopsis Scripture Sacre (Synopsis of Sacred Scripture) treats as canonical a host of books from the OT Apocrypha.""

Furthermore, as a typical Eastern Father, Chrysostom held an abbreviated NT canon. Chase summarizes,

If Chrysostom's Canon of the Old Testament errs by excess, his Canon of the New ... is marked by defect.

In the Synopsis [of Sacred Scripture] a list of the Books is given. They are the fourteen Epistles of St Paul, the four Gospels, the book of the Acts, and of the Catholic writings three Epistles. Thus, the Second Epistle of St Peter, the two shorter Epistles of St John, that of St Jude and the Apocalypse are excluded. The Canon of Chrysostom coincides with that of the Peshito and with that of Theodoret.8'

Theodoret would have affected Chrysostom profoundly. Metzger does not raise that issue, but his assessment is similar to that of Chase:

Of approximately 11,000 quotations that Chrysostom makes from the New Testament, according to Baur there are none from 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, or Revelation. In other words, his canon appears to be the same as that of the Peshitta....12

If Chrysostom were really an expert on the writing of the four Gospels, he should have a solid grasp of what John wrote. Why, then, is he so ambivalent regarding whether John wrote Revelation? Perhaps those who cite him on the Gospels overestimate his expertise. Chrysostom does not support the Independence View of the Gospels. Even if he did, would he be a credible witness?

Patristic Summary

Although sincere, the early church fathers were prone to error. They disagreed among themselves on a wide range of issues discussed in this section. No Father is more authoritative than the weight of evidence he offers to support his position. Supporting evidence, however, is often lacking or faulty. Consider the outline of the second section of the chapter, "The Ancient Church" (The Jesus Crisis, letters A-E that follow are added to simplify references):

Points B, C, and E are tangential to the argument over literary collaboration. Specifically, many people who hold to a literary solution (this author included) readily affirm that the apostles Matthew and John plus Luke and Mark wrote the four distinct (but harmonizing) canonical Gospels (the main thrust of points B, C, and E). The foregoing overview of patristic evidence ought to draw point A (an argument from silence) into serious question. Thus, in the final analysis, The Jesus Crisis depends (almost entirely) upon Chrysostom, which is point D, in its patristic argument against a literary connection."3 Even if Chrysostom had given a direct statement of literary independence, it would be an anomaly against a background of inconsistency. In addition, Chrysostom is hardly credible on bibliographic matters.

Literary Independence: A Conclusion

Dr. John MacArthur asserts the following in his forward to The Jesus Crisis:

In light of Historical Criticism's anti-God origin and incontestable deadening effect on churches, it is staggering to see how easily some of the notions of higher criticism have made deep inroads in recent years into evangelical seminaries, colleges/universities, and churches.... These are places where such compromise with liberalism would never have been expected.14

Concern about form and redaction criticism is well taken. It is unfortunate, however, that The Jesus Crisis goes beyond this to make literary collaboration in the Synoptic Gospels a litmus test of liberalism. God has not given that liberty in His Word because Luke 1:14 (the only biblical passage that conceivably addresses synoptic interrelationships) does not categorically rule in or rule out literary collaboration. Drs. Thomas and Farnell have diligently sought groundbreaking evidence in the words of the early church fathers for, as it were, a second-tier argument against literary collaboration. At this time, the argument is found wanting.

On the other hand, it is fortunate that the conservative case against form and redaction criticism does not rely upon denying a literary solution to the Synoptic Problem. God will vindicate His Word against its detractors. The following section offers text-based evidence for a literary solution, specifically the 2GH. Truth requires following the evidence.

The Three Views

This volume considers three views of synoptic order and content: the MH, the Independence View, and the 2GH.

Markan Hypothesis

The two main aspects of the MH are that Matthew and Luke independently consulted Mark and independently used Q, a hypothetical source. The view thus insists that Matthew and Luke were independent of each other. The idea of Q derives from the need to explain (1) how two longer books (Matthew and Luke) could derive from the shortest book (Mark) without (2) asserting that Luke used Matthew. For the MH, the main problem is that Luke's use of Matthew differs from his use of Mark. Specifically, the MH believes that Luke liked to follow Mark's order but went to great effort to differ with Matthew's order. The invention of Q alleviates that tension but creates others. In scholarly debate, literary dependence versus independence has been an area of assertion and counterassertion, not proof and disproof. This chapter explores order and content statistically as a means for testing the independence of Matthew and Luke regarding Mark.

Independence View

The Independence View maintains that no literary collaboration occurred between the writers of the Synoptic Gospels. As the previous section shows, Luke's prologue does not preclude him from consulting a prior canonical Gospel."5 Like the MH, the Independence View also argues for the independence of Matthew and Luke regarding Mark; therefore, the issues of order and content are applicable in testing this view.R6

The Jesus Crisis left unanswered whether Mark or Luke consulted an Aramaic proto-Matthew. To say that Mark and Luke consulted proto-Matthew would slightly soften the impact of Mark's alternating pattern of order-and-content agreements, but it would preclude the Independence View from claiming Chrysostom as a witness for the absolute independence of the Gospels. Order and content presents issues that the Independence View must answer.

The next section of this chapter makes the case for the 2GH, which consists of two main arguments: (1) Mark consulted Matthew and Luke, and (2) Luke consulted Matthew.

Mark Consulted Matthew and Luke

The thesis that Mark consulted Matthew and Luke is the sine qua non of the 2GH. The 2GH perceives a convergence of Matthew and Luke in Mark. The MH sees a divergence from Mark, whereas the Independence View sees no literary connection. Synoptic scholars have wanted a definitive answer to the Synoptic Problem. Argumentation for Mark consulting Matthew and Luke consists of the following points:

• the insufficiency of order-only and content-only arguments,

• the order-and-content grid and the 2GH,

• statistical analysis, and

• other arguments.

Order-Only and Content-Only Arguments

Order-Only Arguments

Since Lachmann's time, order-only arguments have been fashionable to prove Markan prioirty." Two basic varieties exist: nonformal arguments and formal ones. Scholars have discovered that both the nonformal and the formal order-only arguments are reversible. Only the formal arguments, however, are fallacious.

Lachmann's nonformal order argument. Recently, the proponents of Markan priority have argued that Lachmann's real argument was nonformal. Tuckett says,

Lachmann's [redactional] argument is not necessarily irreversible, nor even logically probative, since it depends in part on no reasons being found which might make Mark's changes of Matthews's and Luke's orders plausible. Such a judgement is necessarily subjective and it may be that the changes were made in this way but the true reasons for the changes have not been discovered."

After comparing a conspectus of Lukan parallels to Lachmann's Matthew-Mark section and Matthean parallels to Tuckett's Luke-Mark section, one sees the validity of Tuckett's assessment regarding Lachmann's arguments. What Luke did in Matthew-Mark sections or what Matthew did in Luke-Mark sections was of no concern to Lachmann. By looking at only a pair of Gospels, he focused upon order, ignoring content. Lachmann says,

Many have inquired how it came about that three of the gospels accepted by the judgement of the church should be so similar in form throughout, and yet should in various places both agree and differ together [1] in order, [2] in additions and [3] omissions, and in the actual events and words.... Now I should like to take a proper middle course; and it seems clear that in approaching the matter one must make a start either from one of those three gospels, or from one of the respects in which they both differ and agree. I have therefore decided to consider for the present only their ordering. This is much the simplest element, and no one, to my knowledge, has considered it before.89 (emphasis added)

Lachmann's claim to have initiated the order-only argument is correct.9" His argument consisted of explaining why he thought Matthew or Luke changed the original order. Although not fallacious as an informal argument, it is certainly reversible (as Tuckett acknowledged above).

Formal-order arguments. It is fallacious to argue that the following proves any given synoptic theory. Patterns 1, 2, and 4 occur, but patterns 3 and 5 do not.

1. All three Gospels have the same order;

2. Luke's order differs from that of Matthew and Mark;

3.

4. Matthew's order differs from that of Luke and Mark;

5.

Butler showed that any synoptic theory can account for these data,91 so proponents of Markan priority have renounced formal Lachmannian arguments as fallacious.92

Content-Only Arguments

Proponents of Markan priority, too, have proposed content-only arguments. Ernest de Witt Burton considers content in much the same way as did Eusebius,93 without referring to order. Burton says,

... the contents [of the Synoptics] may be classified into seven classes (somewhat after the manner of the canons of Eusebius), according as they are (a) threefold, being found in all three gospels; (b) twofold, being common to Matt. and Mark; (c) twofold, being common to Mark and Luke; (d) twofold, being common to Matt. and Luke; (e) peculiar to Matt., i.e., omitted by Mark and Luke; (f) peculiar to Mark, i.e., omitted by Matt. and Luke; (g) peculiar to Luke, i.e., omitted by Matt. and Mark. This classification may be applied first to the material en bloc ....94

Although he discusses order elsewhere, Burton makes no provision for correlating order with content differences and classifies passages based upon content only.95 Not unlike order-only arguments, content-only arguments are reversible. Oddly enough, the MH tends to compartmentalize order into one argument and content into another. Moreover, each of the seven possible content-only patterns occurs in the synoptics:

1. Matthew, Mark, and Luke include;

2. Matthew and Mark include;

3. Matthew and Luke include;

4. Luke and Mark include;

5. Only Matthew includes;

6. Only Mark includes;

7. Only Luke includes.

Because each occurs, no argument from these data proves one synoptic solution versus another.

The Result of Order-Only and Content-Only Arguments

The reversibility of various arguments has led some scholars to conclude that the Synoptic Problem might be insoluble. Fitzmyer says that it is "practically insoluble."96 Outler calls it `formally insoluble."97 Fuller regards solution as "both impossible and unnecessary"9" Walker doubts its solubility.99

The Order-and-Content Grid and the 2GH

In politics, more often than not, the people in power seek ways of retaining it. One of the favorite tools of political parties is gerrymandering, the drawing of legislative boundaries such that one party wins a few seats by huge margins, whereas the other party wins the majority of seats by smaller margins. Similarly, separation of content and order into two arguments gerrymanders and hides crucial evidence. The first step toward resolving the impasse is to integrate these arguments. The MH has favored an atomistic view of the evidence, so scholars see gerrymandered data instead of the whole picture.

The Order-and-Content Model (0CM)

William Farmer and the 2GH take an integrated approach to order and content."" All of the possibilities of order and content combine into the fourteen-pattern Order-and-Content Model (OCM).101 Italicized entries signify patterns in which Mark omits the target passage. Nonitalicized patterns pertain to the MH contention that Matthew and Luke independently consulted Mark.

THE ORDER-AND-CONTENT MODEL

A. All three have the same order;

B. Luke's order differs from Matthew and Mark;

C. Mark's order differs from Matthew and Luke;

D. Matthew's order differs from Luke and Mark;

E. each of three has different order;

F. order of Matthew = order of Mark, Luke omits;

G. order of Matthew = order of Luke, Mark omits;

H. order of Luke = order of Mark, Matthew omits;

1. order of Matthew # order of Mark, Luke omits;

J. order of Matthew # order of Luke, Mark omits;

K. order of Luke :ie: order of Mark, Matthew omits;

L. only Matthew includes;

M. only Mark includes; and

N. only Luke includes.

By contrast, the order-only model has five patterns (A-E of the OCM, see p. 157 of this chapter); the content-only model has seven patterns, four of which are composite. Composite patterns gerrymander and hide crucial differences between various patterns.

THE CONTENT-ONLY MODEL

1. All three include (patterns A-E);

2. Matthew and Mark include (patterns F, I);

3. Matthew and Luke include (patterns G, J);

4. Luke and Mark include (patterns H, K);

5. Only Matthew includes (pattern L);

6. Only Mark includes (pattern M); and

7. Only Luke includes (pattern N).

The gerrymandering that occurs in order-only and content-only models creates a methodological problem, which renders all content-only and order-only arguments reversible. The OCM offers a solution.

Markan Order-and-Content Model (MOCM)

Considering Mark's order in relation to Matthew and Luke involves only ten pertinent patterns, those in which Mark includes the content. These are the nonitalicized patterns of the preceding OCM chart. The five underlined italic patterns (C/E, I, K, and M) involve both fraternal- and identical-twin departures from Mark, that is (as the MH would classify these), when both Matthew and Luke depart from Mark's outline.

THE ORDER-AND-CONTENT MODEL OF MARK

A. All three have the same order;

B. Luke's order differs from Matthew and Mark;

C. Mark's order differs from Matthew and Luke;

D. Matthew's order differs from Luke and Mark;

E. each of three has different order;

F. order of Matthew = order of Mark; Luke omits;

H. order of Luke = order of Mark; Matthew omits;

I. order of Matthew # order of Mark; Luke omits;

K. order of Luke ; order of Mark; Matthew omits; and

M. only Mark includes.

These ten patterns are the heart of the order-and-content issue. The infrequency of the five twin departures constitutes a particular difficulty for the MH.

The Order-and-Content Grid (OCG)

The Order-and-Content Grid (OCG) arranges the ten patterns as statisticians would place them: the first column corresponds to the first row, the second column to the second row, and the third column to the third row. When Matthew and Mark have the same order for the target passage (first column), three row assignments represent the passage's possible order-and-content relationship to Luke. Thus, intersections of column/row assignments describe the relationship of passages in Mark to both Matthew and Luke (A, B, or F). Under the MH the five italicized patterns in the lower right (C/E, I, K, and M) depict both Matthew and Luke departing from Mark's outline. By contrast, pattern A is a nondeparture, whereas patterns D, H, B, and F are single departures from Mark, that is when either Matthew or Luke depart from Mark's outline. The issue is whether zero, one, or two Gospels depart from Mark's outline.

ORDER-AND-CONTENT GRID (OCG)

In considering twin departures, an analogy is helpful. When the birth of twin babies occur, not all twins are identical; some are fraternal. When twins are born, four outcomes are possible:

1. both are boys;

2. the elder is a boy, the younger a girl;

3. the elder is a girl, the younger a boy; or

4. both are girls.

Although seemingly simple, the 2GH order-and-content argument has remained hidden in synoptic studies. When the 2GH has referred to fraternal twins (patterns C/E, I, K, and M), scholars have thought in terms of identical twins. Order-only identical twins occur only in pattern C. Order-and-content identical twins would be patterns C and M. Synoptic scholars cannot through atomistic analysis arbitrarily ignore the infrequency of fraternal twins.

Inadequate Lachmannian Models

The comprehensive nature of the OCG enables it to test the independence of Matthew and Luke regarding Mark. Anything less than a comprehensive model would preclude statistical analysis. In the aforementioned analogy, for example, presuming that all twins were identical twins hides gender distribution (the ratio of boys to girls) among twins. Without considering the possibility that brother-sister twins might exist, a complete statistical study of twin births is impossible.

GRID OF ORDER-ONLY

The MH gravitates toward order-only arguments. When examining order, while presuming content to be static (i.e., all three Gospels contain each passage), the only possible type of twin departure is double transposition (pattern CIE). This presumption is analogous to imagining that every birth of twins results in two sons. A statistical analysis of twin departures without collecting data on every conceivable pattern is useless at best.

The Best-Kept Secret

William Farmer was a member of my dissertation committee. Before reading "Responses to Farmer""' in my dissertation, he had always found it puzzling that critiques of his order-and-content argument regularly missed the point of his order-and-content argument."" A fundamental issue discussed in "Responses to Farmer" is the potential for ambiguity in Farmer's term coincide.

The fact that both Luke and Matthew frequently deviate from Mark, either in order or by omission of Marcan material, raises the question of their failure to deviate from Mark's order or to omit his material more often at the same place than they do.

Since both frequently desert Mark, either by departing from his order or by omitting his material, and since neither knows what the other is doing, why do not their desertions of Mark coincide more frequently?104 (emphasis added)

Markan hypothesists have tended to interpret coinciding departures as coinciding in the same way (and in the same place). Coinciding in the same way signifies identical-twin departures (either both omit or both transpose). Farmer meant, however, only coinciding in the same place (cf. the first sentence in the quotation). This meaning would signify fraternal-twin departures (both omit, both transpose, or one omits and the other transposes). The dissertation offers detailed proof that Farmer and other Two-Gospel hypothesists focus on fraternaltwin departures, not identical-twin departures." I

As a result of the confusion, most scholars have missed the statistical nature of Farmer's initial question: Why do not Matthew and Luke's fraternal-twin desertions of Mark's order and content coincide more frequently? A comprehensive model is essential to test the statistical question, but such a model can derive from only a comprehensive view of the question.

Have Scholars Misunderstand Order and Content?

Farmer's order-and-content argument conforms closely to something that Burnett Streeter observed (although the latter states it in MH terms). In light of Streeter's observation, then, it does seem odd that the meaning of Farmer's argument has remained hidden. Streeter said,

A curious fact ... is that, while in the latter half of his Gospel (chap. xiv. to the end) Matthew adheres strictly to the order of Mark (Mk. vi. 14 to end), he makes considerable rearrangements in the first half. Luke, however, though he omits far more of Mark than does Matthew, hardly ever departs from Mark's order, and only in trifling ways.10"

Despite Streeter's antedating Farmer, only a few Markan hypothesists have sought to answer Farmer's order-and-content argument. The answers feature an unfortunate focus on identical-twin departures, which is odd because Farmer sought to explain what Streeter called curious.

The first response to Farmer. McLoughlin perceived that Farmer asked a statistical question, so he makes an auspicious beginning.

But, says W. R. Farmer (who created this objection), if Matthew and Luke regularly depart from Mark, they ought often to do so together, and, in fact, they do not often do it together. Something suspicious is going on, therefore, not consistent with Two-Source [MH] assumptions, but readily explicable on the theory that Mark is a synthetic summary of Matthew and Luke [2GH].

The second part of this argument we accept as sound, but wish to contest what is italicized. We have here a statistical argument, playing on the word often. 107

In addition to recognizing a statistical question, McLoughlin shows that he knows how to derive statistical predictions." Even so, he does not make sense of Farmer's argument, probably because he thinks of identical-twin departures from Mark, that is, that "they do not often do it [depart] together" (see italics in the previous quotation). Thus, McLoughlin sets up a content-only statistical model, not an orderand-content model.

How often would Farmer expect Matthew and Luke to depart from Mark together, on the Two Source hypothesis? How often do they do so? And is the difference significant? And what sort of entities are being counted anyway? Pericopes, phrases, words? Are the order changes involved macroscopic (pericopes) or microscopic (words)? Plainly, until Farmer gives some definition to his reasoning and produces appropriate data, his argument reduces to a bare assertion.

Nevertheless, we shall treat the objection with attention, by examining one precisely defined case: the omission of whole pericopes by Matthew and Luke.109

When shown as a model, McLoughlin's content-only argument presupposes a 2 x 2 grid (like a cross). Such a model of necessity gerrymanders the evidence, by putting too many order-and-content patterns in each cell. From a MH standpoint, both C and E represent Matthew and Luke transposing Mark, so they inevitably occupy the same cell. Every other pattern should, however, have its own cell for the model to be comprehensive (see the OCG, p. 162 of this chapter).

By marked contrast, the OCG uses a 3 x 3 grid, which (with the exception of patterns C and E) has only one category per cell.

Although he understood the statistical nature of Farmer's question, McLoughlin failed to test the real question. McLoughlin's model was not comprehensive, so it gerrymandered the evidence from the start. In failing to recognize patterns C/E, I, and K as twin departures, the content-only model can yield only misleading conclusions. It does not address Farmer's concern.

The second response to Farmer. Frans Neirynck wrote "The Argument from Order and St. Luke's Transpositions.""' His outline is

• The Agreements Matthew-Luke Against Mark

• The Absence of Agreement and Its Significance

• The Position of R. Morgenthaler

• The Transpositions of Luke

• Conclusion

Neirynck critiques Farmer's order-and-content argument as though it were an order-only argument. Those critiques occur within the section "The Absence of Agreement and Its Significance."' I I The absence of agreement refers to identical-twin departures only. This view misses the point entirely. Both identical-twin and fraternal-twin departures lie within Farmer's question, "Why do not their desertions of Mark coincide [at the same place] more often?""' The fraternal-twin departures from Mark are C/E, I, K, M, whereas identical twins include only C and M.

In addition to the assertion contained in his outline, Neirynck also asserts the following about transpositions: "The attention to the absence of agreement Matthew-Luke against Mark was an essential ingredient of the Griesbach [2GH] hypothesis from the very beginning"'" A few pages later, Neirynck says of Farmer, "He indicates ,as a serious problem' for the Markan hypothesis: `why do not their desertions of Mark coincide more frequently?' . . . His question concerns not only alterations of order but also common omissions [emphasis added]."' Clearly, Neirynck construes Farmer to speak only about identical-twin departures rather than to include fraternal-twin departures. Thus, Neirynck (as does McLoughlin) misses entirely the point of Farmer's order-and-content argument. Neither man perceives that Farmer also asks why it is rare for one Gospel to transpose a Markan passage that the other Gospel omits.

The third response. Christopher M. Tuckett also focuses on agreements between Matthew and Luke. Thus, he does not see that Farmer wanted to know why the category of twin departures, not just identical-twin departures, from Mark occurs infrequently.

... there are no agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark.... Now if Farmer thinks that this phenomenon, by itself, shows the validity of the [2]GH... , then he is guilty of the Lachmann fallacy in a slightly different form. For Farmer is drawing the conclusion from these facts that one and only one hypothesis, in this case the [2]GH, explains the phenomenon satisfactorily. In fact, the evidence is inconclusive, and the MH can, formally, explain the facts just as well as the [2]GH [emphasis added]."'

Tuckett incorrectly surmises that Farmer looks for only identicaltwin departures from Mark ("agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark"). If that were true, it would, indeed, be a variation of the Lachmann Fallacy. But Farmer's quest for fraternal-twin departures as well as identical twins leads to a comprehensive statistical test, one that supports the 2GH (see the following discussion).

Summary. Those few Markan hypothesists who have responded to Farmer's order-and-content argument have misunderstood it. William Farmer wondered why the class of twin departures was so rare; his respondents tried to account for only one aspect of that class, identical-twin departures. Farmer's question, properly understood, leads to a profitable statistical inquiry. On the other hand, the false understanding of his question leads-as his respondents ably demonstratenowhere. That is precisely the point: The best argument for the 2GH has remained the best-kept secret of Two-Gospel hypothesists. Statistical analysis shows the power of order and content.

Statistical Analysis

Does the infrequency of twin departures argue against Matthew and Luke being independent in regard to Mark? This question led to my dissertation, which underlies this chapter. It is appropriate to summarize the research protocols underlying that statistical analysis. Those wishing a detailed presentation should consult the dissertation.

Research Protocols

Features requiring discussion are theory of synopsis construction, definition of the statistical units represented, placement of the Sermon on the Mount, treatment of the last twelve verses of Mark, verification of statistics, and whether statistics presuppose a 2GH solution.

Theory of synopsis construction. A way of answering Farmer's question, "Why do not their desertions of Mark coincide more frequently?" is that one feature-twin departures-is rare, but the following three features are common:

• Mark's order and content matches both Matthew and Luke,

• Mark's order and content matches Matthew, and

• Mark's order and content matches Luke.

The table of contents for any synopsis or Gospel harmony shows a pattern in which Mark's order and content alternates between lining up with Matthew and lining up with Luke. Often, Mark aligns with both.

My synopsis tests the infrequency of twin departures, but doing so of necessity highlights the common patterns: Mark agreeing with Matthew, Luke, or both. An uninterrupted lead-gospel format (ULG) synopsis emphasizes these arguments."" In a ULG synopsis, a reader can follow Mark from beginning to end without interruption. It is necessary to interrupt Matthew and Luke, but most synopses interrupt the sequence of all three."' Preservation of Mark's outline (by a synopsis) is essential for seeing his alternating order-and-content agreements with Matthew and Luke.

Because Mark did not have a synopsis to follow for either Matthew or Luke, Mark's primary parallels (to Matthew or Luke) are placed in the sequence adopted in his account. Mark's secondary parallels to Matthew and Luke manifest a different sequence and may describe distinct (nonparallel) events.'" The ULG synopsis emphasizes primary parallels to Matthew or Luke by juxtaposing them to the right or the left of Mark while placing secondary parallels as footnotes. For clarity, the ULG synopsis adopts a simple approach to parallels, highlighting alternating agreements as well as the infrequency of twin departures.

Defining statistical units. Frans Neirynck has correctly argued that synoptic scholars should not give the same weight to major transpositions of large passages as to minor inversions of small passages."9 The easiest way to assign the proper degree of weight is to count verses (or occasionally half verses), rather than whole passages. Thus, transposing a twenty-verse passage, for instance, receives five times as much statistical weight as transposing one with four verses. Furthermore, the use of verses as the primary statistical unit alleviates controversy arising from the lack of consensus among scholars regarding where to make synoptic pericope divisions.

Placing the Sermon on the Mount. Various synopses align the Sermon on the Mount with Mark at three different points (Mark 1:20; 1:39; or 3:19).120 By tabulating statistics for each placement of the Sermon on the Mount, its location proved not to determine the direction of the statistics. This chapter will make its case from placing it at Mark 1:20, although the numbers become even stronger against the MH if it is located at 1:39 or 3:19.

Treating Mark 16:9-20. Including or excluding the final twelve verses does not affect the statistical outcome. Accepting those verses would strengthen the numbers slightly against the MH, so this chapter will make its case without those verses.

Verification of statistics. A color-coded synopsis, an appendix to my dissertation, lists the statistics for each verse in Mark immediately after the verse reference. This feature, along with verse-by-verse statistical balance sheets, enables others to scrutinize all aspects of data collection. Finally, a statistics professor at the University of Cali fornia, Irvine, has reviewed the statistical calculations and found them to be accurate. His letter is an appendix to the dissertation.'''

Do the statistics presuppose the 2GH? No. It is necessary to test each theory in accordance with its own presuppositions. A great difference exists between presupposing a literary relationship between Matthew and Luke versus testing for such a relationship. That is, one can test whether Matthew and Luke independently used Mark without assuming their independence or dependence in relation to each other. It is, however, fair to ask whether certain statistics are consistent with a view's presuppositions.

Chi-square and the MH

Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, lists chi-square in the top twenty inventions of the twentieth century.'' Developed by Karl Pearson, chi-square is the formula that launched statistics as a separate discipline in 1900. It is the standard statistical formula for testing the independence of two categorical variables (e.g., Matthew's use of Mark versus Luke's use). Unfortunately, Karl Lachmann's 1835 order-only argument has been the favored approach, although it cannot draw upon twentieth-century advances in statistics.

Predicting frequencies. Simple statistical procedures are involved in determining how many of Mark's verses should belong to each pattern of agreement or departure (in a perfect MH world). Ultimately, each reader should recognize that the category of twin departures from Mark (patterns C/E, I, K, and M) is statistically underrepresented.

The overall square (in the following figure) represents the whole book of Mark. Think of it as a 6.62" x 6.62" cake, representing the 662 verses in Mark.'Z' It is not drawn to scale. The first step is to determine where to make the slice separating ADH (the first row) from BCEK (the second). ADH includes 363.5 verses, so the cut is 3.635" from the top. Because FIM contains 229.5 verses, the next cut is 2.295" from the bottom. The next step is to make the vertical slices. ABF has 486 verses, so the slice is 4.86" from the left. HKM is 110 verses, so the last cut is 1.1" from the right.

The following chart shows the actual distribution of patterns.

Now it is necessary to determine the size of each pattern (piece of cake). For pattern A, the height of ADH is 3.635" (363.5 verses). The width of ABF is 4.86" (signifying 486 verses). Multiply length by width and divide by 6.62 (for Mark's 662 verses). Thus (3.635 x 4.86)/ 6.62 = 2.6686, representing 266.86 verses). The expected number of verses only slightly exceeds the actual count (263.5). Repeating this same process for each piece of cake results in the following chart, which, in turn, depicts the observed and expected frequencies in Mark for each pattern of agreement of departure.

OCG (OBSERVED VERSUS EXPECTED PATTERN TOTALS)

Frequency observations. Every type of twin departure involving transposition (patterns C/E, I, and K) is underrepresented, especially patterns I and K. This situation is most curious because Streeter gives every reason to expect pattern I to be common. He asserts that Matthew prefers to transpose Mark but occasionally omits, whereas Luke favors omission but sometimes transposes.

A curious fact ... is that, while in the latter half of his Gospel (chap. xiv. to the end) Matthew adheres strictly to the order of Mark (Mk. vi. 14 to end), he makes considerable rearrangements in the first half. Luke, however, though he omits far more of Mark than does Matthew, hardly ever departs from Mark's order, and only in trifling ways.114

If the MH presupposition, that Matthew and Luke independently consulted Mark, were true, why does not Luke frequently omit passages that Matthew transposes? The MH must explain this because it contends that Luke's solution to "This passage does not belong here" would be to omit it, whereas Matthew's answer to the same question would be to transpose. McLoughlin describes his content-only model:

... we assumed it was just as likely that Luke would copy a pericope whether Matthew had copied it or not. But, in fact, if Matthew omits something it is unattractive to him for some reason, and what is unattractive to one Christian author has by that very fact an increased chance of being unattractive to another. 125

Although unattractive is a poor choice of words, his logic is significant. Why? If Luke perceived that including a certain passage of Mark would result in difficulty to his outline, he would omit it. Applying the logic from the block quote, the fact that Luke perceives an outline problem means that readers, too, may find Mark's outline transition a bit difficult. If so, it is likely that Matthew, too, would see a Markan passage as posing a difficulty for his outline. The MH says that Matthew's normal solution is to transpose.

The statistical prediction for pattern I was 22.88, or twenty-three verses in round numbers. McLoughlin's logic suggests that pattern I should be even more frequent than twenty-three verses. Perhaps it should increase to more than thirty. So why do only 6.5 verses belong to pattern I? The MH needs to explain this.

On the other hand, the 2GH sees a common denominator between patterns C/E, I, and K: each involves Mark creating singular order. In other words, each requires Mark to transpose Matthew, Luke, or Matthew and Luke. This is the reason for saying that the 2GH order-andcontent argument surfaces nonreversible data.

Calculating Chi-Square

Chi-square allows analysis to proceed beyond discovering the underrepresented patterns. It enables quantitatively evaluating the theory of Matthew's and Luke's being independent from each other in regard to Mark.

Calculating the chi-square sum. The calculations are a bit involved, so readers who are interested may consult the dissertation or (for those familiar with chi-square) calculate the sum themselves from the data included here. 116 Furthermore, the dissertation also contains a letter from an independent statistician, verifying the chi-square sums and interpretations of the results."' This chapter summarizes.

This chi-square sum reflects placing the Sermon on the Mount across from Mark 1:20 and ending the book at 16:8. Other options for the sermon or the ending of Mark increase the chi-square sum (CSS). But in the interest of not wanting to overstate the case, the following CSS is the smallest of six that my dissertation calculated (a smaller CSS is more favorable to the MH than a larger one). This CSS is: 41.013,490,22.128 From a statistical standpoint, this CSS is huge for a table with three rows and three columns (like the OCG).

Interpreting the chi-square sum. The OCG has three rows and three columns, so the chi-square formula assigns four degrees of freedom (d). I entered 41.01349022 and 4 df into a spreadsheet-based chi-square distribution calculator, arriving at the answer 0.000000026705975423783,129 less than three chances in 100,000,000 that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark. From a practical standpoint, statisticians consider anything less than one in 10,000 as 0 percent Chi-square, a respected statistical tool, challenges the independence of Matthew and Luke in regard to Mark. The MH must explain how Matthew and Luke could be independent, despite strong statistical evidence to the contrary. How might the MH do this? Sometimes a lurking variable may account for the mere appearance of dependency.

A lurking variable? One Markan hypothesist handled an analogous statistical issue by positing that something intrinsic to Mark but not to Matthew and Luke caused them to appear to work in concert more often than expected (despite the independence of Matthew and Luke). 131 Concerted action would be expected to occur, however, in only the northwest and southeast quadrants of the following chart. If these quadrants (where both Matthew and Luke follow Mark's order and content or where both depart) were overpopulated, a lurking variable hypothesis would be conceivable. These quadrants, however, are underpopulated. The quadrants with surpluses are the northeast and the southwest.

An argument for a lurking variable requires the northwest and the southeast quadrants to be overpopulated, that is, to have surpluses. To the contrary, negative numbers are in the northwest and the southeast quadrants. Thus, the MH lacks the lurking variable as an escape from chi-square analysis. The MH must account for order and content because the 2GH has a simple explanation: Mark did not like to transpose.

Statistics and the Independence View

The scholars who hold the Independence View may assume that statistics do not apply because they see no literary relationship. All of my statistical arguments (apart from chi-square itself) apply anyway because the statistics collected are observational and do not presuppose a certain synoptic solution. Although the numbers' surface arrangements of patterns are easy to explain as literary phenomena, they are inexplicable apart from a literary connection.

The order-and-content issue has many facets. One way of examining it is by applying the OCG and chi-square. David Neville looks at the same evidence from a different vantage point, which he considers the alternating pattern of agreements (see the chart on p. 145 of this chapter). He argues that this phenomenon would be hard to explain if Matthew and Luke were independent (as under the MH).

Farmer assumed that it would have been possible, indeed probable, on the two-document hypothesis for Matthew and Luke to rearrange or omit Markan pericopes so as not to create a pattern of alternating agreement in order between Matthew/Mark and Mark/Luke at those points where all three gospels do not share a common order. This assumption rested on his perception "that both Luke and Matthew frequently deviate from Mark, either in order or by omission of Marcan material.""'

The Independence View has the same difficulty but to a greater degree than the MH, namely, under a conservative approach to the MH, Mark would offer order and content (under the Holy Spirit's guidance) to Matthew and Luke. That which is a difficult issue for the MH becomes an even tougher one for those holding the Independence View. Why is it that Mark seems to end up in the majority?

When Mark's order differs from Matthew, his order and content = Luke;

When Mark's order differs from Luke, his order and content = Matthew;

When Matthew omits Mark's content, his order and content = Luke;

and

When Luke omits Mark's content, his order and content = Matthew.

The alternating pattern revolves around Mark. Literary features would seem to have a literary explanation (unless inspiration were merely a form of dictation).

The integration of order and content is a hallmark of the 2GH that distinguishes it from all Lachmann-based order-only arguments. The following argument by Edgar, a proponent of the Independence View, appropriately critiques the traditional order-only arguments, but it has no bearing on the 2GH order-and-content argument:

... three writers separated by ten year intervals could make independent use of an account of events leading up to and during the battle of Gettysburg. They all follow the same general order of events, but one or two add additional material. Nothing precludes the first writer from adding more material from additional sources and modifying the order of events or the last or the middle writer from making the least modification of the common source.133

Edgar's point is well taken: order-only arguments are quite reversible. He does not, however, address the 2GH observation of Mark's alternating order-and-content agreement pattern.

The foregoing analogy with Gettysburg presents what scholars call an Ur-Gospel view,134 that a noncanonical gospel (now lost) underlies the Synoptics. It is used to assert that Lachmann's acceptance of an Ur-Gospel would not make a formal argument nonreversible."' The problem with the Gettysburg analogy is that the historical accounts of the battle go far beyond an outline sketch, whereas the Gospels include only some of the significant events of Jesus' ministry. Civil War historians know which units engaged enemy units at various places and times throughout the Gettysburg campaign, knowing who reinforced whom and when retreats occurred. Regarding the ministry of Jesus, however, no day-by-day and hour-by-hour itinerary exists for Jesus' ministry. The Passion Week is the only portion approaching this level of detail. The fact that John could write a Gospel with a relatively small number of points of contact with the synoptics demonstrates that, although the Gospels are sufficient accounts, they are not exhaustive.

Why is this significant? Edgar's Gettysburg analogy assumes that the Gospel in question would generally focus on synoptic content and synoptic order. That same writer makes some unguarded statements that (if applied logically) would raise questions about the legitimacy of John.

Three individuals who describe a short period in any well known person's life (three and one half years or less) may be expected to include a great deal of common material. Percentages of common material between one third and one half are certainly not unexpected. Two biographies concerning a short span of an individual's life which did not agree in the majority of the subject matter, would be highly suspect.136

Did first-century Christians see a single set of events that led God's Son to the Cross? No, everything that Jesus said and everything that He did demonstrated that He is God's Son, whose death and resurrection enabled Him to give believers eternal life. Thus, seemingly small things, such as His thirst at Sychar, provided the Gospel writers a means for proclaiming the free gift of eternal life to the whole town. It is wrong, then, to assume, as does Edgar, that every writer would independently gravitate toward synoptic content; John shows that other content exists. The Independence View must deal with both order and content, not with just MH order-only arguments.

Edgar suggests that the widespread practice of extensive memorization accounts for the great degree of overlap of synoptic content. But no one would imagine that every first-century sermon about Christ focused solely on content preserved in the Synoptics. John's Gospel shows that alternate outlines and distinct stories also existed. Thus, the memorized body of truth about Christ would include that which is in the Synoptics, but would also include so much more. In light of John's selecting such different material, why did three Gospels independently select such similar material? A literary solution offers an explanation for similarity of both order and content, whereas the Independence View does not. Again, the issue is not only order but also order and content.

The 2GH and Statistics

The MH needs to explain why fraternal-twin departures by Matthew and Luke from Mark are so rare. The Independence View needs to explain why Mark has an alternating pattern of order-and-content agreements with either Matthew or Luke. The 2GH, however, thrives under statistical scrutiny. The following chart tabulates the number of verses in Mark belonging to each pattern in the grid.

ORDER-AND-CONTENT GRID (OCG)

Note the rarest order-and-content patterns: C/E, I, and K. One feature underlies these rare patterns that is absent from the common patterns: the rare patterns are the only ones in which Mark has a singular order. If Mark tended to follow a predecessor's order, he would rarely produce verses belonging to patterns C/E, I, or K. And, indeed, Markan singular order is rare; singular order by either Matthew or Luke is not rare.

The statistics garnered from the OCG, then, support not only an order-only argument but also an order-and-content argument. Many occasions exist when Matthew and Luke have different content (patterns F, I, H, and K) or different order (patterns B, E, and D). In such cases, Mark tends to follow the order and content of a predecessor (patterns B, F, D, or H) rather than creating a singular order (patterns E, I, or K). Furthermore, when Matthew and Luke have the same order and content (patterns A and C), Mark rarely opts for pattern C. The simplest way to account for both order and content is to say that Mark consulted Matthew and Luke, but he did not like to transpose. He usually follows the order and content of one or the other.I"

Someone may object, noting that patterns C/E, I, and K contain a total of seventeen verses. Such an objection assumes that if Mark occasionally transposes, those transpositions argue against the 2GH. Not so. The passages in question are short, mainly isolated verses, most being easily remembered statements either made by Jesus or quoted from the Old Testament. In other words, they are each so short that Mark would not need to consult the verse in either Matthew or Luke.

On the other hand, patterns B, D, H, and F tend to represent much longer passages-ones for which transposition into a singular order would be difficult for Mark if he consulted a predecessor. The process of doing so would be complicated; moving back and forth in a lengthy codex is hard enough, but what if the Gospels were in scrolls?"'

The MH and the Independence View both face statistical obstacles. On the other hand, the 2GH finds its greatest strength in the statistical data. The OCG converts the alternating pattern of agreements into numbers of frequencies, and the reader who wishes to test the statistical results should look at a comparative list of passages in any synop sis (cf. p. 145 in this chapter). Sometimes Mark agrees with the order and content of Matthew, sometimes with Luke, often with both. On the other hand, Matthew often stands alone in order and content, as does Luke. Regarding the OCG, then, the 2GH is the beneficiary of statistical analysis of order and content.

Other Arguments

Streeter presented five arguments for Markan priority: (1) shared material, (2) absence of significant verbal agreements against Mark, (3) order, (4) Mark's primitive language and theology, and (5) the distribution of Markan and non-Markan material."'

Arguments 1, 3, and 5 come under the umbrella of order and content, and the comprehensive OCG shows that if the MH were to stand, it should produce more cases wherein one Gospel transposes Mark and the other omits or transposes Markan material. Yet in the OCG, fraternal-twin departures are clearly underrepresented. The chi-square analysis thus raises serious doubts that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark. In light of these findings, Streeter's piecemeal appeal to arguments 1, 3, and 5 carries little weight.

Regarding argument 2, a great body of literature has developed concerning the minor agreements.14' The phenomenon is not a good foundation for the MH because it is a simple matter for the 2GH to account for the data.

Likewise, Streeter's fourth argument is inconclusive. Mark's style cannot determine the order of writing.'' Efforts to distinguish primitive and developed theology are also hopelessly subjective.

Whereas Streeter's five arguments are reversible and overly atomistic, the order-and-content grid offers the most promising avenue for resolving Mark's relationship with Matthew and Luke. It not only is able to determine how many fraternal-twin departures from Mark should occur under the Markan Hypothesis but also enables chi-square to quantify the likelihood of Matthew and Luke being independent regarding Mark. Finally, it shows that the 2GH can account for the rarity of patterns C/E, I, and K by positing that Mark does not like to transpose.

Luke Consulted Matthew

As was noted earlier, not all Two-Gospel hypothesists explain the relationship between Matthew and Luke in the same way. Some of them see Luke consulting Matthew, a few see Matthew using Luke, and others see Matthew and Luke as independent. The historical situation in Acts favors the first view. After discussing the situation in Acts, it is appropriate to discuss order and content as they relate to Luke's consulting Matthew.

The Historical Situation in Acts

The "we" passages in Acts show that the writer of Luke-Acts was a traveling companion of Paul who was not present in the "they" passages. Luke meets the qualifications. Acts 1:1 refers to his already completed Gospel. The date of Acts would most likely occur close to the time of Paul's release from his Roman prison in A.D. 62, meaning that Luke would have researched and written his Gospel during Paul's Caesarean imprisonment (A.D. 57-59). Luke was present, however, for the "we" sections of Acts (16:10-17; 20:521:18; 27:1-28:16), thus meaning that he was involved in Paul's second missionary journey.

Bernard Orchard gives an excellent reason for dating Matthew quite early:

It [Matthew] lacks any evidence that the church had already started officially to evangelize the Gentiles, an event that forms the watershed of the first part of Acts (cf. 1 1:18), though of course there are naturally some forecasts of what was to come, for example, Matthew 8:11-13; 28:16-20.142

After making his case covering a number of issues, he concludes,

As to the date of the Gospel [Matthew], internal evidence is not opposed, and much of it is favorable, to a date before 70, and even before Paul's first missionary journey (47-49), that is, even to a date prior to the departure of Peter about A.D. 44 (cf. Acts 12).14'

As Paul's companion, Luke knew about the Gentile mission; his Gospel hints at an extension of the message beyond Israel (cf. Luke 2:32; 7:5; 24:47). Matthew also hints at a broadening of the message, but he views things within a Jewish milieu.

While Paul was on the Gentile mission, would he have wanted a Gospel? What Gospel would he have used? The only canonical one that existed before his Caesarean imprisonment was Matthew. Certainly, Paul would welcome Matthew's Gospel for use in ministry and study, and as Paul's companion, Luke would have become quite familiar with Matthew's Gospel before writing his own. Luke would have held Matthew's book in the highest esteem and, in fact, Luke 1:1-4 offers no negative critique of his predecessors. 144 Luke wrote, not because Matthew was a deficient Gospel, but because Theophilus needed two volumes (Luke plus Acts). Matthew was not designed as the foundation for Acts, but Luke was.

Thus, the historical situation in Acts precludes the idea that Matthew consulted Luke's Gospel as he wrote. There is no reason to believe that Paul would not have welcomed Matthew's Gospel, a book that gives indication of being early. Thus, there is every reason to believe that Luke was familiar with Matthew. Luke also knew of other narratives and undoubtedly used them (as Paul Felix acknowledges). 145

Order and Content as a Clue

If a father says, "My youngest son does not always sit next to me at dinner," it might be that the son sometimes sits next to his mother. The repeatable action of sitting next to one's father is not an all-ornothing type of proposition. The father could also say, "My youngest son sometimes sits next to me at dinner."

When Two-Gospel hypothesists maintain that Luke consulted Matthew and followed his order and content, their claim is not an all-ornothing proposition. Sometimes Luke followed both order and content; sometimes he did not. Some Two-Gospel hypothesists have become too elaborate as they too often connect Luke's content with Matthew. 146 The fact that Matthew and Luke often have different sequences causes some to despair of any linkages.147 The bottom line is that Luke's following Matthew's order and content does not mean that Luke always does so, and the fact that Luke does not always follow Matthew does not mean that he never does.

The OCM (seep. 161 of this chapter) categorizes the various orderand-content relationships that are possible. As one considers Luke's use of Matthew under the 2GH, Mark's Gospel would not yet have existed. Thus, the relationship between Matthew and Luke is the issue, not Mark's subsequent order-and-content decisions. The following list of Luke's options focus on Matthew and Luke. Patterns A, C, and G, for example, are identical regarding Matthew and Luke. The only way to differentiate A, C, and G is by considering what Mark does, a consideration that, under the 2GH, would not affect Luke at the time he consulted Matthew.

Luke follows Matthew's order (A, C, G),

Luke transposes Matthew's order (B, D, E, J),

Luke omits Matthew's content (F, I, L), and

Luke adds non-Matthean content (H, K, N).

Times When Luke Follows Matthew

A sizeable block of Matthew belongs to patterns A, C, and G; Luke's sequence agrees with about 370 of Matthew's 1071 verses (35 percent)."' In addition, a few passages that technically belong to patterns B, D, E, and J involve only minor inversions of order. Because the order of these verses is similar to that of Luke, he could without difficulty consult a total of about four hundred Matthean verses as he wrote his book.

Times When Luke Does Not Follow Matthew

Many scholars want to equate the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) with the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6). Doing so requires posit ing the existence of a level spot (a plain) on a mountain along with a series of similar special treatments, despite the fact that Matthew's placement of the sermon within his book does not correspond to Luke's placement. In other words, the difference in placement involves a significant transposition in sequence. Statistical data from the OCG, however, support a simpler solution: Jesus uttered two great sermons that have some similar content.19 Would it be surprising for Jesus to have said similar things on two or more occasions? Surely, important topics bear repetition, especially because Jesus did not always address the same group of people.

If the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are two different events, it would not be appropriate for Luke to draw upon Matthew 5-7 to provide the content of the Sermon on the Plain. According to Luke's outline, the Sermon on the Mount would occur in Luke 4. The logical solution is that Luke omitted the Sermon on the Mount. Nor was it the source for Luke's information about the Sermon on the Plain because they are two separate events.

When Luke has the same order and content as Matthew, it is safe to assume that the passages are parallel. When they have a different order, it is probable that Luke did not consult Matthew. At those times, it is also quite possible that Matthew and Luke report different events, even if they were verbally similar.

Matthew 26 and Luke 7, for example, each report a woman's anointing Jesus' feet, but many particulars differ. These are distinct events. Luke did not consult Matthew's passage in writing his own. Although many mere verbal parallels exist (passages using similar words to describe distinct events), verbal semblance does not create a true parallel. Many sayings and circumstances in Jesus' ministry could easily have been repeated on other occasions. The simplest accounting is to acknowledge that Luke researched extensively. When his order and content differs from Matthew, such suggests that he did not consult Matthew. When his order and content matches Matthew, no reason exists to suggest that he did not consult Matthew. Luke valued Matthew and used the highest literary and biblical standards in drawing upon him.

Implications

Conservatives need to know how to respond to challenges by the Jesus Seminar and others who seek to undermine a high view of Scripture. The 2GH offers defensible scholarship without compromising Scripture. How would evangelicals with various synoptic positions critique the Jesus Seminar?

Evangelicals and the Markan Hypothesis

Evangelical Markan hypothesists and the Jesus Seminar both accept the MH but debate the relationship between Mark and Q. Specifically, was Q the first gospel? This questions involves two issues: Did Q precede Mark? Was Q a gospel? If Q were the first gospel, it would be a gospel without a cross. If Markan priority and the Q hypothesis were true, the two preceding issues would cause necessary debates. On the other hand, such debates are meaningless if the MH were not true.

A nonreversible line of statistical evidence now challenges this idea that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark, shaking the very basis of the Q hypothesis. F. Gerald Downing, a Markan hypothesist, admits that Q has only one foundation: "Dr. Farrer rightly explained that `the [Q] hypothesis wholly depends on the incredibility of St. Luke's having read St. Matthew's book.' -150

How firm is the Q foundation? Chi-square analysis, using the OCM within the OCG, points to a dependent relationship between Matthew and Luke in regard to Mark.151 No lurking variable hypothesis modi fies that conclusion.152 The strongest possible validation of the independence of Matthew and Luke would come from an abundance of fraternal-twin departures from Mark. Instead, the OCG presents the MH with fewer fraternal-twin departures from Mark than one would expect. That fact calls into question the independence of Matthew and Luke, the very foundation of Q. Although the MH is the popular view within the scholarly community, chi-square analysis shows that its statistical underpinnings are highly questionable. Any difficulty for the MH translates into a problem for the Jesus Seminar.

Evangelicals and the Independence View

Clearly, the Independence View wants to avoid seeing Luke disparage a canonical Gospel. That is a noble aim, but Luke 1:1-4 does not adversely critique his predecessors. Neither does the very fact that Luke wrote (despite knowing of his predecessors) imply a disparagement because Scripture has dual authorship, that is, the Evangelist and God. Thus, if Luke's writing disparages the predecessors known to Luke, then God has disparaged the predecessors known to God. It is better to recognize that no disparagement is implicit in Luke's prologue, that no "Thus saith the Lord" type of pronouncement on the Synoptic Problem occurs within the Bible.

Too, that a literary relationship exists between Kings and Chronicles and between 2 Peter and Jude indicates that literary collaboration is a biblical phenomenon. Nothing in Luke 1:1-4 precludes literary collaboration between the Gospels.

Perceiving the need for more substantiation, The Jesus Crisis relies heavily on a secondary tier of evidence, citations from early church fathers. The degree of confusion among the Fathers erodes confidence in an argument based on a consensus of patristic evidence. Furthermore, how does the Independence View prevent its proto-Matthew from becoming an Ur-Gospel that the Jesus Seminar might welcome?

Moreover, the pattern of Mark's alternating order-and-content agreements with Matthew and Luke is a phenomenon that requires explanation. The 2GH offers a simple explanation for alternating agreements whereas the Independence View does not. Why does the alternating pattern revolve around Mark? Why is it not around Matthew? Or Luke? Why do alternating agreements exist at all?

The case for the Independence View relies heavily upon a questionable interpretation of one biblical passage and upon patristic citations of dubious value. It deals with a literary feature (alternating agreements) from a nonliterary standpoint. At this time, the evidence for the Independence View is not persuasive.

Evangelicals and the Two-Gospel Hypothesis

The 2GH is simple as well as compatible with the highest view of Scripture. Regarding Mark, it can explain why patterns C/E, I, and K in the OCG are rare: Mark usually avoids transposition. He tends to follow the order and content of Matthew, or that of Luke, or that of both. It can account for patterns A, B, D, F, and H in the OCG being common: Mark usually follows the order and content of a predecessor. Pattern M occurs occasionally, whenever Mark adds verses that do not parallel Matthew or Luke.

Regarding Luke, the 2GH is also a simple model. Paul undoubtedly used Matthew's Gospel, so Luke would have become familiar with it and would have held it in the highest regard. That Theophilus needed an integrated book (Luke-Acts) propelled Luke to write. Luke would find four hundred of Matthew's verses matching his own order and content, and those verses would have posed no difficulty for Luke to consult as he wrote his Gospel. Luke had other sources of information, so he did not rely exclusively upon Matthew. Thus, the places where Matthew and Luke have the same order and content, Luke probably consulted Matthew.

The ease with which the 2GH addresses order-and-content issues through the use of statistics is a distinct advantage in discussions with the Jesus Seminar and other radical extensions of the MH. A conservative-evangelical Two-Gospel hypothesist can make a case for the truth of God's inerrant and inspired Word ("Your word is truth," John 17:17).

Endnotes

1. Robert L. Thomas, "Introduction" to The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 18.

2. Ibid., 18, citing Scot McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 84.

3. Redaction criticism looks for signs that a later writer embellished an earlier writer's theology. This issue is separate from literary collaboration, as evidenced by Thomas, introduction to The Jesus Crisis, 18, acknowledging collaboration between Kings and Chronicles as well as 2 Peter and Jude without simultaneously endorsing destructive hermeneutics.

4. Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptures are from the NKJV, New King James Version of the Holy Bible (Nashville: Nelson, 1982).

5. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, eds., "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," in The Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 66.

6. Paul W. Felix, "Literary Dependence and Luke's Prologue," in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 276.

7. Ibid.

8. Josephus, BJ (The Jewish Wars) Preface 1 (1.4), in Josephus: The Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 30.

9. Someone may object: "Of course, God knew that Matthew's Gospel already existed, but God does not disparage it through Luke's prologue." A fair corresponding statement would be "Luke knew that Matthew's Gospel already existed but does not disparage it through his prologue."

10. The editors of The Jesus Crisis and the present author accept (1) verbal plenary inspiration and (2) Matthean priority.

11. Craig A. Evans, Luke, ed. W. Ward Gasque (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1990), 18 (emphasis in original).

12. I. Howard Marshall, "Acts and the `Former Treatise,"' in The Book ofActs in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, England: Paternoster, 1993), 173.

13. C. F. Evans, Saint Luke, TPI New Testament Commentaries, ed. Howard Clark Kee and Dennis Nineham (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), 124.

14. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 9-10.

15. David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity, ed. Wayne A. Meeks, vol. 8 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 120.

16. Felix, "Literary Dependence and Luke's Prologue," 278.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., 276.

19. Paul is always careful to indicate that he personally saw the resurrected Christ. He was no less a witness than any other apostle.

20. Both Drs. Thomas and Famell, as do I, affirm Article 20 of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 25 (December 1982): 400-1; as does Famell's Th.M. thesis under Robert L. Thomas: R David Famell, "Redaction Criticism in Light of the Inerrancy of Scripture" (Th.M. thesis, Talbot Theological Seminary, 1984), 24. Article 20 says, "We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, Biblical and extra-Biblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extra-Biblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. We deny that extra-Biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it." The Bible itself does not solve the Synoptic Problem. Patristic citations are not infallible; thus, it is a secondary tier of evidence.

21. Thomas and Farrell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 37-84.

22. Cf. Moses Hadas, ed. and trans., Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (New York: Harper, 1951; reprint, New York: KTAV, 1973); Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Eisenbrauns, 1978), 29-58.

23. Cf. Aristeas, Letter ofAristeas 301-22, esp. 301-7.

24. Josephus, Antiquities 12.2.1 1 (12.88).

25. Ibid., 12.2.13 (12.103).

26. Philo, de Vita Mosis 2.29-44 (Loeb Classical Library [LCL], 6:462-71).

27. Ibid., 2.37 (LCL, 6:467).

28. Tertullian, Apology 18 (Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], 3:32).

29. Jerome, Apology 2.25 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [NPNF], 3:516).

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid. "Being ignorant of all this [that the Greek Old Testament as not inspired] many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha."

32. Justin Martyr, FirstApology of Justin 1.31 (ANF, 1:173), extends the seventy's translation to include Isaiah 7; idem, Dialogue with Trypho 68 (ANF, 1:23233), also includes Isaiah 7; idem, Hortatory Address to the Greeks 13 (ANF 1:279), speaks of translators agreeing fully despite not working together.

33. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.20.3-21.2 (ANF, 1:450-51), includes the prophets and speaks of the translators' agreeing fully despite working in isolation.

34. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.22 (ANF, 2:334).

35. Augustine, City of God 18.42-44 (NPNF 2:385-87).

36. Chrysostom, The Gospel of Matthew 5.3-4 (NPNF, 10:32-33), regards Isaiah as part of the original translation and speaks of the translators' agreement as a basis for confidence. This position implies his belief in their working independently.

37. Epiphanius, de Mensuris et Ponderibus 3 (Migne, Patrologia graeca [PG] 43:241-42), speaks of isolated pairs having concord in translating the entire Old Testament. (A partial translation of Epiphanius, Weights and Measures 3-6, appears in Hadas, Aristeas, 76-77).

38. Most translations render ou taxei as "not in order." The paraphrase has the same meaning but shows the connection with suntaxin ("arrangement"). This rendering is my own.

39. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15-16.

40. Gerhard Kittel, "logion," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TDNT], ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, 1976), 4:140-41.

41. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16.

42. Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 44-45. Cf. ibid., 79 n. 52, where they correctly observe that the Greek Matthew does not show signs of being translated from Aramaic.

43. Robert L. Thomas, "Redaction Criticism," in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farrell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 234.

44. Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 7-14.

45. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1.

46. Matthew's writing an Aramaic Gospel before his Greek Gospel only compounds Irenaeus's chronological problem: Luke's Gospel preceded his writing of Acts, which preceded the Aramaic Matthew, which preceded the Greek Matthew.

47. Thomas and Farrell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 48, Irenaeus "does offer support for the priority of Matthew as first to be composed" Unfortunately, Irenaeus botches the chronology.

48. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7.

49. Ibid.

50. Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 66.

51. Ibid., 67.

52. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3-6.

53. Thomas and Farrell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 52.

54. After evaluating the evidence, noted papyrologists Colin H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London: Oxford University Press, 1983), 66, accept this conclusion of Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 174. Cf. John H. Niemela, "The Infrequency of Twin Departures" (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2000), 401-39.

55. Frederic G. Kenyon, Fasciculus II: The Gospels and Acts (Text), Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri (London: Walker, 1933), viii, "With regard to the order of the books, the only evidence lies in the fact that Mark and Acts were closely associated in the papyrus as brought to England." The context of the last statement is from ibid., v, "When it [p45] first arrived in London it could only be described as a lump of papyrus.... Until these leaves had been carefully separated and mounted under glass by the skill of Dr. Ibscher, it was not possible to do more than ascertain that portions of some at least of the Gospels and of Acts were included."

56. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 296-97.

57. Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 52.

58. Thomas and Gundry, Harmony of the Gospels, 16-17.

59. Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 70-72.

60. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels 1.2.4 (NPNF 6:78) (emphasis added).

61. Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 71. They cite Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels 1.2.4.

62. Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels 1.2.4 (NPNF 6:78) (emphasis added). Cf. David Peabody, "Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis: A Reexamination of Augustine's Thought in De consensu evangelistarum," in New Synoptic Studies, ed. William Farmer (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 37-64.

63. Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels 1.6.9 (NPNF66:80-81); cf. idem, On the Gospel of John 36.5 (NPNF, 7.2 10).

64. Ibid.

65. Thomas, introduction to The Jesus Crisis, 18.

66. Peabody, "Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis."

67. Ibid., 55.

68. Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 72.

69. Ibid., 72-73, citing John Chrysostom, Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel According to St. Matthew 4.1.

70. He argues from Mark's human perspective when he asserts that Matthew came first. In terms of an omniscient God, Chrysostom knew that whether Matthew precedes or follows Mark would not affect His knowledge. Thus, it was because Mark knew Matthew's Gospel that he wrote briefly.

71. Chrysostom, Homily 1.5-6 (NPNF, 10:20).

72. Thomas and Farrell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 73, cf. 84 n. 190 (which is strictly a reference note). Observe that Thomas and Farnell omit the quotation marks indicating what Chrysostom quotes.

73. Chrysostom, In Matthceum Homilia A.1 (Migne, PG 57:16).

74. Chrysostom, Homily 68.3 (NPNF, 10:418) (emphasis added).

75. Chrysostom, The Gospel of Matthew 5.3-4 (NPNF, 10:32-33), regards Isaiah as part of the original translation and speaks of the translators' agreement as a basis for confidence. The latter implies his belief that they translated independently.

76. See p. 138 (above).

77. See p. 138 (above).

78. Chrysostom, Homily 1.6 (NPNF110:20).

79. Jerome, Apology 2.25 (NPNF 3:516) "Being ignorant of all this [that the Greek Old Testament is not inspired] many follow the ravings of the Apocrypha."

80. Chrysostom, Synopsis Scripturx Sacrce (Migne, PG 56:313-86). He does not signal the apocryphal books as inferior to those in the Hebrew Bible. Frederic Henry Chase, Chrysostom: A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell, 1887), 28 n. 1, argues that "thoughts and phrases characteristic of Chrysostom's undoubted works find a place in it, comp. Migne, PG 56:309-312: (b) the Canon of the New Testament coincides with that one which appears to have been recognized by Chrys. comp. below p. 79 [in Chase's work and in the following endnote]; (c) in the three MSS which contain it[,] it bears Chrysostom's name."

81. Chase, Chrysostom, 79.

82. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 214-15, "The standard work on this subject is Chrysostomus Baur, `Der Kanon des hl. Job. Chrysostomus,' Theologische Quartalschrift 105 (1924): 258-71." R. A. Krupp, Saint John Chrysostom: A Scripture Index (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984), 252-53, lists 2 Peter twice, Jude once, and Revelation nine times among Chrysostom's allusions. But these twelve citations parallel statements in other books, ones that Chrysostom accepted. Twelve questionable allusions is nothing compared with Chrysostom's eleven thousand biblical citations. Furthermore, Chrysostom, Synopsis Scripturce Sacra, "Conspectus Operis" (Migne, PG 56:317), advocates this abbreviated New Testament canon.

83. This chapter has already rebutted the suggestion that Augustine rejected a literary solution (see the Augustine section of this chapter).

84. John MacArthur, foreword to The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 9-10.

85. See pages 127-35.

86. Literary independence would require mutual independence among all synoptic accounts, which, if measured, would only magnify the results of the current statistical testing of the MH assumption that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark.

87. My dissertation devotes three chapters to historical backgrounds, but space limitations require only a brief summary here. Cf. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 15-80.

88. C. M. Tuckett, "The Argument from Order and the Synoptic Problem," Theologische Zeitschrift 36 (November-December 1980): 342.

89. N. Humphrey Palmer, "Lachmann's Argument," New Testament Studies (NTS) 13 (July 1967): 370, reissued in The Two-Source Hypothesis, ed. Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr., with Joseph B. Tyson and William O. Walker Jr. (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985), 123-25, his claim to have innovated an order-only argument is correct. Griesbach had an order-andcontent argument.

90. Cf. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 35-39. Griesbach linked order and content.

91. B. C. Butler, The Originality of St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), 62-71.

92. Cf. Geoffrey M. Styler, "The Priority of Mark," in The Birth of the New Testament, ed. C. F. D. Moule, 3d ed. (London: A. & C. Black, 1981; reprint, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982), 285-86, 290.

93. Some Greek texts list the ten Eusebian canons. E.g., cf. Novum Testamentum Graece: Post Eberhard Nestle et Erwin Nestle, ed. Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Bibelstiftung, 1993), 85*-89*.

94. Ernest de Witt Burton, "Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem," in Semitic Languages and Literatures, Biblical and Patristic Greek, Comparative Religion, The Decennial Publications, 1st series (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904), 5:207; reissued as, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904), 15. Page references in the following notes are to the latter.

95. Ibid., 18, discusses order, whereas content appears on pp. 15-16.

96. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Priority of Mark and the `Q' Source in Luke," in Jesus and Man's Hope, ed. David G. Buttrick, Perspective, ed. Donald G. Miller (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970), 1:132.

97. Albert C. Outler, in panel discussion with Albert B. Lord, George Kennedy, Lou H. Silberman, and Roland Mushat Frye, as quoted by William O. Walker Jr., "Introduction: The Colloquy on the Relationships Among the Gospels," in The Relationships Among the Gospels, ed. William O. Walker Jr., Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion, ed. John H. Hayes, vol. 5 (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978), 12.

98. Reginald H. Fuller, "Classics and the Gospels: The Seminar," in The Relationships Among the Gospels, ed. William 0. Walker Jr., Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion, ed. John H. Hayes, vol. 5 (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978), 176.

99. William O. Walker Jr., "An Unexamined Presupposition in Studies of the Synoptic Problem," Religion in Life 48 (spring 1979): 42.

100. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 24-34, demonstrates this thesis regarding the meaning for the order-and-content argument in W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan; London: Collier-Macmillan, 1964), 213-15.

101. Cf. ibid., 82-90, for a mathematical demonstration that these fourteen patterns cover all testable order-and-content relationships.

102. Ibid., 52-80.

103. Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 211-15.

104. Ibid., 213.

105. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 24-34, 35-39, 53-59, 79, etc. Although Farmer died in December 2000, his presence on the committee that oversaw my dissertation, which sought to clarify his meaning, bears witness that it represents him correctly.

106. Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels, 4th rev. impression (London: Macmillan, 1930; reprint, New York: St. Martin's, 1956), 161-62.

107. Swithun McLoughlin, "A Reply," Downside Review 90 (July 1972): 201. Indeed, he sets it up as a statistical argument, using proportional distribution to predict the expected frequency of double omissions by Matthew and Luke. Credit is due McLoughlin for recognizing that Farmer's argument is statistical and for treating it as such.

108. Cf. ibid., 201-2, and the analysis of McLoughlin's statistical procedures in Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 61-67.

109. McLoughlin, "Reply," 201.

110. Frans Neirynck, "The Argument from Order and St. Luke's Transpositions," Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses (ETL) 49 (December 1973): 784-815; reissued in Frans Neirynck, ed., The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark with a Cumulative List, Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium (BETL), ed. Frans Neirynck, vol. 37 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974), 291-322 (page references are to the latter).

111. Ibid., 297-311.

112. Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 213.

113. Neirynck, "Argument from Order and St. Luke's Transpositions," 300.

114. Ibid., 305.

115. C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (SNTSMS) 44, ed. R. McL. Wilson (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 28.

116. Cf. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 128-144, esp. 136-41.

117. Compare and contrast ibid., 133 and 137. The first shows three popular interrupted synopses, while the latter page depicts the present author's synopsis.

118. For example, the anointing in Luke 7 does not equal Matthew 26 / Mark 14.

119. Neirynck, "Argument from Order and St. Luke's Transpositions," 297; cf. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 53-55.

120. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 141-48.

121. Cf. ibid., 395-400, especially 400. One of his approximately sixty calculations varied slightly from the dissertation figures. His calculation would actually strengthen the present writer's case slightly.

122. Cf. Allen L. Hammond, "The Choosing of the 20," Science 84, no. 5 (November 1984): 9; and Ian Hacking, "Trial by Number," Science 84, no. 5 (November 1984): 69-70.

123. This excludes the last twelve verses of Mark. Including those verses would cause the numbers to become slightly less favorable to the MH.

124. Streeter, Four Gospels, 161-62.

125. McLoughlin, "Reply," 202.

126. Cf. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 153-84.

127. Ibid., 397-400.

128. Cf. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 172-75, about the dissertation's Chi-square sums.

129. Excel 97 (Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft, 1997).

130. Specifically, statisticians carry p-values out to four decimal points. Thus, a p-value of 0.00004 is 0 percent.

131. McLoughlin, "Reply," 202.

132. David J. Neville, Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism, New Gospel Studies, ed. W. R. Farmer, vol. 7 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1994), 186-87.

133. Edgar, "Source Criticism," 141; idem, "An Analysis of the Synoptic Problem" (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969), 203, leaves open the possibility of a written Ur-Gospel, although he seems to reject it. Ultimately, idem, "Source Criticism," 142, seems to reject it: "The [order] divergences argue against literary dependence or reliance on a common written source."

134. Edgar, "Source Criticism," 141-42.

135. Ibid.

136. Edgar, "Analysis of the Synoptic Problem" 201.

137. Ibid., 142, asserts, "The divergences [of order among the synoptics] argue against literary dependence." Note that this assertion does not apply against the present case. When Matthew and Luke's order differs, Mark followed the order and content of the one whose outline he adopted (not the one with a different order). Likewise, this chapter perceives Luke consulting Matthew for only the passages the order and content of which he followed. It is true that Mark did not always consult Matthew; it is also true that he did not always consult Luke; but these statements do not logically lead to the conclusion that Mark never consulted them. One can make a similar statement regarding Luke's use of Matthew.

138. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 401-39, is an appendix showing difficulties with the view that Gospel autographs were codices. Note that it is an appendix. Scroll usage is a supplemental argument, so the central arguments of the dissertation are the crux, regardless of what one thinks about scroll autographs.

139. Streeter, Four Gospels, 151-52.

140. A good starting place is Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 118-52, which shows how Streeter used an indefensibly atomistic approach to explain away damaging data.

141. David Alan Black, "Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and Markan Grammar," in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation, ed. David Alan Black (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 90-98.

142. Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? Griesbach Solution to the Synoptic Problem, vol. 3 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987), 234.

143. Ibid., 236.

144. Cf. pp. 127-135 in this chapter.

145. Felix, "Literary Dependence and Luke's Prologue," 277, "Luke is not explicit about whether he used those nonextant written accounts in penning his own Gospel, but he probably used every speck of information he could locate to compare with other sources to be sure he had his information correct."

146. E.g., Allan J. McNicol, Beyond the Q Impasse (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1996), 21, says, "Luke began a cyclic progression through Matthew, moving forward and going back again, selecting Matthean units and combining them with material of his own to create his chronologically-oriented narra tive. In this way, Luke repeatedly moved forward through Matthew until he had used most of the narrative units in Mt 3-18:5" (emphasis in original). The idea of repeated passes through Matthew does not recommend itself to this author.

147. DeWette, Bleek, and Stoldt perceived difficulties in sections where Luke and Matthew have a different order. From such passages they inferred that Luke did not use Matthew at all. Luke's using Matthew is not, however, an all-or-nothing proposition, as both the Independence View and the MH tend to treat a relationship between Matthew and Luke. The mere fact that someone can point to passages where Matthew and Luke are not related does not prove that they never are related.

148. Thomas and Gundry, Harmony of the Gospels, also regard all of these verses as parallels between Matthew and Luke. The sections used in this presentation essentially correspond to the following sections in Thomas and Gundry: 24-28,38,73,93-95,99-100,102,104-5,118-22,124-25,127,177-78, 180, 182, 187, 193-95, 198-99, 202-6, 209-212, 217, 225-30, 233, 235, 237-42,244-46,249.

149. Niemela, "Infrequency of Twin Departures," 141-48.

150. F. G. Downing, "Towards the Rehabilitation of Q," NTS, n.s., 11 (January 1965): 169-81, reissued in The Two-Source Hypothesis, ed. Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr. (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985), 269-85. He cites Austin M. Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q," in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. Dennis E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 56, reissued in The Two-Source Hypothesis, ed. Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr. (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985), 323.

151. See pp. 160-75.

152. See p. 175.

Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C. Williams

Literary Collaboration and a High View of Scripture

As Niemela shows, one can believe in both a dependency theory between the Synoptic Gospels as well as inspiration and inerrancy. Niemela has cited valuable evidence: believing that one Gospel author used another author as a source is not necessarily a sign of liberalism or an attack against inerrancy. Niemela offers three levels of evidence: other biblical authors use biblical sources, an exegesis of Luke 1:1-4, and an examination of patristic evidence.

That literary collaboration exists between the writers of Kings and Chronicles (which, by the way, have very much in common with the similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels) and between Jude and 2 Peter demonstrates that it is indeed possible for a biblical author to use sources (as Luke 1: 1-4 proves) and even cite another biblical author. Although the Bible is a special book, inspired in a special way like no other, that fact does not imply that another biblical author, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cannot use inspired material as a source to write another inspired work within the Bible. Rather than denigrating this former material, referring to it shows, as Niemela asserts, respect toward the material. If it were not worthy, it would not be cited.

Niemela's exegesis of Luke 1:1-4 shows that nothing is inherently wrong in a literary collaboration between the Gospel authors. In fact, if God is, as all of the writers in this book agree, the ultimate author of all three Gospels, then it would not be impossible for God Himself to use an existing inspired Gospel as a source for a second or even a third inspired Gospel. Luke 1:3 seems to show, in fact, a positive recognition of the earlier sources, not a negative one, as Farnell tries to show in his chapter. Dr. Henry Owen, in the first documented attempt to literarily relate the Gospels to one another (Observations on the Four Gospels, London, 1764, 109), stated that using an existing Gospel as a source for a second Gospel would actually recommend both Gospels as genuine Gospels. Such use separates them from the many false and apocryphal gospels that arose from the very beginning of Christianity.

Finally, Niemela offered a reminder regarding the value of the opinions of church fathers-but only as a secondary and not a primary source. In other words, if nothing in Scripture itself prohibits the use of an earlier gospel as a source, then one cannot claim from the evidence of the church fathers that such a use was unbiblical and errant. If Luke 1:1-4 shows that Luke's use of an earlier gospel shows a high regard for existing material, then, in fact, biblical evidence would be the primary line of evidence, and the church fathers would have little to add. Niemela has nicely summarized the need for caution when citing the church fathers simply because they were not always, as Farrell says in his own chapter, "renowned scholars." Renowned scholars do not make the kind of changes to an earlier source that we find in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius, namely, the claim that the translation of the Septuagint was done by seventy authors independently, in separate rooms, yet all produced an identical translation as a result of the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit. All of the aforementioned church fathers make this claim despite an earlier church father, Aristeas, who said that the authors conferred with one another after translating to finalize translation decisions. Such changes to previous documents make us question the value of the church fathers as ultimate or primary sources of truth.

Ironically, however, Niemela's examination of the church fathers also discredits the evidence often cited by proponents of the TwoGospel Hypothesis, namely, that the church fathers are unanimous in citing Matthew as the first Gospel to be written. Niemela has shown that the evidence does not merit trusting in the fathers as an infallible guide, and skepticism regarding patristic infallibility is, in fact, the usual argument in refuting the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Niemela does not make any comments on this aspect of the debate.

All of Niemela's heads of evidence contribute significantly to showing that literary dependency, by itself, is not an improper exegetical tool. If, in fact, one interprets Luke 1:1-4 as proof that Luke used an earlier Gospel when he wrote his Gospel, then biblical evidence justifies the use of finding literary sources. Thus, one cannot claim that those who believe in literary dependency among the synoptics are, by definition, liberals who believe that the Bible is full of errors. More will be said to this end in the MH response to the chapter by Farrell. It is possible and, according to Luke 1, biblically acceptable that the Evangelists used one another as sources when they wrote their respective Gospels.

Although the evidence that Niemela supplies regarding the previous point is enlightening, the emphasis that he places upon refuting the book by Thomas and Farrell, The Jesus Crisis, is not warranted. This book and its thesis receives too much attention in a chapter that is devoted to defending the 2GH of Gospel origins. It is sad that an evangelical feels obliged to defend himself and his views to such a degree against other evangelicals. And the key word is evangelical, not the Jesus Seminar. Niemela defends evangelicalism against accusations of liberalism made by others from within the ranks of evangelicalism. Thus, instead of devoting his entire chapter to defending his view, Niemela devotes well over a third of his chapter in refuting claims made by the authors of The Jesus Crisis that literary dependency is a position of liberalism.

The Lack of Traditional Arguments for the 2GH

By using so much of his chapter on tangential issues, Niemela is unable to present in detail some of the evidence that has historically been used to defend the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Instead, Niemela uses statistical analysis as his main line of evidence for defending the 2GH (we shall present our response to this evidence following this section). Thus, when one compares this chapter with any other defense of the same theory, one finds diametrically different presentations. David L. Dungan, for example, in his defense of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:671-79), speaks at length on "macrostructural" evidence, the most important of which is the relative order of pericopes between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, including an extensive graph of the different pericopes. Dungan also speaks of the simplicity of this solution: the 2GH relates all of the Gospels to one another, which thus eliminates the need for Q. In addition, Dungan speaks at length of the problems with the other views. Niemela, because of his emphasis on statistical analysis, does not address these traditional arguments at length. Therefore, if one is not convinced by Niemela's statistical analysis, little else will convince the reader as to the certainty of the 2GH. A short graph compares the order of Mark chapters 1-6 with Matthew and Luke, but Niemela neglects to compare the rest of Mark with the other two Gospels. And, perhaps even more surprising, not a single example compares a text of Mark with Matthew and Luke, and little is presented on the theological results of following the 2GH. One cannot help but question whether the statistical solution is possible or plausible in terms of explaining the texts themselves.

The reader is thus left with one simple question: Are the statistics convincing for proving that the 2GH is the best solution to the Synoptic Problem?

An Analysis of the Statistical Analysis for the 2GH

Niemela's defense of the 2GH stands or falls with his statistical analysis of the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels. Are these statistics reliable? Can one base one's conclusion to the Synoptic Problem solely upon these statistics?

Before getting into a discussion of the statistics themselves, a note to the reader. One of the present authors (Williams) was trained in mechanical engineering at the University of Illinois and worked for a large automaker for a few years before entering seminary in preparation for being a NT professor. The biographical information is offered in prefacing the first comment about the statistics presented in Niemela's chapter: they are difficult to understand. It is of concern that readers who do not have a background in mathematics might not grasp the nature of these statistics to a degree that allows them to follow and critique the conclusions based upon these statistics. It is easy to imagine such being the case, considering that one who has taken classes in statistics and has used them on various occasions to set up experiments had a difficult time following the argument. Perhaps this difficulty was the result of the chapter's being a summary of Niemela's doctoral dissertation. Niemela continually advises the reader to see his dissertation for further explanation, but such is difficult to do given that the dissertation is unpublished. Some examples or further explanation would be valuable to understand the arguments fully.

With this point in mind, are the statistics valuable? In other words, has Niemela-after the nearly two thousand years since the Gospels were written and the nearly 250 years since the inception of the OwenGriesbach Hypothesis-found the answer to the "best-kept secret" for determining the solution to the Synoptic Problem? The calculations that Niemela performed are without doubt accurate (he has letters verifying this fact in his dissertation), but the question remains as to the accuracy of the statistical model used. Given that Niemela is the first person to perform such a numerical analysis, he cannot cite another author who agrees that he has set up the statistical analysis correctly. Without such confidence in the accuracy of the model itself, the assertion of the accuracy of the calculations is not helpful. The concerns as to this statistical model are as follows:

First, may one use statistics to explain what an author did while using a source? Can one explain, using mathematical statistics, what Matthew or Luke did, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to their source, namely, Mark? In other words, that one author used or did not use a pericope is explainable in various ways. Can one reduce these ways to numbers? Can one use numbers to explain the various theological reasons that the authors chose to include or not include a pericope, based upon the needs of the community(ies) to which they wrote?

Second, should each verse be counted or should one count pericopes (i.e., episodes or sayings)? Niemela has counted verses for determining his statistics, which increases the likelihood of finding that Matthew was the first Gospel. However, should verses be counted? One should, indeed, count pericopes because the secondary authors made decisions based not upon verses but upon pericopes. When, for example, Matthew or Luke or Mark came to the pericope, "Jesus Foretells His Passion" (Matt. 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33; Luke 9:22), they did not think, How many verses are there in this pericope? Instead, they thought, Do I want to use this pericope or not? Does it serve my purpose? The number of verses in a pericope, though, makes a significant difference in the statistical accounting. The pericope of "Defilement-Traditional and Real," for example (Matt. 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23), consists of twenty verses in Matthew and twenty-three verses in Mark, which would count as twenty or twenty-three in the statistical counting of Niemela. If, Luke, however, for unknown reasons decided not to use this pericope, this pericope would count as only one in a pericope-counting scheme. The difference between counting verses and counting pericopes is significant, indeed, when considering a pericope such as "He Who Hears You, Hears Me" (Matt. 10:40; Luke 10:16), which contains just one verse. In Niemela's counting, this entire pericope would count for only one in his counting system and also for one in the pericope-counting system. Should the pericope of "Defilement-Traditional and Real" count for twenty or twenty-three times the amount of the pericope "He Who Hears You, Hears Me" in this statistical model? One can easily see the difference that counting pericopes as opposed to counting verses would make over the whole Gospel of Mark. Thus, the question is raised regarding the basis of the statistical analysis. And, upon examining the numerical conclusions reached, the differences are minimal in many cases. But the difference between counting verses and counting pericopes might make a significant difference as to the conclusions reached in these cases.

Third, even given that one should count verses instead of pericopes, another question arises: Which verses should be counted? In other words, how does one determine whether Matthew has omitted a verse from Mark? Is an omitted verse one that has similar content but different words? Do the two authors have to use the same words? Do the words have to be in the same order? The point is that the numbers are only as good as the parameters that are used to count these numbers. Because there is no indication of which verses count (given that no grid is given or no numbers except the final results), the overall decision-making process for determining which verses count is called into question. Consider, for example, Matthew 21:17 in contrast to Mark 11:11:

Matthew 21:17: Kai katalipon autous exelthen exo tes poleds eis Bethanian, kai eulisthe ekei.

Mark 11:11: Kai eiselthen eis Hierosolyma eis to hieron; kai periblepsamenos panta, opsias ede ouses tes horas, exelthen eis Bethanian meta On dodeka.

These two verses have only three words in common. Clearly, however, the subject matter is similar. Does this verse count as an omitted verse or not? In other words, how many words must the authors have in common for the verse to be counted as omitted? It seems to be an exercise in subjectivity. And, given that Niemela's chapter does not go into detail as to what counts or does not count as a statistically valid omission, one is left wondering. Although Niemela claims to have a color-coded synopsis in an appendix to his dissertation, without a single example being given in his chapter, one cannot know what does or does not count in his statistics.

Another attempt to count verses, Eta Linnemann's Is There a Synoptic Problem? also uses statistics to show that the Gospels were independent. Her conclusion was that the statistics pointed to three independent Gospels. Her conclusions have not convinced many scholars, although Linnemann herself was totally convinced by the weight of the statistics. As was stated earlier, for both Linnemann and Niemela, it is not the numbers but the setting up of the formula that is most important. Both of these authors use statistics, yet they come to dif ferent conclusions, which serves as a reminder that statistics are not the final word for proving a theory.

Fourth, Niemela finds a CSS (chi-square sum) of 41.013,490,22. He states that this number is "huge for a table with three rows and three columns (like the OCG)." Why is this number considered huge? To what is it compared? No other examples or numbers are given against which to make a comparison. But the most significant concern is the lack of a control, that is, use of this statistical scheme with documents from antiquity that are known to have used other written documents as sources. It would be stimulating to calculate the chisquare sum of ancient documents known to have used other written sources-such as Josephus's use of the Letter of Aristeas or of 1 Samuel 1:1-10 in Antiquities 6.368-74, or in Livy's adaptation of Polybius-and compare the results with those calculated by Niemela regarding the synoptics. According to Niemela's chapter, such a calculation has not been performed. Thus, the use of such a statistical analysis for comparing ancient documents is questionable. The only other example that Niemela gives is a statistical comparison of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount with Luke's Sermon on the Plain, with the conclusion that they are two separate sermons given on two separate occasions. Given that the majority of scholars are not in agreement with this conclusion, we doubt whether Niemela's statistical analysis of the overall Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke will be convincing to most.

Fifth, it is striking that Niemela does not comment on the instances where Matthew and Luke have common material that Mark has omitted (cases G and J in his model), stating that these patterns are not pertinent to the order-content analysis because Mark does not include that particular content. It seems that an analysis that is supposedly examining the significance of similarities and differences of both the order and the content would need to examine those instances where Mark omits contents that appear in both Matthew and Luke. The failure to include these data, or even to discuss them, is, in fact, a major problem with the 2GH. How does this theory explain these omissions, given that Mark normally follows and condenses the material that he finds in the other two Synoptic Gospels? Why Mark omitted the contents of these particular verses is of primary importance in a defense of the 2GH.

Sixth, summing up the problems, it would have been helpful if Niemela had shown how his statistical approach supplements and strengthens the more traditional arguments for Matthean priority made by William Farmer or David Dungan. The reader is left somewhat confused, for without a fair amount of training it is difficult to make sense of mathematical statistics used in this type of setting. Without a good presentation of other arguments, the reader is tempted to shrug his or her shoulders and simply ignore the possibility of Matthean priority.

Various Comments on Minor Issues in the Chapter

Addressing several minor issues that arise throughout Niemela's chapter, first, similar to the accusations of liberalism made by the Jesus Crisis, Niemela himself raises a questioning eye concerning the redaction criticism used by Scot McKnight. Niemela does not go into detail, leaving one with the idea that Niemela views McKnight as guilty of liberalism by his association with redaction criticism. The last line of the essay also raises a questioning eye for the "other radical" adherents of the Two-Source Hypothesis. Again, he does not define other radical.

Second, surprisingly, neither of the other two authors in this book admit the possibility that they might be wrong. Niemela states, "a nonreversible line of statistical evidence now challenges this idea that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark." In other words, his statistical evidence is nonreversible, meaning that it is assured. Thus, he claims to have the final answer. All other solutions cannot be true. The same claims are made by Farnell, albeit in stronger and more polemical language, in his chapter (we shall address this in our response to Farnell's chapter). Niemela does not even discuss potential problems with his solution. It is surprising that so little humility is found among these evangelical authors. It is amazing that they can reach back nearly two thousand years in history and come up with the final and conclusive answer to the Synoptic Problem. A wiser course would be to adopt a less dogmatic posture regarding one's own findings, claiming conviction based upon the findings of present evidence but continuing to seek and investigate more lines of evidence. A book of this type is welcome, as are the challenges that it presents, because it seems clear that there is no final answer and that each might be correct. The only possible path is to continue to study each of the possibilities and respectfully allow the others to challenge and perhaps change one's position.

Third, Niemela's arguments, showing that Luke consulted Matthew, are circular. He first assigns an early date to Matthew and then concludes that, based upon this date, Paul, and therefore Luke, used this Gospel in their travels. He has not, however, conclusively shown the accuracy of his dates nor dealt with the differences between the texts of Matthew and Luke. Niemela does not, for example, discuss the possibility of an Ur-Gospel or of text-critical difficulties that might account for the similarities between Matthew and Luke. It seems that a simple quotation from his statistical model takes care of the problem of the textual differences.

Fourth, a discussion of Streeter's five arguments for Markan priority deserves more attention than the mere page that Niemela gives it. His discussion of the fourth argument consists of a mere three lines, not enough to do justice to a complicated argument. Nor does it take into account the evolution of this argument by later scholars in the last seventy years since Streeter's arguments were first published (see chap. 1, "The Case for the Markan Priority View of Gospel Origins," for a fuller discussion).

Fifth, Niemela uses the word reversible many times to speak of the arguments for Markan priority. He says, for example, "Whereas Streeter's five arguments are reversible and overly atomistic ...... and "The gerrymandering that occurs in order-only and content-only models creates a methodological problem, which renders all contentonly and order-only arguments reversible. The OCM offers a solution." The implication is that Niemela's statistical arguments are irreversible, which, as was argued earlier, is uncertain. In addition, the word reversible as used by Niemela is misleading; there is a vast difference between an argument that is "reversible" (or possible) and an argument that is conclusive (or probable). As was mentioned in the defense of the MH in this volume, one may explain the data in any number of ways, only one of which is the most probable. Thus, in seeking the solution to the Synoptic Problem, the scholar need not be concerned with irreversible arguments but with the more probable arguments.

Sixth, if Streeter's arguments (and, undoubtedly, that of the MH in this volume) are "overly atomistic," Niemela's arguments are overly general. Although one must look, of course, at the general arguments of order and content, one must also be able to explain the minute differences that one finds among the Greek texts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. One looks in vain for any type of discussion of a specific text of the Gospels in Niemela's chapter. It is hard to be convinced by an argument that does not deal with the texts at the microstructural level because one ultimately must be able to explain the differences in the texts one way or the other. Both Niemela's position and that of the MH presented in this volume agree that a direct literary relationship exists between Matthew and Mark. One's theory must be able to explain these differences. Which one best does so?

This last point is perhaps the most significant critique of the 2GH, namely, the failure to explain the textual differences between the Gospels. If Mark used Matthew and Luke on a larger scale, how does one explain his failure to use the Sermon on the Mount, or the Infancy stories, or, given Mark's emphasis on teaching, much of the teaching material? But even more important are the minute differences that are found by combing through the texts line by line in a synopsis. Which theory best explains these differences? Which theory is more plausible? The bottom line for both the 2GH and the MH is that either Matthew changed Mark's text or vice versa.

Having pored over much of Mark's text, and having given many of the best examples of differences between Matthew and Mark, the MH argument given in this volume presents the most convincing evidence that Matthew changed the text of Mark. Such a close examination is not a matter of being overly atomistic; it is a matter of explaining the texts as they stand, a lofty goal for any student of the Bible.

Finally, to reiterate the point made at the beginning of this response, one's stand on literacy dependency is not the litmus test for one's orthodoxy. If, as Niemela has argued in his chapter, both Augustine and Chrysostom argued or assumed literary collaboration, such assumptions cannot be the standard for orthodoxy. One may remain faithful to Scripture and hold to literary dependency; this is, in fact, a laudable goal in the exegesis and teaching of the Word of God.

The question of the relationship of the Gospels to one another is important, and the proponents of each view are equally convinced of the correctness of their respective positions. And that is good. Readers should examine each argument closely and then examine the Gospels for themselves before making up their minds. In the final analysis, the colleagues who present their views in this volume share in the evangelical task of studying the Word and proclaiming the gospel. Such makes them not enemies but friends in a larger task.

F. David Farnell

Introduction

John Niemela is to be commended for his presentation of the TwoGospel (neo-Griesbach) Hypothesis (2GH). His use of statistics to disprove Markan priority is unique among those who advocate the Two-Gospel Hypothesis and will probably attract widespread scholarly attention.

Several significant issues, both general and specific, arise from his presentation, however, and make his position dubious and lacking in viability in explaining Synoptic origins. An Independence Response to "The Two-Gospel View of Gospel Origins" (chap. 2) follows several lines.

Ignoring the Presuppositional History of the 2GH

Early in his presentation of the 2GH, Niemela writes, "Biblical scholars too frequently reject inerrancy, inspiration, and the need for a consistent hermeneutic. Is acceptance of intersynoptic literary collaboration another example of this wrong-headed scholarship? No, unless literary collaboration itself undermines Scripture or unless the Bible itself precludes it, acceptance of literary collaboration does not compromise inerrancy, inspiration, or the need for a consistent hermeneutic." These statements evoke several observations.

First, his insistence on a high view of Scripture is commendable, as is his willingness to admit that any approach to Gospel origins that "undermines Scripture" would be wrong. Yet, Niemela's support of a high view of Scripture stands diametrically opposed to and inconsistent with his adoption of the 2GH of Synoptic Gospel origins. Simply put, his two operating assumptions-one that maintains an inspired and inerrant view of Scripture, along with consistent hermeneutics, and one that adopts the 2GH-clash with each other. The historical roots of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis lie in a philosophy that harbored presuppositions hostile to orthodox views of inspiration as well as extreme skepticism regarding the Gospels as inspired documents (see chap. 3 in this volume for more details on the history of the 2GH and the negative view of inspiration held by Griesbach). Niemela never mentions the history and ideological skepticism behind the position that he adopts. He merely affirms that the practice of literary dependency is compatible with an orthodox view of Scripture.

Second, Niemela distinguishes between literary dependence and literary collaboration: "Thomas's choice of the phrase literary collaboration avoids a taint associated with literary dependence. Literary collaboration or literary consultation suggests that writers of Scripture practiced a much lighter use of existing material, one restricted to observed/nonobserved literary phenomena. Such lighter use describes the view presented in this chapter." Niemela splits hairs over the difference between "dependence" on one hand and "collaboration" and "consultation" on the other; yet, he later concedes, "The thesis that Mark consulted Matthew and Luke is the sine qua non of the 2GH." If "Mark consulted Matthew and Luke," he used them as sources and was therefore dependent upon them literarily, no matter how light or heavy his use of them might have been. Literary dependence is the essence of the 2GH's solution to the Synoptic Problem. It certainly was the relationship as the originator (i.e., Griesbach) of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis saw it. If Niemela sees something different from literary dependence, he should not call himself a 2GH advocate.

Third, as he pursues his theory, Niemela tries to distance himself from form and redaction criticism such as characterizes the Two-/ Four-Source Hypotheses. He states, "It is fortunate that the conservative case against form and redaction criticism does not rely upon denying a literary solution to the Synoptic Problem." He is seemingly unaware that once a person acknowledges literary dependence or collaboration, explaining why a copied text differs from its exemplar is incumbent upon that person. True, form and redaction criticism based upon the Two-Gospel Hypothesis are currently at a very primitive stage compared with their employment with the MH. Osborne and Williams acknowledge this fact when in chapter 1 they write, "To date, only Mann has produced an entire commentary from a Two-Gospel Hypothesis point of view, demonstrating the redactional tendencies of Mark" (see C. S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 27 [New York: Doubleday, 1986]), but it is only a question of time until advocates of that theory will be "undermining the Bible" and treating it "with the reckless abandon suggested by redaction criticism" that Niemela professes to reject.

How, for example, if Luke was dependent upon or collaborated literarily with Matthew, will Niemela explain, if not by redaction criticism, Luke's changes to Matthew's wording of the rich young ruler's question and Jesus' answer (Matt. 19:16-17; Luke 18:18-19). Or how will he explain Mark's choice of Luke's wording over Matthew's as he depended upon both earlier Gospels in writing his own (see Mark 10:1718). Will Niemela hold that both Luke and Mark made Matthew's "easier" wording harder, or will he say that the differences in wording are superficial, thus questioning, as does Mann, the verbal inspiration of the passage (see Mann, Mark, 399). Any advocate of literary dependence finds himself or herself obligated to attribute redactional activity to the writers of the dependent gospel(s), finding that the redactor needed to correct objectionable items in the source gospel(s). Such findings will inevitably clash with a high view of Scripture.

In the 1960s, when the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis was in its infancy among evangelicals, many evangelicals saw no harm in postulating literary dependence among the synoptic writers, but now that the theory has come of age among evangelicals, it is apparent to all that such an explanation of Gospel origins leads inevitably to form and/or redaction critical explanations for differences in parallel ac counts. The same will eventually surface regarding the 2GH. It will be interesting to see whether Niemela will abandon the 2GH when evangelicals begin using the hypothesis to treat Scripture "with the reckless abandon suggested by redaction criticism."

Inability to Separate from Griesbach

Niemela rarely mentions Griesbach in his defense of the 2GH, and the few times he does, he mentions him in a somewhat positive light. Niemela does not see as a topic of discussion a kinship of his own high view of Scripture to the radically negative view of inspiration advocated by Griesbach. Niemela leaves it to the readers to gather by implication that he differs radically from Griesbach on the issue of inspiration. Yet, at least two areas of comparison, besides the sequence of dependency among the synoptics, show Niemela's kinship to the originator of his theory.

First, Griesbach believed that only those Gospel writers who were apostles were inspired (i.e., Matthew and John). This automatically left the conclusion that Mark and Luke were uninspired accounts. The apostles, Griesbach posits, were not inspired in the act of writing but were given a one-time gift of inspiration at Pentecost that afterward enabled them to understand and transmit doctrine but not inerrantly. Thus, Griesbach rejected the orthodox approach of plenary, verbal inspiration. His unorthodox views of inspiration caused him to believe that the NT writers often err. Therefore, one could not harmonize the Gospel accounts. Griesbach's view of the Gospel of John was highly skeptical in terms of its chronological reliability, and he omitted it from his synopsis. Accordingly, John must be separated from the synoptics. Griesbach's separation of the first three Gospels from the fourth (i.e., John's Gospel) gave rise to the classification of the former as the "Synoptic Gospels," a term that was coined in German by Griesbach. His historical skepticism led him to develop a "synopsis" rather than pursuing development of a traditional "harmony" because he rejected harmonization. Under this approach, the apostolic book of Matthew became the Gospel that the nonapostles, Luke and Mark, used in writing their Gospels.

Niemela does not reject harmonization but writes, "Those critics who refuse to harmonize parallels do so because of their hermeneutical approach. That is the real culprit, not literary collaboration." Yet, the author of Niemela's own theory did reject harmonization, and not because of a hermeneutical approach but because of his view of literary collaboration. Niemela will face the same tension between hermeneutic and literary collaboration when he begins to explain changes made by a dependent writer to his source, changes that cause a historical discrepancy between the two Gospels. That dilemma is inevitable anytime a theory postulates literary collaboration between synoptic writers.

In his section titled "Times When Luke Does Not Follow Matthew," Niemela chooses not to equate Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) with Luke's Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6). Rather than harmonize them as separate accounts of the same sermon, he states, "[S]tatistical data from the OCG [order-and-content grid] ... support a simpler solution: Jesus uttered two great sermons that have some similar content" Although the sermons begin the same way (i.e., with the Beatitudes), follow the same outline, end the same way (i.e., with a house built on a foundation), and are both followed immediately by accounts of the healing of the centurion's servant in Capernaum, statistical data from the OCG deduce that the accounts relate two different sermons preached by Jesus. Niemela later adds, "Would it be surprising for Jesus to have said similar things on two or more occasions? Surely, important topics bear repetition, especially because He did not always address the same group of people." He also notes, "Although many mere verbal parallels exist (passages using similar words to describe distinct events), verbal semblance does not create a true parallel. Many sayings and circumstances in Jesus' ministry could easily have been repeated on other occasions." Niemela concludes that when Luke's order differs from Matthew's, Luke did not consult Matthew and that he obtained this additional information through his extensive research. Niemela seems to incorporate a considerable degree of the Independence View into his defense of the 2GH. He can avoid engaging in the "reckless abandon" of redaction criticism in harmonizing some similar passages by positing that many sayings of Jesus could easily have been repeated, but the unanswered question is whether he can avoid doing so in those passages where Luke does follow Matthew's order, such as in the passage about the rich young ruler cited earlier.

According to Niemela's statistics, Luke follows Matthew's order in only 35 percent of Matthew's 1,071 verses. That leaves 65 percent of Matthew's content for which Luke was on his own, in other words, writing independently as the Independence View says he did throughout his Gospel. Because the Gospel of Luke has 1,149 verses, he depended upon Matthew for less than a third of his Gospel, according to Niemela's statistics. Where did he get the rest? He acquired it from independent research, which, according to the Independence View, produced 100 percent of his Gospel. Niemela's statistics can hardly be said, then, to support the 2GH, which posits that Luke obtained most of his Gospel from Matthew. Niemela's view is more of a hybrid combination of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis and the Independence View.

To the degree that Niemela incorporates elements of the Independence View, he avoids Griesbach's disdain for harmonization, but to the degree that he makes Luke dependent upon Matthew, unless he resorts to redaction criticism, he, unwittingly perhaps, is pursuing an antiharmonization course just as Griesbach did.

Second, another area in which Niemela reflects his Griesbachian lineage is in his handling of ancient church history. Griesbach rejected early church tradition, making selective use of only the evidence that supported his hypothesis. Any writing of the Fathers that contradicted his theory, he labeled as "sheer fabrication." Griesbach especially dismissed any statements from ancient history that Mark's Gospel reflected Peter's preaching because Peter's preaching as the source of Mark's Gospel directly conflicted with his synoptic hypothesis.

Literary-dependency hypotheses, including the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, did not arise in the church until about seventeen hundred years after the time of Christ, much later than the early Fathers who wrote in the first few centuries of the Christian era. History shows that the very hypothesis that Niemela adopts, as well as literary dependency as a whole, arose in an atmosphere of rejection of inspiration, inerrancy, and consistent hermeneutics (see chap. 3 of this volume for more details). In following the pattern set by Griesbach, Niemela's position on literary dependency shows a precarious disregard of and disrespect for ancient church history. Although Niemela argues for "[t]he need for caution in discerning patristic evidence," he displays anything but caution. He, like Griesbach (who originated and developed the hypothesis that Niemela espouses), arbitrarily ignores areas in ancient church history that contradict his hypothesis, or, like Griesbach, dismisses them capriciously as being in error when they contradict the position he has taken. Niemela goes to great lengths to demonstrate that "although sincere, the early church fathers were prone to error." He contends that their writings are of "dubious value." In his favor, Niemela believes that the early fathers were sincere, but the question remains of why Niemela devotes such a large portion of his chapter in arguing for a dismissal of their evidence.

He offers tenuous reinterpretations of the early church fathers (e.g., Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Augustine) whom The Jesus Crisis (Kregel, 1998) discussed. Two examples will have to suffice to illustrate the extremely dubious nature of how Niemela addresses the church fathers.

First, Niemela superciliously attacks Clement of Alexandria "for not explaining his evidence" that says that the Gospels with genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written before those without genealogies (Mark and John). Niemela's assertion regarding Clement is completely wrong. A careful examination of Eusebius's quotation of Clement (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5.11.3-4; 6.14.5-7; see Clement, Stromateis 1.1. ] .1 ]) reveals that Clement did indeed explain his evidence. Clement indicates that he received the information from a widespread network of elders throughout the Near East. In evaluating Clement's information regarding synoptic origins, it is important that the tradition that he passed on did not come from just a single elder in a single locality but from "a tradition of the primitive elders" scattered throughout the Christian community. One cannot easily dismiss that information because Clement's wide travels exposed him to elders in many localities.

Niemela displays weak logic when he deprecates Clement for cit ing an alleged indifference by Peter regarding Mark's Gospel: "And when the matter [i.e., the writing of Mark's Gospel] came to Peter's knowledge, he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7). Niemela interprets those words to mean that Peter had questions about the canonicity of Mark's Gospel. Niemela is guilty of gross anachronism in that Peter did not know that Mark's work would become canonical at the time that Mark approached him about writing such a Gospel. Peter was not omniscient. Niemela has to read into Clement's statement his own knowledge that Mark's Gospel did become a part of the canon. In the context of Clement's remark, others in the early church had urged Mark to compose an account. That Mark went to Peter for his advice reinforces the fact of his close relationship to Peter. Peter merely chose not to stand in the way of what other church members had already encouraged. Niemela's spin reflects an acutely subjective bias in detecting an "indifference" or "timidity" on Peter's part. Clement reported the relationship between Peter and Mark as part of "a tradition of the primitive elders" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5). Clement did not embellish it but reported it accurately. As much as Niemela would like to obliterate the tradition that Mark based his Gospel on Peter's sermons rather than on Matthew's and Luke's Gospels, he cannot get around that accurate tradition.

A second example of Niemela's poor handling of evidence from the ancient church lies in his treatment of Chrysostom. In commenting on The Jesus Crisis's handling of Homily 4.1 of Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Niemela writes, "The full proposition would be: `The reason Mark took a short course by writing about what Matthew had already covered is because he came after Matthew and knew Matthew's Gospel.' Thus, the either ... or ... interpretation suggested by The Jesus Crisis is not possible." Yet, Chrysostom says absolutely nothing about Mark's knowledge of Matthew's Gospel. He simply says that Matthew wrote first and that it was unnecessary for Mark to cover all of the same material as did Matthew. Chrysostom does not say why it was unnecessary. As The Jesus Crisis points out, the door is left open for either of two meanings. The Jesus Crisis settles on which of the two meanings by referring to Homily 1.5-6 of the same work of Chrysostom on Matthew, a section cited at length by The Jesus Crisis and cited in a slightly abbreviated form by Niemela. In part, the section reads, "One [Evangelist] indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth."

To avoid the obvious conclusion that Chrysostom in this section supported literary independence, Niemela comes up with "an alternate interpretation" of the section. His alternate interpretation is odd in trying to prove that Chrysostom's phrase as it were out of one mouth means that the Gospels were carbon copies of each other. Niemela cites excerpts from Homily 68.3 of the same work to support that conclusion. In this section, Niemela takes as out of one mouth to refer to a choir singing the identical words, "Glory to God. "Yet, because of an extended ellipsis in his quotation, he misinterprets the excerpt. The choir is not singing identical words but "as out of one mouth, they sing hymns [plural] unto the God of all," not a single hymn with identical words but many hymns with varying wordings. Chrysostom does not, as Niemela contends, first suggest in Homily 1:5-6 that the Gospels could have been identical to each other in wording and then reject that possibility later in Homily 68.3. Chrysostom's point is that the four Gospels were, as The Jesus Crisis asserts, different from and independent of each other but not contradictory, thereby verifying their truthfulness.

One senses, though, that Niemela is not convinced by his own "alternate interpretation" of Chrysostom's words because Niemela immediately attacks Chrysostom's credibility, in case his [i.e., Niemela's] interpretation fails to carry the day. The Jesus Crisis never contends that the Fathers were inerrant, but when they are unanimous in support of a position such as the Independence View of Gospel origins, one can be certain that such a position is correct. The Fathers proved to be correct, after all, on which books belong in the canon of the New Testament, did they not? And earlier and more unanimity existed among the Fathers on the literary independence of the Synoptic Gospels than existed on the NT canon. Chrysostom's credibility in support of independence is beyond question.

Niemela's handling of Clement and Chrysostom typifies his dismissal of those Fathers who testify to the apostolic sources and the literary independence of the Synoptic Gospels. Such dismissal bears comment. First, the evidence from the Fathers does not support the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Thus, one wonders whether Niemela disregards or deprecates these early sources because they do not substantiate his case. His dismissal of the Fathers is the same Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment disregard for tradition and ancient sources exhibited by British- and German-influenced liberal scholarship.

Second, Niemela is inconsistent in his approach. By questioning the credibility of the Fathers, he deprecates the only external evidence for a pillar of the 2GH, that is, that Matthew's Gospel was written first. If one rejects the testimony of ancient history, one must rely solely on internal evidence, which tends to be subjective (more on this point will follow). If, in Niemela's thinking, the Fathers were in error, what makes him think that their assertions of Matthew's being written first have any basis in fact? Yet, after deprecating the Fathers as sincere but in error, Niemela then turns back to them for evidence in support of his own position. Augustine, in particular, says Niemela, "creates the strongest case within the patristic evidence"-Augustine, who, according to Niemela, joined with other Fathers in an errant view of the inspiration of the LXX. Niemela cannot have it both ways-assuming that the Fathers were "sincere but erring" but using their evidence to lend further credence to his position. Such a picking and choosing of supportive evidence is arbitrary and subjective. If the Fathers are as inept as Niemela claims, he seems suspect in arguing for their occasional accuracy when they support his position.

Third, the consistency and persistence of these traditions regarding Gospel origins cannot be dismissed arbitrarily as Niemela does. Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15-16 quotes Papias as noting that Mark, being Peter's interpreter, "wrote accurately all that he remembered ... of the things said or done by the Lord" (Loeb Series). Papias's testimony shows that Mark was not in any sense dependent upon Matthew as the 2GH posits. Rather, Mark based his Gospel on Peter's preaching, not on the Gospel of Matthew. Later church fathers (e.g., Tertullian, Eusebius, Irenaeus) who assert the same thing were not unthinkingly reflecting Papias, relying solely upon him as their sole source of information; these later church fathers were distinguished scholars who had information from other widespread and early sources. Although Niemela's 2GH correctly asserts the early church's unanimous support for the priority of Matthew in terms of chronology, he, like Griesbach, selectively ignores other factors in early church history that contradict his literary-dependency argument that Mark developed his Gospel from Matthew's, not from Peter's preaching.

Fourth, important, too, is that, contrary to Niemela, no substantial evidence for literary dependency exists from church history (see chap. 3 of this volume for a discussion of Augustine). Up to the time of the Reformation and beyond, the exclusive view was literary independence. A newly released work, Mark, volume 2 in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, buttresses this fact. This work, by appealing to the ancients, circumnavigates such seemingly sacrosanct, but highly erroneous, icons as the Two-Source Hypothesis and the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, thus revealing sharp contrasts with postEnlightenment assertions.

Fifth, Niemela uses a diatribe to demonstrate the early Fathers' interaction with the letter of Aristeas in developing their views regarding the LXX. He concludes that if the Fathers erred in their understanding of the Septuagint and the Letter of Aristeas, they also erred elsewhere in their writings. This type of reasoning is non sequitur, grossly dubious, and a hasty generalization. If applied to this response, for instance, one could deduce the following: because this response concludes that Niemela is in error regarding his choice of the 2GH, he errs in everything he writes on other subjects. Such a conclusion is, of course, erroneous. If the Fathers erred regarding the LXX, as Niemela contends, does that mean that they were always in error, sometimes in error, or in error only in their approach to the LXX? The latter option is the only thing proven by the evidence adduced. The Independence View reasons that because the church fathers were scholars who lived quite close to the composition of the Gospels, their testimony must receive serious consideration in any hypothesis regarding chronological order and sources used and must not be lightly dismissed.

Subjectivity of Statistical Evidence

Although Niemela designed his statistical evidence to prove the impossibility of Markan priority-an indispensable part of the Two-/ Four-Source Hypothesis-he also uses it to combat the Independence View of Gospel origins. He writes, "The scholars who hold the Independence View may assume that statistics do not apply because they see no literary relationship. All of my statistical arguments (apart from the chi-square itself) apply anyway because the statistics collected are observational and do not presuppose a certain synoptic solution. Although the numbers' surface arrangements of patterns are easy to explain as literary phenomena, they are inexplicable apart from a literary connection." On the contrary, Niemela's statistics do presuppose a literary connection, as will be evidenced in the remarks to follow. The OCG is another attempt to prove a theory on the basis of internal evidence alone and is doomed to failure as the "Independence Response to the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis" earlier in this volume has already shown.

Earlier discussion in this response has shown how Niemela's statistics reflect only a slight dependence of Luke upon Matthew, thus deflating that part of the 2GH thrust. His principal purpose is to show Mark's dependence upon Matthew and Luke rather than Matthew and Luke's dependence upon Mark. He does so by listing the possible agreements of Mark with Matthew and Luke in order and contentthe order-content-model (OCM)-then placing the OCM within the order-and-content grid (OCG). He emphasizes the rarity of the following order-and-content combinations: Mark's order differs from Matthew and Luke, each of the three Gospels has a different order, the order of Matthew differs from the order of Mark with Luke omitting, and the order of Luke differs from the order of Mark with Matthew omitting. By counting instances of such occurrences, he concludes, "Markan singular order is rare; singular order by either Matthew or Luke is not." Niemela reasons that if Matthew and Luke were dependent upon Mark, the rarity of Mark's singular order is inexplicable, but Mark's being dependent upon Matthew and Luke (the 2GH) fits the statistics that Mark would only rarely depart from the other two in order and content. On this basis, he rules out the Two-/ Four-Source with its Markan priority.

But he also concludes, "The Independence View has the same difficulty but to a greater degree than the MH. Namely, under a conservative approach to the MH, Mark would offer order and content (under the Holy Spirit's guidance) to Matthew and Luke. That which is a difficult issue for the MH, becomes an even tougher one for those holding the Independence View. Why is it that Mark seems to end up in the majority?" Why, Niemela asks, does Mark agree with Matthew and Luke in order and content the majority of the time? He sees this as inexplicable from a literary independence perspective.

The answer to Niemela's question is another question: If literary dependence among the Synoptics existed, why does Mark not agree with Matthew or Luke all of the time? The fact that he disagrees with them even in rare instances is a strong argument against literary dependence. Niemela tries to dismiss these rare disagreements in order and content: "The passages in question are short, mainly isolated verses, most being easily remembered statements either made by Jesus or quoted from the Old Testament. In other words, they are each so short that Mark would not need to consult the verse in either Matthew or Luke" That response, however, is subjective. In truth, each Synoptic Gospel statistically stands alone in order and content at various points. The only resolution to that dilemma is the literary independence of each Gospel. If any sort of literary collaboration took place, the Gospel last in line would reflect no unique order-and-content sections.

Niemela asks, "Why is it that Mark seems to end up in the majority?" The Independence View answers, Mark's Gospel recorded the preaching of Peter, who was Christianity's leading spokesman in the days just after Pentecost (e.g., see Peter's sermons in Acts 2 and 3). Peter exerted a powerful influence on the oral tradition that accumulated as the earliest Christians and eyewitnesses were telling and retelling the stories of Jesus' words and deeds. That easily explains why Mark's Gospel ends up in the majority in Niemela's order-andcontent statistics, but it also provides for instances where Peter's influence did not prevail and the other two synoptics had unique orderand-content figures in Niemela's OCG.

Niemela's OCG reveals another synoptic phenomenon, that of the agreements of two Gospels against the third in all combinations. This fact is an embarrassment for any view of literary dependence. The independence approach notes what the other two positions ignore: all combinations of two Gospels agreeing against the third exist with the Synoptic Gospels-Matthew and Mark against Luke, Mark and Luke against Matthew, and Matthew and Luke against Mark. Granted, the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are smaller in number, but they are, nevertheless, quite substantial in number and very real. Peter's influence accounts for this phenomenon too. Therefore, no Gospel can be shown to have literary primacy in the sense of being a source for the others. Random combinations of agreement and disagreement would naturally be expected as each Gospel writer reported events based on stable traditions from apostolic eyewitnesses, as the Independence View suggests. Agreements of any two Gospels against the third verifies the Independence View just as Niemela's statistics do.

The Irrelevance of the Gospel of John in Determining Synoptic Origins

In his case against the Independence View, Niemela appeals to John's differing content: "In light of John's selecting such different material, why did the three Gospels independently select such similar material? A literary solution offers an explanation for similarity in both order and content whereas the Independence View does not." Niemela commits a reductionist error in assuming that no other answer but synoptic literary dependence can explain this phenomenon. Ancient church history provides another and better explanation of why John varied so greatly. According to Clement-for whom Niemela has such a low regard-John wrote a "spiritual Gospel": "John, last of all conscious that the outward facts of the Gospel had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7, Loeb series). As an apostolic eyewitness to Jesus' life, John deliberately chose to report on aspects of Jesus' life that for the most part the other three Gospels omitted.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke drew from eyewitness sources, oral and written, in their accounts, but John, another apostle and eyewitness, drew from his own experiences to supplement and add to the reports about Jesus (see John 1:14: "we beheld his glory"). John saw no reason to repeat information already widely disseminated-the Virgin Birth, for example, the Baptism, the Temptation, the Transfiguration. In supplementing the information from the synoptics, John supplied his own eyewitness accounts about Jesus' ministry (e.g., the wedding at Cana [2:1-12], the first cleansing of the temple [vv. 13-25]). John supplied the reason why Jesus withdrew after the feeding of the five thousand: the people wanted to make Him king (6:15). None of the synoptics gives that detail after their account of the same feeding. John included extensive discourse material not found in the synoptics. His intentional avoidance of duplicating the synoptic records is obvious and indirectly accords well with Clement's words about why John wrote his Gospel, a reason having nothing to do with alleged literary collaboration among the synoptic writers.

Conclusion

Other areas of Niemela's presentation of the 2GH are worthy of comment-his view, for example, of the divine inspiration of Luke's prologue. If Luke spoke disparagingly of earlier accounts of the life of Christ, Niemela reasons that God through Luke spoke disparagingly of the Gospel of Matthew. The inspiration of Scripture was a divine-human process, but to have the divine predominate over the human in this way amounts to obliterating the human side of the process. It approximates a dictation theory of divine inspiration, a theory that no knowledgeable evangelical would seriously consider. Yes, Matthew was written before Luke, but Luke had no knowledge of Matthew's Gospel when he wrote, and the book of Matthew was not among the sources available to Luke in his research. God in His omniscience did not override the knowledge of the human author Luke as he researched and wrote but through His Spirit led Luke to study the life of Christ in entirely distinct sources.

Additional responses to Niemela will have to be set aside. This response has reviewed how Niemela ignored the presuppositional history of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. It has noted how he has been unsuccessful in separating himself from the characteristics of Griesbach, the originator of Niemela's theory, whom he rarely mentions. It has commented on the subjectivity of the statistical evidence, which is Niemela's sole support for the 2GH, and shown how his statistics actually supports literary independence. Finally, it shows that the difference in content of the Gospel of John has nothing at all to do with the alleged literary collaboration among the synoptic writers.

The 2GH, like any other theory that involves an assumption of literary dependence, fails for lack of evidence. The Independence View presents the only viable option.

F. David Farnell

THE PREVAILING VIEW among evangelicals favors the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis of literary interdependence among the Synoptic Gospels with the Neo-Griesbach Hypothesis offering another alternative of literary interdependence. The literary Independence View of Synoptic Gospel origins receives scant attention in evangelical and other literature.

The case for the Independence View follows a two-pronged thrust: analysis of the presuppositional and historical roots of literary dependence theories (negative assessment), and evidence that commends the Independence View (positive assessment). Examining the Independence View in this historical and ideological context facilitates a proper presentation of the viability of the Independence View.

Presuppositional and Historical Roots of Synoptic Discussions

Evangelical Hostility to the Independence View

The Independence View has faced many critics inside and outside evangelicalism. George Eldon Ladd presents the classic paradigm for current attitudes among evangelical historical-critical scholars: "A completely uncritical view of the Gospels may regard them as four independent biographies of Jesus which intend to relate four supple mentary accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus. . . . The three Gospels provide us, therefore, with three independent witnesses to the course of Jesus' ministry"' (emphasis added). Ladd further denigrates the Independence View with condescending expressions such as "simple uncritical solution" and "popular point of view" among the untrained. He relates,

The independence and direct apostolic authorship of the Gospels is probably the view of most laymen whose primary concern with the Bible is devotional; and the idea is widely held that unless the Gospels are three independent eyewitness accounts and practically stenographic reports of Jesus' mission and message, their witness to Jesus is seriously undermined. Furthermore, these first-century writings are often viewed from the perspective of modern copyright laws according to which one author's use of the work of another is plagiarism, which is of course ethically and legally abhorrent.'

Instead, Ladd assumes the Two-Source Hypothesis with its idea of Markan priority as a view that he deems "highly probable-indeed, in the judgment of the present writer, an established fact."' In light of Ladd's negative portrayal of an "uncritical view," it is ironic that Ladd himself was uncritical in his assessment of the Independence View. He apparently chose to ignore evidence of presupposition, historical evidence, and evidence from the synoptics themselves that cast grave suspicions on dependency hypotheses. To silence those who oppose synoptic-dependency hypotheses, he constructed straw-man arguments and non sequiturs, brushing aside evidence that favored the Gospels as three independent accounts based on eyewitness testimony.

Ladd's criticisms typify a prejudice in NT evangelical research: current evangelical NT scholarship considers someone who assumes a dependency hypothesis, especially Markan Priority, to be "critically" minded. If, however, one questions such late-developing hypotheses, one is considered to be uncritical.

Why is criticism by current synoptic dependency approaches wrongheaded? Why should one join the flock of those who, sheeplike, refuse to question current popular assumptions? Why are only those who follow historical-critical methods "enlightened" and those who dissent "uncritical"? Evangelicals who label other evangelicals as "uncritical" are, in fact, the uncritical ones when, to "confirm" the authenticity of Scripture, they adopt ideologies that are inherently hostile to the Word. Because historical criticism, with its promotion of dependency hypotheses, has a philosophically rather than an objectively motivated agenda, how can historical critics claim the superior position in confirming the truth and accuracy of the Word? Their principles cannot lead to certainty regarding the Gospels for they lack objectivity.

Genuine scholarship that seeks answers to difficult questions must not rule out certain approaches, especially the Independence View, which has significant support from church history. Furthermmore, an investigation of synoptic-problem history shows that dependency hypotheses did not arise from "scientific" procedures but from circumstances that denigrated the Gospels as inspired documents. Contrary to current evangelical opinion, the Independence View is not uncritical but is buttressed by strong presuppositional and historical evidence.'

Current efforts, however, are reviving the viability of the Independence View. Eta Linnemann, for example, who studied under Bultmann and Fuchs, supported the Two-Source Hypothesis before her conversion.' After an extensive reexamination of the evidence, she broke with historical-critical scholarship and became a defender of the Independence View. She decries the current silencing of the Independence View: "What student in seminar discussion is going to risk being labeled as uncritical and hopelessly behind the times by raising the possibility that the three Gospels are equally original, in keeping with their own claims and early church tradition?"' Linnemann attributes the current dominance of dependency hypotheses to cherished dogmas rather than objective, scientific research: "I am shocked when I look at the books of my former colleagues, which I used to hold in highest esteem, and examine the justification for their position. Instead of proof I find only assertions. Instead of arguments there is merely circular reasoning."'

Linnemann identifies dependency hypotheses as arising from philosophical premises, noting that historical-critical investigations of the Synoptic Gospels "operate within the confines of historical-critical theology, which from the outset sets the opinion of philosophers above God's Word.."' She concludes, "[H]istorical-critical investigation has never produced an impartial investigation of whether a literary dependence exists, be it direct or indirect, among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke-or whether these three Gospels are three equally original reports "' (emphasis added). Dependency hypotheses are accepted a priori. Indeed, historical-critical concepts-such as source, form, and redaction criticism-are ideologies rather than methodologies: "[A] more intensive investigation would show that underlying the historical-critical approach is a series of prejudgments which are not themselves the result of scientific investigation. They are rather dogmatic premises, statements of faith, whose foundation is the absolutizing of human reason as a controlling apparatus."10

Linnemann and others who maintain the historical view of literary independence thus face a profound irony: although some evangelicals, as typified by Ladd, have vehemently decried the naivete of evangelicals who hold the Independence View, those who advocate dependency hypotheses are the uncritical ones. Their views must either ignore or explain away the philosophically driven basis of source criticism and its advocacy of dependency."

Ladd admits, "The modern historical-critical method arose as a result of the effort to understand the Bible in purely historical, human terms, rejecting altogether the supernatural of orthodox theology.... Historical criticism, in its origins and development, has been, and frequently still is, the foe of any supernaturalistic understanding of the Bible as the inspired Word of God."2 In spite of his admission, Ladd thought that he was competent to avoid the presuppositional background, history, and practice of historical criticism and pursue it in a sanitized form free from "certain limiting presuppositions."" He became a champion of historical-critical methods of source, form, and redaction criticism, arguing that historical-critical methods such as the Two-Source Hypothesis should be accepted "as a literary fact," that form criticism "has thrown considerable light on the nature of the Gospels and the traditions they employ," and that "evangelical scholars should be willing to accept this light." 14

But Ladd's historical-critical position denigrates, in fact, the inspiration, historicity, and factuality of Scripture. Ladd fails to explain how historical criticism, with its hostile presuppositional grid, blends with an evangelical view of Scripture while it at the same time adversely affects views of biblical inerrancy. Linnemann observes that historical criticism's starting point is that of atheism and a virulent anti-Christian character. 15 To formulate "a creative approach to biblical criticism by those who recognize the Bible to be the inspired Word of God,"" Ladd chose the governing watchwords of openness, understanding, and dialogue.

The Biblical Paradigm: Exposure of and Separation from Error

The difficulty with Ladd's approach is the New Testament's lack of support for such deviations from orthodoxy. The NT paradigm is clear: careful examination of any teaching and exposure of and separation from error that distorts the biblical message. NT writers habitually warned about departure from orthodox doctrine: "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore, be on the alert" (Acts 20:29-31 NnsB); "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds" (2 John 10-11 NnsB); "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them" (Eph. 5:11 NnsB; cf. 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:5). The NT pattern is exposure and reproof of error, not dialogue with it. Some current evangelicals, however, seem to disregard these biblical warnings.

Ladd chose not to follow biblical prescriptions. He chose to dialogue with unorthodox scholars rather than to expose them. He wanted to earn respect for evangelical scholarship, as Marsden notes: "Ladd saw his calling as above all to correct evangelicals' general lack of prestige. His ambition, as he sometimes told his students, was to write a book in biblical studies that every scholar in the field would have to respect"" In striving for evangelical prestige in the world of liberal scholarship, he failed to satisfy liberal critics who thought that his work was controlled by conservative presuppositions and that he did not go far enough in accepting their negative viewpoints regarding the historicity of Scripture."

Norman Perrin, for example, regarded Ladd's passion for approval among liberals as that which led Ladd to misconstrue some of the liberal scholars' positions to make them support his own views: "We have already noted Ladd's anxiety to find support for his views on the authenticity of a saying or pericope, and this is but one aspect of what seems to be a ruling passion with him: the search for critical support for his views altogether. To this end he is quite capable of misunderstanding the scholars concerned."19

Perrin labeled Ladd's support for the credibility of the Gospels as "an uncritical view" and held Ladd to be guilty of eisegesis of liberals' views. Marsden writes, "[Ladd] saw Perrin's review as crucial in denying him prestige in the larger academic arena.... The problem was the old one of the neo-evangelical efforts to reestablish worldclass evangelical scholarship. Fundamentalists and conservatives did not trust [those efforts]. . . and the mainline academic community refused to take them seriously.""'

Edgar Krentz also described Ladd's attempt at changing rationalistic presuppositions as "the uneasy truce of conservativism" with the historical-critical method.2' For Krentz, "The alternative to using historical criticism is an unthinking acceptance of tradition"; that "the only fruitful approach is to seek to combine theological convictions and historical methods"; and that "Ladd ... demonstrate[s] that a new evaluation of history is abroad in conservativism."22

In pursuing recognition among liberals, Ladd led a vain attempt to unite atheistic, philosophically driven ideologies with an evangelical stance on divine inspiration of Scripture. Because the two approaches diametrically oppose each other, any attempt at synthesis produces inherent instability. Historical-critical ideologies were not initiated to affirm but to negate the historical integrity of the Gospels.23

Ladd went too far for many conservative evangelicals, who recognized the impossibility of overcoming the negative presuppositions of historical criticism, but not far enough for liberals who operated from that hostile presuppositional grid. Although Ladd might have gained prestige among moderate evangelicals, he failed to do so among the broader world of academic scholarship. His attempts to win liberals to the conservative position through dialogue and adopting their ideologies did not succeed. His failure should serve as a warning to any evangelical who, in a similar quest, emulates Ladd's approach in adopting historical-critical ideology and its dependency hypotheses.

The Hermeneutical Purpose of Historical-Critical Ideology

Even more disturbing, by operating in isolation from antecedents that originated the dependency hypotheses, few evangelicals who advocate dependency hypotheses give weight to presuppositional roots of those hypotheses.

Dungan traces the beginnings of historical criticism to Baruch Spinoza, a rationalist and pantheist, who disdained the plain meaning of the biblical text because of its implications and the effect that it had upon both him as a person and society as a whole.24 Spinoza was responsible for the nature of biblical criticism "as a weapon to destroy or at least discredit the traditional metaphysics of Christianity and Judaism"" (emphasis in original). He sought to remove all influence of the Bible in not only the religious sphere but also the economic and political areas of society. Dungan shows that the design of historical critical methods was not to determine the meaning of the text but to avoid its normal meaning.

Commenting on the antecedents of historical-critical ideology, Dungan relates, "Spinoza switched the focus from the referent of the biblical text (e.g., God's activity, Jesus Christ) to the history of the text. In doing so, he effectively eviscerated the Bible of all traditional theological meaning and moral teaching"" (emphasis in original).

Dungan further comments, "In short, the net effect of what historical critics have accomplished during the past three hundred years ... has been to eviscerate the Bible's core religious beliefs and moral values, preventing the Bible from questioning the political and eco nomic beliefs of the new bourgeois class [that arose in the modern historical-critical era].."" This Spinozistic design continues today: "Having cast the traditional status of the Bible overboard, the modern historical critic is left with a giant hermeneutical vacuum, into which this divinely gifted rational interpreter is free to project any meaning he or she wishes, bound only by one's physical sense experience."" In the process, the objective of historical criticism changed-from attaining an understanding of the text's intended meaning to creating a subjective understanding that avoided the text's primary focus.

According to Greek legend, a confederation of Greeks gained access to Troy by hiding inside a hollow wooden horse, by which they entered the city and opened the gates to their invading armies. This legend fits well the surreptitious entrance into biblical criticism of historical criticism and its subdiscipline, source criticism. The origin of historical criticism reveals that its stimulus came from those who, like Spinoza, wanted to stop Scripture from dominating society. Its deliberate intent is to prevent the text from influencing men and culture as the Scriptures once did. Evangelicals often overlook this history of historical criticism-as well as that of the subdisciplines of source, form/tradition, and redaction criticism. In doing so, they unwittingly are bringing the Trojan horse into the arena of biblical criticism, thereby contributing greatly to the neutralization of the Word of God.

Evangelical Failure to Consider Presuppositions and History

Henning Graf Reventlow catalogues the rise of modern biblical criticism as follows: "[W]e cannot overestimate the influence exercised by Deistic thought, and by the principles of the Humanist world-view which the Deists made the criterion of biblical criticism, on the historicalcritical exegesis of the nineteenth century; the consequences extend down to the Reventlow decries the "failure of exegetes to reflect adequately on their methodology and the presuppositions, shaped by their view of the world, which they bring to their work.""0 He insists that modern interpreters must become aware of the "hidden presuppositions" in biblical exegesis that affect methodologies and conclusions but have gone unrecognized.;' Brown concurs: "They [English Deists] may rightly be seen as the pioneers of biblical criticism and the initiators of the quest of the historical Jesus.."" In the middle of the twentieth century, Francis Schaeffer warned evangelicals of the need to observe differences in the presuppositional grid: "It is indeed unfortunate that our Christian `thinkers' . . . did not teach and preach with a clear grasp of presuppositions.... The flood waters of secular thought and the new theology overwhelmed the Church because ... leaders did not understand the importance of combating a false set of presuppositions..""

As we move into the twenty-first century, many evangelical scholars have apparently disregarded Schaeffer's warning.

Second Corinthians 10:5-Taking Every Thought Captive

Because source criticism arose from a presupposition of inherent distrust in the Gospels as historical accounts, those scholars who maintain dependency hypotheses must search for sources behind the Gospels to confirm or deny their historicity. But a source critical approach is hermeneutically misguided because the sources behind the Gospels are not inspired, as are the Gospels themselves-that is, because of inspiration the truth is in the text itself, not behind it (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16). Source criticism's historical antecedents, however, dictate a deflection away from the text, allowing men to stand in judgment of the Gospels. The search for Gospel sources arose, therefore, from the presuppositions of dependency hypotheses that assume the historical unreliability of the Gospels. Thus, integration of dependency hypotheses with a high view of Scripture is inherently unstable and in conflict with that high view.

Advocates of such a synthesis are "unscientific" in allowing nonobjective, negative presuppositions to control their investigations." Geisler's words are significant: "The exhortation of the apostle Paul to `beware of philosophy' (Col. 2:8) is as urgent today as it was in the first century, if not more so.... There seems to be little awareness among evangelical scholars of the danger of adopting philosophical methods . . . which lead logically to the Gospel writers `creating' material, rather than reporting it."35

Does not faithfulness to Scripture take precedence over all else in evangelical scholarly pursuits? "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5 NASB). Evangelicals who base historical-critical hermeneutics on the example of Ladd choose, by ignoring these warnings, a road that was never designed. The current trend grows alarmingly more prevalent as history progresses:

A crisis in studies of Jesus is present. The surrounding terrain of gospel studies raises a question about how much of the truth about Jesus will survive. On the one hand, the Jesus Seminar and its aggressive proliferation of the literature decimates the Gospels and the factual data about Jesus recorded therein. On the other hand, those expected to stand against a demolition of the inspired text-namely, evangelical New Testament scholarship-practice the same methodology as the Jesus Seminar and are dehistoricizing the Gospels too."

The Dominance of Independence Until the Enlightenment

From early church times through the Reformation in 1517 and until the rise of Deism, Rationalism, and Enlightenment philosophies in the 1800s, the Independence View of synoptic origins dominated orthodox Christianity. Not until the rise of the aforementioned philosophical systems did alternate approaches to the synoptics develop.

Thus synoptic literary-dependency theories share the same roots as modem forms of biblical errancy. Geisler comments, "[Wlithin a little over one hundred years after the Reformation the philosophical seeds of modem errancy were sown. When these seeds had produced their fruit in the church a century or so later, it was because theologians had capitulated to alien philosophical premises."" Linnemann, buttressing Geisler's observation, comments that most modem work in historical criticism and its subdiscipline of source criticism was not stimulated by theologians but by philosophers. She writes, "[S]ince most of the leaders [of biblical criticism, especially source criticism] were philosophers [Grotius (1583-1645), Kant (1724-1904), Reimarus (1694-1768), Spinoza (1632-1677), and Tindal (1656-1733)], philosophy furnished the fundamental components for biblical criticism."38 Source criticism, as a subdiscipline of historical criticism, received its prime stimulation from philosophical speculation. Such speculation, along with Darwinism and other antisupernatural biases, has driven synoptic studies in inventing the Two-Source Hypothesis with its advocacy of the Markan priority.39

The Independence Position in the Early Church

Modem historical criticism, especially source criticism with its Two-/ Four-Source Hypothesis, has systematically dismissed, explained away, or ignored the writings of the early church fathers regarding Gospel relationships.40 George Kennedy comments, "In the ordinary methods of classical scholarship, testimonia or external evidence regarding authorship, dates, and the like play an important role."" The Fathers should have played an important role in NT synoptic studies, but as Farmer observes, "The relative neglect of this topic [i.e., patristic evidence] throughout the two-hundred-year history of the Synoptic Problem is the single most important reason why more progress in settling this disputed question has not been

Failure to take seriously patristic evidence regarding the origins of the Gospels stems from Enlightenment influences. Orchard and Riley observe, "The Enlightenment not only witnessed the rise of critical history ... it also signaled the triumph ... of rationalist ideals and antipathies, and the consequent divorce of Reason both from the tradition of faith and from tradition in principle, that is, from all tradition. The result was an era of wholesale `prejudice against prejudice,' ... the emasculation of tradition»a3

Dependency Hypotheses Unsupported Among the Church Fathers

An analysis of the church fathers results in one conspicuous conclusion: they support neither the Two-Source Hypothesis nor the TwoGospel Hypothesis. The assumed dependence of Matthew and Luke upon Mark is without historical foundation, as is the assumed dependence of Mark upon Matthew and Luke. Strained interpretations by proponents of the two theories are monumental testimonies of the Fathers' failure to support them.

The Fathers' writings verify a unanimous consensus that Matthew, not Mark, was the first Gospel written and that the Gospel writers wrote independently of each other. The Fathers' writings also reveal that Luke probably wrote second and Mark third, although at times Mark is placed second.44

Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15-16, quotes Papias, for example, as noting that Mark, being Peter's interpreter, "wrote accurately all that he remembered ... of the things said or done by the Lord."45 Papias's testimony shows that Mark was not in any sense dependent upon Matthew as the 2GH posits. Mark based his Gospel on Peter's preaching, not on the Gospel of Matthew. Later church fathers, as was stated earlier, did not unthinkingly reflect Papias; they were renowned scholars who had information from other sources and did not need to rely solely on one source, Papias, for their

Because the church fathers were scholars who lived quite close to the time of composition of the Gospels, their testimony must receive serious consideration in any hypothesis regarding chronological order and sources used. Their testimony directly contradicts the predominant contention of source criticism, which favors the Two-/ Four-Source Hypothesis (i.e., priority of Mark and Q) that resulted from Enlightenment conjectures. Any concept of Markan priority must ignore the writings of the Fathers regarding the priority of Matthew and Mark's dependence upon Peter.

Matthew: The Preeminent and Dominant Gospel in the Early Church

The Gospel of Matthew was the church's most popular Gospel in the decades up to the time of Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180). After an extensive analysis of Matthew's influence on early Christianity, Massaux relates, "Of all the New Testament writings, the Gospel of Mt. was the one whose literary influence was the most widespread and the most profound in Christian literature that extended into the last decades of the second century."47 Moreover, the unanimous consensus of church fathers was that Matthew was the first Gospel written and, almost without exception, the early church placed the Gospel of Matthew first in the canon of the New Testament. Petrie observes, "Until the latter half of the eighteenth century, the apostolic authorship of `the Gospel according to Matthew' seems to have been generally accepted"4"

Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150-215) exemplifies testimonies to Matthean priority and sequence in writing. Clement, located in Alexandria, Egypt, became a pupil of Pantaenus49 and in time distinguished himself as a scholar and a teacher for more than twenty years in Alexandria, succeeding Pantaenus as leader of the school.

Information from Clement is important in determining the order of synoptic composition. He not only was a preeminent scholar but also was, as Eusebius attests, in personal contact with a number of church elders from different parts of the Mediterranean world."' One of those contacts was probably his mentor Pantaenus, who was familiar with various leaders in the first half of the second century.51

Clement's widespread contacts furnish important information about the order of the synoptics. Eusebius quotes him regarding the order:

And again in the same books Clement has inserted a tradition of the primitive elders with regard to the order of the Gospels, as follows. He said that those Gospels were first written which include the genealogies, but that the Gospel according to Mark came into being in this manner: When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him.... But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is Clement's account.52

Several features emerge from those words. First, Clement supplies unique information when revealing that the Gospels with genealogies (Matthew and Luke) originated before Mark.S" Although Clement does not reveal whether Matthew was first and Luke second or Matthew second and Luke first, he does indicate clearly Mark's third position after Matthew and Luke and not before them, as modern historicalcritical theories such as the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis maintain.

Second, Clement does not contradict what other church fathers (e.g., Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian) had stated about Matthew's being first.54 The order of composition, then, was Matthew first, Luke second, Mark third, and John last.

Third, the tradition that Clement handed down did not come from just a single elder in a single locality but, according to Clement's information, from "a tradition of the primitive elders" scattered throughout the Christian community. Thus, it was a tradition known in many different places during the early- to mid-second century.

Fourth, according to Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2.16.1, Mark helped found the church at Alexandria and was its first overseer. For Clement to place Mark's Gospel third in order of composition is, therefore, important. Gamba notes, "[Clement] would have no reason at all to place Mark's Gospel after the other two that contain a genealogy of Jesus, unless it was for a definite and grounded persuasion of historical nature."" That first Mark and then Clement resided in Alexandria reinforces the historical strength and reliability of Clement's testimony.

The Enlightenment's spawning of historical-critical methodologies, however, marked the beginning of the end for acceptance of Matthean priority." Now at the turn of the twenty-first century, most NT scholarsof both a liberal-theological perspective and an evangelical persuasionreject the unanimous testimony of the early church regarding Matthean priority and favor instead the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis of how the Synoptic Gospels came into existence. Prominent evangelicals such as Hill, Carson, Moo, Morris, Martin, and France explain away the evidence from Papias and church tradition regarding Matthean priority.57 Few evangelicals today dare to challenge the "findings" of source criticism and its penchant toward Markan priority.

The theory of Mark's being written first flies in the face of early church writings, as Massaux has demonstrated: "How can we explain this silence of tradition, if, as is generally believed, Mk. was the first of the canonical Gospels? How can we explain the first Christians hardly resorted to it, so that it appeared almost nonexistent?"58 A 1998 work, Mark, volume 2 of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, buttresses early support for Matthean priority. In this volume on the Gospel of Mark, Oden and Hall reveal that the early church fathers overwhelmingly neglected Mark and rarely produced a sustained commentary on the book, and at the same time they note that Matthew and John received the most attention. Moreover, the recent volume also reveals that the Fathers consistently held that Mark, not an unknown "Evangelist," actually wrote Mark and that it reflected Peter's preaching rather than being a condensation of Matthew and Luke (contra the Two-Gospel Hypothesis). Oden and Hall reach this conclusion: "It had always been evident that Mark presented a shorter version of the Gospel than Matthew, but the premise of literary dependency was not generally recognized. The view that Matthew and Luke directly relied on Mark did not develop in full form until the nineteenth century."59

No Mention of Literary-Dependency Concepts Among the Early Fathers

Not only was Matthew, not Mark, the first to be written and the most preeminent Gospel but also literary-dependency concepts are absent from the writings of early church fathers. Although they had frequent opportunity to mention literary dependence, they never did so.60 In reviewing several early Fathers, Meeks summarizes his findings:

Most surprisingly, in view of the use to which they [namely, the fathers and their reports] have often been put, they are completely uninterested in the "Synoptic Problem." Both Papias and Clement write as if there were no literary connection between any of the gospels. The insistence that Mark was the hermeneutes of Peter precludes, in Papias' picture of things, Mark having depended on Matthew. Papias mentions Matthew after he mentions Mark, and he contrasts the two, but he does not suggest that Matthew depended on Mark. Clement and Origen, on the other hand, mention the gospels in the orders, respectively, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, but neither has a word to say about dependence.61

Chrysostom typifies the early Fathers in maintaining the independence of the Gospels:62 "`What then? Was not one Evangelist sufficient to tell all?' One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth."" Clearly, Chrysostom viewed the four Gospel writers as having worked independently of one another, without personal consultation or literary collaboration.

The Independence View not only dominated among the early Fathers but also continued to do so through the time of the great Reformers. Calvin wrote,

Indeed, God's Spirit, who appointed the evangelists as recorders, deliberately controlled their pen, so that all should write in complete agreement, but in different ways. It gave more certainty and light to God's truth when it was established that His witnesses did not tell a pre-arranged tale, but each of them, without respect to the other, wrote simply and freely what the Spirit dictated.`

Even opponents of the Independence View recognize the longstanding tradition of Gospel independence. Grant Osborne, for example, a proponent of the MH, states, "It is true that the independence view predominated for 1700 years"65

Modern Proponents of the Independence View

The Independence View was, then, the historic, orthodox position of the church through the period of Reformation and beyond, but literary dependency hypotheses dominate at the beginning of the twenty-first century. In spite of strong opposition from historical-critical proponents, however, a number of voices throughout the twentieth century dissented, calling for a return to the Independence View. Following are a few examples of works that advocate the historic position.

Louis Berkhof

In 1915, Louis Berkhof, the renowned Reformed theologian, produced his New Testament Introduction in support of the Independence View. He stated that "none of the theories [i.e., mutual dependency, oral tradition, one primitive gospel, or Two-Document theory] broached up to the present time has proved satisfactory.""

Berkhof observes that in modern synoptic approaches "[t]he great aim has always been to explain the origin of the Synoptics without taking into account the supernatural factor that entered into their composition," and "[t]he discussion of the divine factor that operated in the composition of these books [i.e., the canonical Gospels] has been conspicuously absent from these studies. And this neglect is not the result of chance, but a very deliberate plan. A large number of scholars do not believe in any special inspiration of these writings..""

Berkhof explained the synoptic origins on the basis of oral tradition and brief written narratives containing especially the sayings of Jesus. For him, such an origin "explains in a very natural way most of the agreements that are found in the Synoptics. And those that cannot be accounted for in the manner may have resulted directly from the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, who led the writers also in the choice of their words. These three Gospels are in a very real sense the work of one Author."6"

In addition, Berkhof explained the differences between the Gospels as resulting from the purposes of each Gospel writer:

This diversity of aim accounts to a great extent for the variations exhibited in the Gospels, i.e. for omissions on the one hand and additions on the other, for differences in the distribution and arrangements in material.... The writers of the Gospels selected from the great mass of early traditions the material that was suited to their purpose and used it to advantage. The difference between the Synoptics is not accidental, is not the result of the chance use of certain sources."

Henry C. Thiessen

Another twentieth-century proponent of the Independence View was Henry C. Thiessen. His Introduction to the New Testament was the last evangelical NT introduction to champion literary independence in synoptic studies."' Thiessen rejected the Urevangelium Hypothesis (Lessing), the Interdependence Hypothesis (Griesbach), and the Two-Document (i.e., Two-/Four-Source) Hypothesis as inadequate to explain the synoptic origins, saying that those hypotheses had no historical or scientific support. He also recognized short-written narratives (e.g., Fragmentary Hypothesis [Schleiermacher]) and oral tradition (Westcott) in the early church as possible partial explanations but as inadequate to explain Gospel origins by themselves."

Thiessen focused special attention on the Two-Source Hypothesis, soundly rejecting it for several reasons. (1) It is based on an unproved theory of development. He saw evolution and other philosophies as the basis for the hypothesis. He remarked, "For a long time now Biblical criticism has been strongly influenced by the theory of 112 evolution. (2) It is improbable that, in early church history, Mark was ever considered as the first Gospel. Thiessen saw history as a key in resolving synoptic issues. History demonstrated to him that the historical order was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.7" (3) The existence of Q is so doubtful that it is "precarious to build dogmatic theories on this foundation"74 (4) No reason exists for supposing that Matthew and Luke could not have written independently. Thiessen recognized close verbal agreement as having adequate explanation in apostolic eyewitness accounts and in minds energized by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13-14).75 (5) Perhaps most important, Thiessen recognized the pernicious nature of dependency hypotheses as centering in a virulent bias against the divine inspiration and historical veracity of the Gospels. Such a bias resulted in the denigration of two Synoptic Gospels in a preference for the third. Thiessen argued, "The priority of Mark was `discovered' just at the time when the Bible was losing its age-long position and prestige as the infallible Word of God.... It is this degradation of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke by the exponents of the Two-Document theory that constitutes the chief reason for the rejection of the theory by those who believe in the equal inspiration of all the Gospels."76

Evangelicals espousing dependency hypotheses have apparently overlooked this last argument. Thiessen's observations are highly perceptive. Both the Two-/Four-Source and the Two-Gospel Hypotheses prefer one Gospel as having priority, thereby denigrating the other two as historical sources. That position results in one Gospel's being viewed as superior and the other two as not equally inspired.

Eta Linnemann

This presentation has pointed out the excellent work of Eta Linnemann, whose significance lies in her background. Before her spiritual conversion, she had studied under the historical-critical theologian Rudolf Bultmann and the new hermeneutic proponent Gerhard Ebeling. She learned the ideologies of historical criticism, especially source criticism, and understood the disciplines intimately. After her conversion, however, Linnemann realized the following regarding historical-critical theology:

Intellectually comfortable with historical-critical theology, I was deeply convinced that I was rendering a service to God with my theological work and contributing to the proclamation of the gospel. Then, however, on the basis of various observations, discoveries, and a resulting self-awareness, I was forced to concede to things I did not wish: (1) no "truth" could emerge from this "scientific work on the biblical text," and (2) such labor does not serve the proclamation of the gospel.... Instead of being based on God's Word, it had its foundations in philosophies which made bold to define truth so that God's Word was excluded as the source of truth.77

Reacting against her educational background and her years of teaching historical criticism, Linnemann advises, "I say `No!' to historicalcritical theology. I regard everything that I taught and wrote before I entrusted my life to Jesus as refuse. I wish to use this opportunity to mention that I have pitched my two books ... along with my contributions to journals, anthologies, and Festschriften. Whatever of these writings I had in my possession I threw into the trash with my own hands in 1978.""

Subsequent to Historical Criticism of the Bible, Linnemann produced another work titled Is There a Synoptic Problem? in which she declared that historical-critical ideologies seriously undermine the authority of God's Word.` She affirmed that no Synoptic Problem exists; the problem is the product of hostile philosophical speculation."; She said that NT research must bid "farewell, finally to the unproved and unprovable claim of literary dependence among the three Synoptic Gospels."" Moreover, she maintained that historical criticism reflects a monistic worldview that, consciously or unconsciously, presupposes that God has not created the world, ruled history, and intervened through Christ's redemptive act. That worldview is the only obstacle to literary independence among the synoptics."2

She contended that evangelical proponents of literary dependency are blind to the implications of endorsing literary-critical hypotheses:

In evangelical theology the counterclaim is advanced that the tradition behind the Gospels is reliable. This rules out thoughts of myth and legend. Evangelical scholars distinguish between the tradition and its literary reworking in the Gospels; they take heart because in their view historical tradition stands behind the Gospels. What they fail to see is that, without good warrant, they accept at face value the modern literary-critical (and in part also form-critical) hypotheses. They accept as a given the picture of individual, isolated bits of tradition because they wish to find firm historical footing in that tradition. But they fail to see that they thereby cooperate with historical-critical theology's attempt to sever a direct connection between Jesus and the Gospels by inserting the wedge of an anonymous tradition. Like historical-critical advocates, evangelicals often allow for "theologies" on the part of each Gospel writer as formative principles behind the Gospels they write. They fail to note that seeing the Gospels as conscious human intellectual creations seriously weakens their status as clear eyewitness testimony of Jesus' words and works, described from each Gospel writer's perspective."

Robert G. Gromacki and Merrill C. Tenney

Two notable NT surveys that do not favor the evangelical trend toward the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis deserve mention. Robert G. Gromacki (New Testament Survey) and Merrill C. Tenney (New Testament Survey and The Genius of the Gospels) advocate the Independence View to explain synoptic origins.84

Gromacki perceptively recognizes that modern hypotheses of synoptic phenomena often denigrate the supernatural character of the Gospels, arguing that such hypotheses "usually reflect a humanistic, naturalistic explanation for the literary composition of the Gospels. Little stress if any is placed upon the guiding work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the writers."" He observes that "in all cases the [Gospel] writer consulted sources, both oral and written, scrutinized them, selected material, and wrote under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. These were not merely human compositions; they were the Word of God inscripturated through human penmen .1116

Tenney also champions the Independence View, recognizing that although striking similarities exist between the Synoptic Gospels, striking differences also occur. He argued, "The very differences between the writers speak of independence; the similarities reflect a common background of information, a common subject of writing, and the common inspiration of God."87 Tenney also reasons that "the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are completely independent in origin" and that "[t]he Gospels do not simply echo each other; but they are individual accounts in which a common element has persisted because of a common subject stated in a common way, and possibly compared in living contact.""

Jakob Van Bruggen

Jacob Van Bruggen, professor of New Testament at the Theological University in Kampen, Netherlands, also advocates the Independence View in his book Christ on Earth. Van Bruggen disputes the infamous argument from order that literary-dependency hypothesists often cite:

It is striking that in modern times this question of narrative order is approached exclusively from a literary perspective, as if the Evangelists based their work strictly on literary sources and not actual events. If we agree that their aim was to report history, then we must first deal with the historical sequence. Books that are written entirely independent of each other can still contain parallel descriptions if all are based on a sequence of historically determined facts. Insofar as the Evangelists follow the chronological order of the events in Jesus' life, they can still agree closely in terms of their narrative sequence without being interdepedent.89

Van Bruggen maintains that each Gospel presents a "unique and independent organization" and that the Gospels represent "firsthand sources for the history of Christ's work."90 After an extensive analysis of the Gospels' harmonization qualities as an indication of their historical trustworthiness, Van Bruggen concludes, "The character of the Gospels is such that they can be read as sources of information provided by eyewitnesses and [they] demand such a reading"91 Also important is the fact that Van Bruggen discounts historical criticism and its ideologies of source, form, and redaction criticism because of their presuppositions that cause "most modern images of the historical Jesus" to be "diametrically opposed to the clear portrayal in the four Gospels"92

John M. Rist-The Independence of Matthew and Mark

John Rist has a simple but striking thesis: the similarities in wording and order can be best explained in terms of oral traditions that were available to the two authors. After examining ancient church tradition and the texts of Matthew and Luke, he concludes,

What the ancient traditions do in fact imply is that Matthew and Mark derive independently from apostolic witness, and this ancient evidence fits exactly with what I have argued is the most likely interpretation of the evidence of these Gospels themselves. There is no evidence in the texts themselves which necessitates literary dependence of Mark on Matthew or of Matthew on Mark; and there is no evidence whatsoever in the early tradition to indicate that such dependence was thought to have existed.93

Rist concludes, then, that neither Gospel is the source for the other Gospel. Instead, although Matthew and Mark might have used some written materials, "the major part of the tradition would have been oral."" He further asserts that "we may, if we wish, accept those writers who make Matthew earlier, but only provided we do not argue from priority in time (however minimal) to literary paternity."95

For Rist, the independence of Matthew and Mark also demonstrates the validity of the traditions about Jesus: "[T]he credibility of at least some of the tradition is strengthened by its being represented to us by two rather than by one identifiable primary document."96 Critics such as Longstaff have subtly deprecated Rist's work, arguing that his training "has not been in biblical studies" but classics." This criticism is, however, two-edged-Longstaff's argument cuts the other way because Rist would not have been prejudiced toward hypotheses that have dominated synoptic studies. Hill perceives Rist's conclusion in a positive light: "[T]he cumulative significance of his [Rist's] arguments is beyond dispute. His desire to take seriously early patristic evidence concerning the Gospels and his ability to strengthen confidence in the trustworthiness of a great deal in the content of the Synoptics is commendable!"

John Wenham and Bo Reicke-Modified Independence Views

Two other works that advocate a hybrid form of literary independence/dependence deserve mention. In his book Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, John Wenham opposes the Two-Source Hypothesis. He proposes instead a degree of structural dependence with a surprising degree of verbal independence among the Gospels. Wenham argues, "A new approach to the synoptic problem is attempted which denies literary dependence as the primary explanation of the likenesses of the Gospels and which also questions complete literary independence."" Wenham also maintains a high view of church tradition and traditional views of Gospel authorship.10°

Bo Reicke in his book The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels also pursues a modified approach to independency.10' Reicke viewed Matthew, Mark, and Luke as using no direct interdependency, positing that the three authors wrote independently within the same time frame of the early 60s. Reicke maintained, however, that all of the synoptics reflect mainly the traditions of Peter's preaching and so share common roots."" These shared traditions and personal relationships among the apostles best account for the first three Gospels. Denying a mechanical theory of literary dependence, Reicke asserts, "[T]he relative parallelism between the Synoptic Gospels is fundamentally due to common traditions of the early church "10;

The Jesus Crisis, the Result of Modern Dependency Hypotheses

A recent work to advocate a return to the Independence View is The Jesus Crisis, coedited by Robert L. Thomas and the present writer. It catalogues the exegetical and theological consequences for evangelicalism that result from historical-critical ideology with its advocacy of dependency hypotheses. Its epilogue concludes, "On many fronts, Historical Criticism ... has made enormous inroads into New Testament scholarship-evangelical New Testament scholars not excluded-raising the question of how much of gospel truth about Jesus will scholars-evangelical ones in particular-surrender." 1114

Evangelicals must seriously reexamine their advocacy of historical criticism and literary-dependency hypotheses as well as the effect that these approaches have upon Gospel studies. The Jesus Crisis must serve as a manifesto to return to the historic position of the Independence View, now long ignored by many evangelicals.

Essential Elements of the Independence View

Several essential elements comprise the core axioms of the Independence View.105 The elements also warn against adopting historical-critical ideologies that spawned Enlightenment-based literarydependency hypotheses.

Axiom One: The "Synoptic Problem" Is a Historical-Critical Myth.

The first essential element is that no real "Synoptic Problem" exists in the sense that historical-critical research understands the expression. To many evangelicals preconditioned by historical-critical ideologies, this essential element might seem shocking, but it is firmly buttressed by synoptic research over the last two to three hundred years. Only with the assumption of literary dependency does a problem exist.

Scholars who hold a high view of inspiration must realize that any problem regarding synoptic origins is a creation of an anti-inspiration and antisupematural stance stimulated by philosophies that are inherently hostile to the Word of God. Many evangelical historical critics either have failed to come to recognize the presuppositional implications of dependency hypotheses or have followed Ladd's paradigm of admitting the hostile background but asserting an ability to surmount that negativity. To date, no evangelical historical critic has avoided dehistoricizing the Gospels at some point. One question remains unanswered by evangelical historical critics: "`To which evangelical should we look as the final authority on what in the Synoptic Gospels is historical and what is not?' Evangelical historical critics do not agree among themselves about historicity in the Gospels." 106

Axiom Two: The Roots of Historical Criticism Are the Same as Those for Errancy.

The second essential element is that modern dependency hypotheses share with various phases of historical criticism the roots of biblical errancy.10' In this factor alone, supporters of the Independence View find sufficient evidence to reject dependency hypotheses. Dungan, although supporting the Enlightenment-driven NeoGriesbach position, comments frankly that modern historical-critical synoptic approaches "arose within an attitude of extreme hostility toward the Bible and traditional Christian beliefs and values.""08 One cannot overemphasize the fact that the same soil that produced modern errancy hypotheses also stimulated literary-dependency hypotheses. Brown characterizes the religion of the Enlightenment as "none other than Deism in slightly different dress."""

The roots of the Two-Gospel/Neo-Griesbach Hypothesis in the errancy position. An examination of the history of dependency hypotheses reveals their connection to the assumption of biblical errancy. In terms of Griesbach's Hypothesis, considerations of inspiration and hermeneutics were decisive factors in its development. Concerning Griesbach's work, A Demonstration That the Whole of the Gospel of Mark Was Extracted from the Commentaries of Matthew and Luke, 10 Dungan remarks, "It is striking to see the underlying modern historicist assumption just taken for granted-that these authors all wrote in an entirely human fashion. There is no mention of divine inspiration anywhere." ' 1

Griesbach had been exposed to the skeptical, historicist interpretations of the New Testament and church history that became so predominant during his lifetime. Brown characterizes Griesbach as belonging to the Neologie, a movement that reached its zenith between 1740 and 1790. Brown comments, "To them [the Neologians], revelation was a confirmation of the truths of reason. They drew a distinction between religion and theology, and between dogmas and the Bible. In a sense they were pioneers of moderate biblical criticism, maintaining that Jesus deliberately accommodated his teaching to the beliefs and understandings of his hearers ""' Baird's summary of Griesbach's contribution to NT study is also telling: "Like Semler and Michaelis, he [Griesbach] attempted to accommodate traditional Christianity to the mind of the Enlightenment, and he thus was plagued by the same tension between faith and criticism which troubled his predecessors""3

Although Griesbach saw the Bible as a unique book, he asserted, "The New Testament must be explained as every other ancient book is Moreover, he believed that "[t]he accuracy, especially in the case of the NT writers, often errs."15 To Griesbach, the biblical writers ascribed to divine agency events that modern science now knows had natural

Griesbach also believed that the NT writers were not inspired by the Holy Spirit in the act of Griesbach opposed the orthodox idea that the NT Scriptures were directly inspired by God in the individual words."" He maintained instead that the apostles received a onetime gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, which made it possible for them later both to understand and to transmit Such a stance automatically deprecated and left out the Gospels of Mark and Luke, as well as many other NT books, because they were not written by apostles but by associates. Griesbach argued, "Those who argue that Mark wrote under the influence of divine inspiration must surely regard it as being a pretty meagre one!""' According to Griesbach, the Holy Spirit worked through two apostles, Matthew and John, who were of preeminent importance for giving reliable testimony to the historical facts of Jesus' ministry.

Combined with Griesbach's view of partial inspiration was his skepticism regarding the historical reliability of the Gospels, denying that the synoptics could be harmonized or offer a reliable chronological account of Jesus' life.''-' Griesbach's unorthodox position on inspiration combined with rationalistic skepticism regarding the historical and chronological reliability of the Gospels caused him to view one Gospel, Matthew, as superior to the other synoptics.

The roots of the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis in the errancy position. The Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis provides a similar story, arising as a reaction to the extreme historical skepticism of Strauss's myth concept. Perrin, a proponent of the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis, admits the following origin of Markan priority:

A more immediate result of Strauss's work was the promulgation of the "Marcan hypothesis." In effect what happened was that Strauss's efforts made an impact on New Testament scholars of a liberal theological persuasion-an impact which was very strong but which left them feeling pulled in two different ways at the same time. On the one hand, they had to accept the force of a good deal of his argumentation: The Gospel narratives were to a large extent the products of myth. On the other hand, however, they were actually unprepared to abandon the idea of knowing Jesus "as he actually was" and settle for a Christ myth. In their dilemma, they seized upon a newly developed literary-critical insight, namely, the view that Mark was the earliest Gospel and a source used by Matthew and Luke.'22

Edwin Abbott (1838-1926) provides another clue in the acceptance of Markan priority: antisupernaturalism. Abbott based his acceptance of the "antiquity" of Mark on its omission of "supernatural events" found in Matthew and Luke-for example, the Virgin Birth, the visit of angels, the star in Bethlehem, and Jesus' resurrection. 1221 Because Mark was relatively "simple" in omitting the supernatural, the antisupernatural climate naturally gravitated to the Markan Hypothesis.124

In essence, the Markan Hypothesis arose from a century-long skirmish between extreme and moderate liberalism, both of which denied the supernatural origin and inspiration of the text. What the extreme liberals radically rejected, the moderate liberals moderately rejected. Seeking to maintain some degree of historicity, the "moderates" won the day by promoting the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis. The idea of Mark as the earliest Gospel and a somewhat reliable historical source appealed to moderates and was the decisive factor in permitting a search for the "historical" Jesus.

This moderating position, which affirmed the historicity of a bare minimum of Gospel content, would become obsolete with the introduction in the late nineteenth century of Wrede's concept of the Messianic Secret.121 Historical criticism, taking its motivation from the rationalist and deist Reimarus (see p. 266 in this chapter), viewed Mark's Gospel as theologically motivated rather than historical in content.12' Perrin notes, "Wrede ... sounded the death knell" for the idea of historicity in Mark "by demonstrating that a major aspect of the Marcan narratives was precisely the `mythic' and, in so doing, opened the door for the entry of redaction criticism on the scene."27

Markan priority: the starting point for other historical-critical ideologies. Because the starting point for both redaction criticism and form/tradition criticism is Markan priority, the Independence View rejects these ideologies as well. Form/tradition and redaction criticism belong together and represent the first and second stages of a common enterprise."' Form/tradition and redaction criticism also have roots in the errancy position, a further reason for their rejection by the Independence View, which sees no necessity for these ideologies in authenticating the sayings and acts of Jesus. Such ideologies inherently undermine confidence in the authority of the Gospels by treating them as literary creations rather than historical reports.

Ladd proposed that "the Two-Source hypothesis ... appears to be based upon enough factual evidence to be accepted as a literary fact. ... [T]his prevailing solution involving interdependence is in no way incompatible with a `high' view of inspiration."29 Contrary to Ladd, history testifies that the antecedents of these ideologies were replete with hostility toward a high view of inspiration. Like many other evangelicals, Ladd urged that "this critical solution [i.e., the Two-/ Four-Source Hypothesis] is in no way hostile to an evangelical faith.""" McKnight cites Ladd as a paradigm, "an evangelical scholar who is the product of the American fundamentalism of the 1920s" and who accepts historical-critical positions."' McKnight's thought seems to be that if George Ladd as a "fundamentalist" uses the method, "evangelical scholars" as a whole should adopt it.

It is apparent that if the liberal community is to consider someone a "scholar," he must adopt liberal ideologies. If not, the detractor is not a scholar. Such logic is non sequitur and shameful! Proponents of literary independence reject historical criticism because evidence for its hostility to Scripture is overwhelming. Although advocates of literary independence reject historical criticism, they are not uncritical in their approach. To be critical of prevailing positions does not make one "uncritical" Proponents of literary independence use a qualitatively different method in their criticism.

Axiom Three: Four Gospels Were Written Based upon Independent Apostolic Eyewitnesses.

Independent accounts. In contrast to historical-critical ideology, the Independence View maintains that each Gospel writer worked independently of the other three, each having no need to derive information from the other three. The writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John authored four independent accounts of Jesus' life. The Gospels originated without direct literary interdependency.

Linnemann explains the need for four independent Gospels: "There is, however, a clear intention behind the Gospels' fourfold form. The intention involves the legal principle instituted by God: `... [O]n the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed' (Deut. 19:15b NASB).... The independent witnesses confirm one another in a complementary fashion"'"' (emphasis in original). The Gospels are supplementary and complementary to, not contradictory to, one another. In contrast, dependency hypotheses essentially reduce the Gospel accounts to one basic witness, either Mark (according to the MH) or Matthew (according to the 2GH), with the other Gospel writers relying heavily upon that one source.

Plagiarism not an issue. Dependency advocates sometimes cite plagiarism as the main reason that advocates of literary independence reject dependency hypotheses. Ladd argues, "[T]hese first-century writings are often viewed [by proponents of literary independence] from the perspective of modern copyright laws according to which one author's use of the work of another is plagiarism, which is of course ethically and legally abhorrent. ""3 Argues Ladd, the concept of plagiarism does not apply because "[o]ne very common ancient literary practice was the free use of existing works.... It might be replied that a different standard of `literary honesty' is required of the Word of God, the Scripture inspired by the Spirit of truth. But this once again reflects the modern fear of plagiarism, and does not accept the obvious historical milieu in which the Word of God was given to men.""' Harrison also follows a similar tactic, arguing, "More serious is the feeling that literary dependence of one writer upon another is difficult to square with any respectable view of inspiration.... Originality is not a necessary qualification for Scripture.""' Admittedly, Thiessen reasoned, "[T]hat theory [the Two-Source Hypothesis] degrades the Evangelists Matthew and Luke to the position of slavish and yet arbitrary compilers, not to say plagiarists."'36

Yet, the responses of Ladd and Harrison sidestep central issues, thus not representing accurately the reasoning of the Independence View. Remarks regarding plagiarism beg the question: Does the evidence compel one to accept that such copying occurred? The synoptic evidence does not compel. Better ways exist to explain the evidence both historically and literarily.

Thiessen rejected dependency but not based upon plagiarism, which was a minor point in his discussion. He admitted that literary independence "grants that the authors may have used `sources."''j" For Thiessen, the main reasons for rejecting dependency were both the questionable historical and presuppositional factors that produced the theories and a lack of data to demonstrate their validity. He summarized his reasons:

[T]he absence of all historical proof that Matthew and Luke were thus dependent upon Mark; in view of the possibility of explaining this phenomenon of agreements in the Synoptics another way ... ; in light of Lightfoot's declaration as to the doctrinal sacrifice necessary to the development of the theory; and because of our firm belief in the full and equal inspiration of all the Gospels, we are obliged to reject the Two-Document theory."'

The comment of Lightfoot referenced by Thiessen in the preceding extract was, "The priority of St. Mark was discovered just at the time when the Bible was losing its age-long position and prestige as the infallible book, the complete and final word of God, the absolute organ of religious

Thus, the compelling reason for Thiessen's rejection of literary dependency was the inspirational degradation that accompanied the rise of dependency hypotheses. He regarded each Gospel as equally inspired, representing eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. No one Gospel was a superior source. Each writer was inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce the work, regardless of whether he used sources.

Thiessen learned from the lessons of history that dependency hypotheses arose through the denigration of the inspiration of the Gospels. Evangelicals who support dependency must do so in isolation from dependency's roots. But logic dictates that a hypothesis can be no more valid than the presuppositions that produced it. Etienne Gilson has demonstrated that no theory is better than the concepts on which it is based: "However correct my combinations of concepts may be, my conclusions cannot be more valid than my concepts.... [I]f it is necessary for a true reasoning that it be logical, it is not enough for it to be logical in order to be true.""' If a method, no matter how logical, stems from a false ideology, then such a method will lead to wrong conclusions. Thus, if historical-critical ideologies originate in aberrant thinking, their conclusions about synoptic origins cannot be true, even if they seem to be "logical"

Authentic apostolic, eyewitness-based traditions. Several other subcorollaries ensue from axiom number three. Accepting the traditions of early church history regarding Gospel origins, as does the Independence View, means that the Independence View accepts all four Gospels as authentic, eyewitness accounts. The canonical Gospels were products of direct eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or of direct eyewitness testimony (Mark based upon Peter and Luke upon other eyewitnesses). As apostles, Matthew and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names. According to Papias, Mark based his work on the preaching of the apostle Peter.'' Luke based his Gospel on careful investigation of eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2-3) and what he learned from Paul.

The Gospel records are authentic, biographical, and historical accounts of apostolic eyewitnesses, written during the lifetimes of the apostles. Those records present accurately what Jesus said and did. The Gospels, therefore, reflect the only legitimate Sitz im Leben (situation in life) of Jesus, that is, accurate historical reports of what Jesus said and did during His life on earth, bearing witnesses to His death, resurrection, and ascension.

Any other proposed Sitz im Leben posited by form/tradition (see p. 276 under "Compositional Factor One" in this chapter) or redaction criticism is illegitimate speculation that violates principles of grammatical-historical exegesis. Attempting to determine another Sitz im Leben is acutely subjective, proceeding from the imagination of the interpreter, with few checks and balances. The aim of the Gospel authors was to write Gospels about Jesus, not about a church community that was addressing an esoteric problem that few readers could begin to decode. The early church was interested in the historical Jesus and would naturally want to know what He taught and why. But no evidence can be cited for an alleged Sitz im Leben of a hypothesized Christian community that existed apart from that community found in the Gospels themselves. Unchecked imagination drives the engine of such a community situation. 141

All Gospels equal, none preferred over another. The Independence View recognizes that no Gospel is given explicit or tacit preference over another, that none is the "original," is considered a "source" for, or is more historically reliable than another. Although the MH champions the Gospel of Mark as a source and the 2GH gives Matthew preference, the Independence View sees all Gospels as equal in inspiration, authority, and exegetical decisions.

The Synoptic Gospels can be compared with one another to determine emphasis or to harmonize accounts, but no Gospel has primacy. One Gospel, however, may at times contain more information, either chronological or historical, that furnishes historical background for other accounts. In determining the order of Jesus' temptations, for example (Matt. 4:1-1 1; Luke 4:1-13), chronological markers in Matthew (such as tote in Matt. 4:5, 10, 11) but not in Luke show that Matthew preserved the historical order.

For the Independence View, chronological order of composition is not as crucial as to dependency hypotheses. Because no Gospel has preference over another in terms of sources, the date of composition is less significant. The Independence View maintains that all Gospels were written within the lifetimes of the apostles.

Axiom Four: The Gospels Are Inerrant, Having Plenary, Verbal Inspiration.

The four canonical Gospels are inspired both plenarily and verbally. In light of the inspiration of the Gospels (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21), a necessary corollary is that the Gospels are also inerrant because it is impossible for God to lie (see Heb. 6:18). Thus, the Gospels contain no inherent contradictions of any kind.

Inerrancy and inspiration directly contrasts, however, with dependency views that have an inherent negative bias toward the Gospels, one that takes a "guilty-until-proven-innocent" stance.'a3

In the development of both the Two-/Four-Source and Griesbach Hypotheses, no concept of inspiration existed. In 1794, Griesbach published an expanded version of his Demonstration That the Gospel of Mark Was Extracted from ... Matthew and Luke, stressing the human origin of the Gospels without mentioning inspiration. As in Dungan's comment cited earlier,"' no mention of inspiration appears throughout discussions of the two theories. Thus, study of the Gospels from these perspectives sees them as exclusively human undertakings.

To stress inspiration does not make the Independence View uncritical, but the view does use a presuppositional grid qualitatively different from that of historical-critical hypotheses. Because literary independence adheres to the historic, orthodox view of the inspiration of the Gospels, it assumes that those books are free from contradiction. In contrast, dependency hypotheses stem from the antisupernatural roots of those methods.

This fourth axiom of the Independence View guards against historical-critical assumptions of one Gospel's having priority over another. Neil and Wright, favorable to the priority of Mark and the Four-Source Hypothesis, acknowledge as much: "The doctrine of the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of every part of Scripture, treated as one single whole without any recognition of the differing value of different parts, made an ... imaginative approach to the Bible almost impossible, and tended to brand as infidelity any attempt to apply the principles of HC to the sacred text "145 With the rise of the Two-/FourSource theory, "Mark's Gospel came to be accepted as the primary historical source for all knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ; indeed, the reaction went almost too far, and there was a tendency to establish a kind of verbal inerrancy of St. Mark."46

A revival of Rogers and McKim's viewpoint among evangelicals? Some critics of inerrancy and inspiration attack such a high view of Scripture as a product of seventeenth-century Protestant scholasticism, one that nineteenth-century Princeton theologians wrongly associated with classic orthodoxy. These critics hold the historic position of the church to be that the Bible is accurate in matters of faith and practice but not in science, history, geography, and origins. Such critics of the Independence View, however, overlook history. Rogers and McKim did the same in their association of inerrancy with Among some evangelicals, the watch cry seems to be that conservative evangelicals impose a twentieth-century concept of inerrancy upon an ancient world that had no such high standards.141

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy," published by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, recognized the error of Rogers and McKim.149 Along with its statements on inerrancy, the council's stated purpose was "to counter the drift from this important doctrinal foundation [i.e., inerrancy] by significant segments of evangelicalism and the outright denial of it by other church movements."150 Article XVI states, "We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.""' Most importantly, Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement reads, "We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teachings or rejecting its claims to authorship.""' Because the presuppositions of dependency hypotheses constitute an ideological flow toward the denigration of the historicity of the Gospel texts, they directly contradict accepted standards of inerrancy as expressed in the Chicago Statement.153

Furthermore, standards of accuracy are not twentieth-century innovations, as Rogers and McKim held. 114 Woodbridge confirms as much: "Rogers and McKim have posited too radical a paradigmatic break be tween `modern science' and an unspecified `prescientific' period.... Obviously scientists of the twentieth century can measure and portray the external world with more precision than the ancients. Nonetheless, the ancients could describe aspects of that same world with what we today would recognize as adequate precision.""' Several recent works have questioned whether only "modern" society has interest in accurate expression. O. Neugebauer and H. W. F. Saggs dispel this notion and demonstrate that "ancient" Near Eastern cultures had remarkable abilities for accuracy in science and mathematics.'56

Church historian Mark Noll agreed with Rogers and McKim,157 contending that the shape of evangelical belief in the Bible was molded by the Enlightenment: "Virtually every aspect of the profound evangelical attachment to the Bible was shaped by the Enlightenment."158 For Noll, concepts such as literal interpretation of the creation account is a product of Rationalism that entered the English-speaking world during the Age of Reason. For Noll, "keen preoccupation with the doctrine of inerrancy" is an evangelical distinctive rather than an essential because, although the idea of inerrancy has been around for a long time, it "never assumed such a central role for any Christian movement."159 Evangelical attitudes toward such distinctives "need correction," so that "the life of the mind" may progress.""

Allister McGrath adopted the same thesis, arguing that the teachers of old Princeton Seminary who thought that they were upholding an inerrant Bible were, in reality, falling into Rationalism. He contended that "Hodge's analysis of the authority of Scripture is ultimately grounded in an unacknowledged and implicit theory of the nature of language, deriving from and reflecting the Enlightenment agenda" 16'

In refuting the reasoning of Rogers, McKim, Noll, McGrath, and others, lain Murray has noted,

This thesis rests on a fallacious definition. The use of mind is not "rationalism"; it all depends on whether that use is right or wrong. Rationalism is a use of which trusts in its own ability to arrive at truth about God without his aid and part from revelation: it treats the mind as a source of knowledge rather than as a channel. The Enlightenment was a classic demonstration of innate human pride in the exaltation of the human intellect. To equate that spirit with the teaching of the Princeton men, who believed that it is the grace of God alone which sets men free to understand, is to stand truth on its head. 162

Furthermore, because the biblical authors were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would the Holy Spirit have a lower standard of accuracy than "modem man"? To posit such smacks of intellectual arrogance.

The Bible: just another human book? Still another assertion made by historical critics is that the Bible is a human book and must be studied like all ancient documents. This historical-critical axiom is rooted in Rationalism and the Enlightenment. Hasel argues, "[R]ationalism by its very nature was led to abandon the orthodox view of inspiration of the Bible so that ultimately the Bible became simply one of the ancient documents, to be studied as any other ancient document"163 This revolution in hermeneutics was stimulated by Johann Solomo Semler (1725-1791) in his Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon. Semler claimed that the Bible is purely a historical document that is to be investigated with historical and thus critical methodology.164 That thought became a central tenet of historical criticism and earned for Semler the title "father of historicalcritical theology.""'

Semler's assertion carried over into evangelical historical criticism. Ladd, as a paradigm for this shift among evangelical historical critics, emphasized the human element over the divine in the writing of Scripture: "[S]ince the Bible is the Word of God given in the words of men, an adequate study of the Bible demands what we have chosen to call a historical-theological methodology." 161 Ladd further argued that evangelicals pursue a "one-sided position" when they "emphasize the Bible as the Word of God to the practical exclusion of the fact that it is also the words of men." 167 He reasoned,

The Bible is both the Word of God and the words of men. It is not a magical deposit, a book sent down from heaven, nor is it simply the record of one strand of ancient history, and therefore merely the product of historical influences.... The Bible is the Word of God; but is God's Word recording events in human history; and since the Bible is itself the product of God's acting in historical events, it requires critical and historical study to reconstruct as far as possible the historical events through which the revelation occurred. 161

But as a direct result of giving equal, if not more, emphasis to the human rather than divine elements, Ladd expressed the oxymoronic viewpoint of limited infallibility: "[I]t is the author's hope that the reader may be helped to understand that the authority of the Bible as the Word of God is not dependent upon infallible certainty in all matters of history and criticism.""' Although Ladd might be correct to view the Bible as produced by God as well as through the agency of men, he overlooked an aspect of inspiration that is also sadly overlooked by evangelicals who adopt Ladd's promotion of historical-critical ideologies. The Bible should not be viewed as equally the product of human and divine elements. In inspiration, the divine element overshadowed the human element so as to provide a book that is qualitatively separate from all other books in its inspiration and inerrancy. Although the Bible was written by men, God's superintendence of those men in the inscription of His Word supernaturally overshadowed the product so that the Holy Spirit guaranteed the accuracy of what men recorded. Such precision in composition is without parallel in human historiography. To advocate some form of limited infallibility because of the dual nature of human and divine inspiration impugns the ministry of the Holy Spirit who controlled the process. Ladd's unfortunate attempt resulted in a highly unstable melding of ideologies hostile to Scripture that further resulted in a denigration of inspiration. An evangelical who emulates Ladd will have similar results.

Have some evangelicals overlooked that the writers of Scripture were promised Spirit-enabled minds to guide the process of inscription? In John 14:26, Jesus promised, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (NASB) [emphasis added]. And in John 16:13, Jesus said, "But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come" (NASB) [emphasis added]."" Second Peter 1:21 reinforces the promise: "[N]o prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (NASS)."' (See also 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 2:20-22, 27; 4:6; 5:6.) Scripture never portrays the human element as the equal or controlling part in inspiration but presents it as subordinate to God's superintendence.

Although acknowledging that "the historical-critical method has its origins in the epistemological revolution of the Enlightenment," evangelical Donald Hagner, sounding much like Ladd, affirms the "indispensibility of the historical-critical method""' He comments, "It has become extremely important in our day to insist upon the indispensability of the historical-critical method. Early in this century, it was reactionary fundamentalists who declared the historical-critical method invalid and illegitimate""'

Although Hagner allows that the historical-critical method must be modified to include for the supernatural, 114 he nonetheless castigates, as does Ladd, "reactionary fundamentalists" and "liberals" who reject the method. Hagner agrees with Marshall that the historicalcritical method must "test the reliability of historical witness using the same criteria and having the same resultant confidence whether what is in view involves the natural or supernatural." 171 Thus, Hagner's testing assumes the possibility of unreliability in the biblical accounts.

As a result of his historical criticism, which is companion to the Two-Source Hypothesis, Hagner denigrates the historicity of the Gospels."' Because Mark 10:11, for example, does not have the "exception" clauses of Matthew 5:32-"except for the cause of unchastity"-and 19:9-"except for immorality"-Hagner denies that the clauses came from Jesus."' Regarding the Sermon on the Mount, he asserts that "The `sermon' is clearly a compilation of the sayings of Jesus by the evangelist, rather than something spoken by Jesus on a single occasion.""' Thus, Hagner asserts that the sermon did not occur on a single occasion as Matthew records.

In a critical approach, the scriptural way is to see the agency of God's Spirit in control of the process, so that without dictation and by using the personalities of the writers as agents, the Holy Spirit produced the very words of God to men, accurately and entirely adequately in all matters whether theological, historical, geographical, or scientific. Because historical-critical ideologies negate an orthodox view of inspiration, scholars who attempt a combination advocate, in essence, as did Ladd, some form of partial inspiration instead of what is stated by Scripture itself.

In qualitative contrast, the Independence View of the Gospels associates itself with a normative view of inspiration and inerrancy, holding that God's superintendence of His Word also guaranteed the supernatural accuracy of the product.

Axiom Five: Traditional Harmonization of the Text Is Essential.

Support for traditional harmonization of the text. Until historical-critical ideologies arose, the church "assumed that the four canonical Gospels could readily be harmonized to produce an authentic, historical, and indeed inspired record of the words and works of Jesus. This attitude continued down to the post-Reformation times.""' The term harmony originally came from the domain of woodworking. It referred to boards that a craftsman had carefully joined together to form a unified object or perfect fit."' Accordingly, the term reflected the church's view of inspiration, that the Gospels contained no errors, but could be blended together consistently. The view that the four Gospels had no essential contradictions resulted in a series of harmonies in the ancient church. In his final writing, Augustine wrote that he composed his harmony of the Gospels "because of those who falsely accuse the Evangelists of lacking agreement. "'x'

Harmonization based on a high view of inspiration continued through the Reformation and beyond. MacArthur comments, "A striking phenomenon of the study of the Bible in the sixteenth century was the sudden flowering of Gospel harmonies." 112 The people who produced them did so for two reasons: (1) to edify the faithful by the presentation of a total picture of Jesus' life and ministry and (2) to refute the critics of the Gospels "by demonstrating the essential and astonishing agreement of the Gospels."183 Dungan adds, "These sixteenth- and seventeenth-century harmonies ... proceeded on the basis of Augustine's assumption that all four Gospels were uniformly true and without admixture of the slightest degree of error. The traditional way of stating this assumption was to claim that each had been written with the aid of the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Christ, so that all four were evenly true in all parts and passages"184 The Independence View identifies with this approach to harmonization.

The waning of traditional harmonization and the rise of dependency hypotheses. With the rise of rationalism and deism during the Enlightenment, the high standard of inspiration associated with Gospel harmonies began to wane. Between 1774 and 1778, Ephraim Gotthold Lessing, a Spinozist, published Fragments by an Unknown Person [English title],"' written anonymously by Lessing's personal friend, rationalist-deist Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768). In this work, Reimarus tried to discredit Christianity. In the Fragments, he presented Jesus as an unsuccessful messianic pretender and the disciples as disappointed charlatans who stole Jesus' body and invented the story of the Resurrection to start a new religious movement and avoid working for a living.'86

In the half century that followed publication of Reimarus's Fragments, wildly contradictory hypotheses questioning the composition and authorship of the Gospels appeared. One of the first people to attempt a historical-critical approach to Scripture was Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791), who was strongly influenced by deism. In 1750, he published Introduction to the Holy Writings of the New Testament [English title], a presentation of alleged historical problems in the New Testament. Michaelis's work inaugurated the modern "science" of NT introduction. Neill and Wright comment,

[T]he orthodoxy of the time [Michaelis' day] took it for granted that, because the NT is divinely inspired in every part, it is a priori impossible that there should be any contradictions between the Gospels; any apparent contradiction must be due only to the imperfection of our understanding, and must be susceptible of resolution into harmony. Michaelis was prepared to face the possibility that there really might be contradictions. 187

Michealis rejected the idea of literary dependence among the Gospel writers, tracing their shared characteristics to common apocryphal gospels that he hypothesized from Luke 1:1.

Eventually, Griesbach came under "the decisive influence"'"" of Michaelis's skepticism at the University of Halle, where Griesbach was a student. From his student days with Semler and Michaelis, Griesbach "had been exposed to Europe's skeptical historicist interpretation of the New Testament and Church history.""' Griesbach's skeptical attitude toward the Gospels caused him to reject the church's traditional harmonization of them, leading him to develop a "synopsis" approach that placed the Gospels into parallel columns to help detect alleged contradictions. In its origin, therefore, the "synopsis" came from historical skepticism. Thus, at the heart of modern discussions of synoptic dependency is a "skepticism regarding the chronological value of the gospels."190

Gospel synopses facilitated the rise of both the Two-Source and the Two-Gospel Hypotheses.191 Synopses are not neutral but are constructed to prove a priori dependency theories. Dungan sees most modern synopses as biased toward the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis: "A source theory was invented and a synopsis created to illustrate it. Charts were then created based on that synopsis which were held to `prove' the theory." 92

Harmonization instead of redactional hermeneutics. In contrast to synopses that originate from a prejudicial grid, the Independence View emphasizes traditional harmonization based on inspiration. The Independence View is optimistic that the Gospels lend themselves to harmonization both historically and factually. Although literary independence does not reject synopses because of historical reasons in their development, it recognizes them as potentially prejudicial instruments to promote dependency hypotheses. Literary independence rejects redactional harmonization because (1) its roots are in Two-/Four-Source dependency and (2) it assumes authorial theological motivation in explaining differences, thus dehistoricizing the Gospels.19'

The Independence View recognizes that at times traditional harmonization has been superficial, producing unsatisfactory solutions to problem passages.194 Harmonization itself can be legitimate in the hands of a skilled exegete, legitimate harmonization taking time, patience, and diligence. Suspension of judgment may at times be necessary until discovery of further data. At no time, however, is redactional harmonization legitimate.

Axiom Six: Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics Are to Be Advocated.

Much confusion exists in evangelicalism regarding the difference between grammatical-historical and historical-critical approaches.19' Several factors differentiate them.

First, literary independence associates itself with grammaticalhistorical hermeneutics that has roots in the Reformation. In contrast, historical-critical hermeneutics began with deism, rationalism, and the Enlightenment. Krentz says, "Historical method is the child of the Enlightenment." 196 Maier presents a telling evaluation: "[H]istorical criticism over against a possible divine revelation presents an inconclusive and false counterpart which basically maintains human arbitrariness and its standards in opposition to the demands of revelation.""'

Second, the grammatical-historical method is open to the supernatural and the miraculous. It assumes that the Scriptures are true regarding their assertions and posits the idea that God can and does intervene in human history. In contrast, because of distinct philosophical differences, the historical-critical method assumes, with Troeltsch, (a) the principle of methodological doubt-history achieves only probability, nothing can be known with certainty; (b) the principle of analogy-present experience becomes the criterion of probability in the past; and (c) mutual interdependence that postulates a closed continuum of cause and effect with no outside divine intervention."' Therefore, anytime evangelicals dehistoricize the Gospels, they practice historical-critical, not grammatical-historical hermeneutics. Grammatical-historical exegesis does not put the burden of proof on the Scriptures to demonstrate their historicity as does historical criticism.

Third, the grammatical-historical approach emphasizes an inductive understanding of the meaning of Scripture based on plain, normal interpretation. Its goal is to interpret Scripture as intended by the original author.'99 It seeks single, not multiple, layers of meaning and emphasizes the perspicuity of Scripture. In contrast, historical criticism does not attempt to understand the original meaning but uses a deductive approach that assumes an interpretation and forces Scripture into a mold.

Fourth, the history of dependency associates it with historical criticism, not with grammatical-historical exegesis. Dependency hypotheses have their roots in skepticism of the biblical record, especially the Gospels. Therefore, those who use dependency are automatically, even if unwittingly, aligned with the errancy position of historical criticism. At root, philosophy controls the exegetical approach. In contrast, the Independence View allies itself with the grammaticalhistorical hermeneutics. Its critical approach to examining Scripture has a qualitative basis different than historical criticism."" Moreover, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation deemphasizes subjectivity and emphasizes the need for Spirit-guided objectivity in exegeting Scripture.

Independence Explanation of Synoptic Origins

Questionable Statistics Supporting Dependency

Literary dependency seeks to resolve the questions of synoptic origins, or the Synoptic Problem, through explanations for the agreements among the Synoptic Gospels. Often, it presents a mass of data, statistics, and charts to promote acceptance of dependency as a "proven" fact. Such data were compiled after the fact, however, that is, assembled after the hypotheses came into prominence. Linnemann observes, "[T]he Synoptic problem was not discovered through a thorough investigation of the Gospels. Its `solutions' should be regarded as somewhat whimsical speculations rather than scientific results.""' In other words, an assumption of literary dependence was made, then arguments and statistics were developed to support the assumption. From the start, the investigation has been circular: "One begins by assuming the validity of the hypothesis that the argument will attempt to prove.... [T]he presence of a literary relationship between the Gospels was presupposed from the outset, and the results have reflected this presupposition.""' Dependency "solutions" did not begin with an inductive examination of evidence. Statistically, "[H]istoricalcritical theology has never produced an impartial investigation of whether literary dependence exists, be it direct or indirect, among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke-or whether these three Gospels are three equally original reports "20'

Obligation to Explain Differences Not Just Similarities

Long ago, Westcott, who was an advocate of oral tradition to explain synoptic phenomena, produced the following statistical table:204

If the total contents of the several Gospels be represented by 100, then the following table is obtained:2"5

Evangelical Harrison, using Westcott's chart to support dependency, says, "[T]his does not mean that the coincidences are in exact verbal agreement, but it does mean that they represent so close an affinity as to make probable, if not certain, some mutuality of relationship in the origin of the Synoptic material"206 Much twentieth-century NT scholarship, including that of evangelicals, adopted historical criticism, supposing that extensive agreement among the synoptics indicates direct literary collaboration and trying to explain the nature of that collaboration.

Limiting attention solely to the agreements among the Gospels, however, is precarious because of the additional obligation to explain the substantial disagreements. Using Westcott's chart, as did Harrison, to prove dependency ignores Westcott's additional information that highlights the uniqueness of each Gospel. After noting these coincidences, Westcott did not conclude in support of dependency:

It is not however enough to consider the general coincidences of substance and subject. Such a view conveys a false and exaggerated impression of the likeness between the Gospels. In spite of their general resemblance they are severally distinct in style and effect. The identity of range is combined with difference of treatment: peculiarities of language with unity of scope. The verbal coincidences between the different Gospels, while in themselves sufficiently remarkable, are yet considerably less than might appear from the popular statement of the facts.207

After cataloging differences, Westcott concluded, "[T]hese differences amount to serious difficulties from our ignorance of all the circumstances.... [T]hey are distinct and numerous, and offer as clear a proof of the actual independence of the Gospels "208

Like Harrison, evangelical proponents of dependency often ignore the rest of Westcott's comments. They assume that literary dependency exists, concentrating on similarities to prove it, and attribute differences to insignificance or redactional activity. Linnemann has pointed out the circular nature of such reasoning.

After an investigation of the synoptic phenomena in relation to Mark, she concluded,

I have investigated ... a representative cross-section of Mark's Gospel, along with its parallels. This cross-section comprises 34.83 percent of the literary data that Mark contains. At least one pericope as [sic-"has"] been selected from every chapter; in most instances several have been examined. All of the genres or literary categories postulated by form criticism have been included.

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.

These data are quite normal if one assumes the original and independent free formulation of the same events and circumstances. The same data furnish no basis for assuming literary dependence.209

Linnemann based her investigation and conclusion on an examination of evidence in the following areas: (1) "The Composition of Matthew and Luke" (chap. 3); (2) "Commonality in the Narrative Thread of the Gospels" (chap. 4); (3) "The Extent of Parallelism Between Matthew, Mark, and Luke" (chap. 5); (4) "Quantitative Synoptic Comparison" (chap. 6); and (5) "The Significance of the Extent of Similarities in Vocabulary" (chap. 7).210 At the end of her study, she summarizes, "In conclusion we need only state that, not only the TwoSource theory but also the Griesbach hypothesis, with their underlying assertion of literary dependence among the three Synoptic Gospels, are both finished when the Synoptic data has been sifted. No room remains for free-floating hypotheses .1121 1

Compositional Factors of the Independence Approach

Simply stated, literary independence accounts for the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels by noting that they were accounts of eyewitnesses whose sharp memories, aided by the Holy Spirit, repro duced the exact wording of dialogues and sermons (John 14:26). Literary independence explains the differences between the Gospels by observing that different eyewitnesses reported the same events in different but not contradictory ways. The writers drew upon this combination of eyewitness accounts, which constitutes a nonhomogeneous body of tradition without definable limits. The Independence View proposes five compositional factors involved in explaining synoptic origins.

Compositional Factor One: Direct, Eyewitness Knowledge of Events Recorded

Contrary to Enlightenment philosophy and its antitradition stance, the Independence View takes data of early church history seriously. Because the church fathers lived much closer to the time of the Gospels' composition and were scholars in their own right, their testimony is given serious consideration regarding sequence and sources used. This principle contrasts with dependency hypotheses, especially the Two-/Four-Source theory, that usually disregard church tradition. The data from the early church are accepted unless the Fathers contradict one another. If they contradict one another or even themselves, a closer look at the data usually reveals that no contradiction actually exists.

The opinion of the early Fathers is consistent regarding the authorship of the Gospels. They unite in attesting that the Gospels, although anonymous, were written by the apostles or their close associates whose names connect with the respective Gospels. That the Gospels were authored anonymously, yet were still attested to by the church fathers as being authored by the apostles, is compelling evidence for the traditional ascription of authorship; only an author who reflected the solid authority of an apostle could have an anonymous Gospel received unanimously as authentic by the church. Apocryphal gospels, on the other hand-produced from the mid-second century onward and falsely ascribed to apostles or close associates of Jesus-were universally recognized as such and rejected by the early church."'

Early church tradition is unanimous in support of traditional authorship of the four Gospels."' Justin Martyr, for example, reflecting the belief of the early church, called the Gospels memoirs, speaking of the authors as "the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called the Gospels "1211

Two Gospel writers, Matthew and John, were apostolic eyewitnesses who accompanied Jesus on His messianic mission and witnessed the events that they describe in their Gospels. Thus, they had firsthand knowledge of many, if not most, events that they recorded. Authorship of the first Gospel, that is, the "Gospel according to Matthew," is by tradition ascribed to the apostle Matthew, such ascription being highly unusual if Matthew did not write that Gospel because he was obscure among the apostles. Thus, the book's identification with an obscure apostle is powerful evidence for Matthew's authorship. No evidence exists that the book ever circulated without the title KATA MATHTHAION, a title affixed perhaps as early as A.D. 125.215 As Guthrie noted, "[T]he title cannot be dismissed too lightly, for it has the support of ancient tradition and this must be the starting point of the discussion regarding authorship."216

John Mark, whom Papias (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1516) called Peter's interpreter and the recorder of Peter's preaching in the Gospel that bear's Mark's name, based his Gospel upon what Peter witnessed. Along with James and John, his former fishing partners (Luke 5:10-11), Peter was intimately associated with Jesus in the inner circle of apostles (Matt. 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36). Thus, Mark's Gospel reflects eyewitness accounts of Peter as he accompanied Jesus. No reason exists for tradition to assign the Gospel to a minor character such as Mark unless he actually composed it. Early Fathers such as Tertullian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria ascribe the second Gospel to Mark.217

Although the Gospel of Luke is anonymous, church tradition unanimously ascribes it to Luke, the beloved physician and traveling companion of Paul .21H As Guthrie noted, "[A]t no time were any doubts raised regarding this attribution to Luke.... The tradition could hardly be stronger."219 Among the sources that state that Luke authored not only the Gospel but also the book of Acts are the Muratorian Canon (ca. A.D. 170-180), the anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke, Irenaeus, Clement (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6:14.5-6), Origen (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.6), and Tertullian (Against Marcion 4.2.2).220 Irenaeus, in Against Heresies 3.1.1 and 3.14.1-3, relates that Luke was Paul's traveling companion and that Luke's Gospel reflects Paul's preaching of the gospel.

According to the prologue in Luke 1:1-4, the book was based upon accounts from "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word" (Luke 1:2 NASB). The Greek term autoptai ("eyewitnesses") indicates those who had personal knowledge of the facts because they had experienced those events. The early church required that eyewitnesses be the normative bearers of the tradition.221 Luke based his account not on speculation but on fact.

The second term that Luke uses to describe the group is hyperetai ("servants"), a word that carries the meaning that Luke's sources were experientially involved in Jesus' service. It "establishes continuity between the preaching of Jesus and the history of Jesus.... [T]he word emphasizes ... the fact that the autoptai were not propagandists for their own views of what happened with Jesus but had unreservedly put their persons and work in the service of Jesus' cause .11112

Gerhardsson notes regarding the terms autoptai and hyperetai that "there can be no question that he [Luke] is thinking primarily of the Apostles, i.e. the twelve, in the use of this phrase (cp. also Acts 1:216; 2:42; 6:2, 4)."223 The beginning of the gospel tradition lies with Jesus Himself and is attested to by apostolic and other direct eyewitnesses who were authorized transmitters of traditions about Jesus.224

Although the fourth Gospel is anonymous, early tradition strongly and consistently identifies the author as the apostle John. References include the early Father Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 140-ca. 210), a disciple of Polycarp (ca. A.D. 70-ca. 155-160), and Polycarp, in turn, a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus testifies on Polycarp's authority that John published the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia Minor (Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.1.1). Subsequent to Irenaeus, all of the church fathers attributed the Gospel to John. Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150-ca. 215) writes that John, aware of the facts set forth in the other Gospels and being moved by the Holy Spirit, composed a "spiritual gospel °'225

Accordingly, several marked distinctions result from the Gospels' being written by those who had direct knowledge. First, no search for the historical Jesus is necessary under the Independence View because such a "search" denigrates the Gospels and early church history. That search is a product of the rationalistic skepticism that is inherent in historical criticism. The liberal John A. T. Robinson, who, like form critics, once said that late reconstructions comprised the New Testament, concludes after a rigorous reanalysis that all twentyseven NT books were produced about two decades before A.D. 70 and that they are the work of the apostles or their contemporaries.226

Second, form-/tradition-critical speculation is without foundation and completely unnecessary. No support exists for the form-critical hypothesis of the Gospel tradition as brief, rounded units that circulated for a long time and were eventually placed into a book by the "Christian community." The early church was not the repository of Gospel records; the apostles and their associates were. The Gospels, instead of being independent units that circulated and evolved in the church over a long period of time, have direct ties to personal recollections of the apostles and other eyewitnesses. Because the Gospels were the product of eyewitnesses, they cannot be disassembled into isolated units, as form hypotheses hold, because one cannot determine whether the Gospels existed in brief units or as integrated wholes. Moreover, because the Gospels were by eyewitnesses, the concept of an unstable oral tradition is untenable since those eyewitnesses guarded against substantial variation. No, the primary circulation of the tradition evidenced in the twenty-seven NT documents is what occurred in the minds of eyewitnesses as they composed their works based on personal reminiscences. Their memories, not a nebulous entity known as the "Christian community," were the repository of tradition reflected in the New Testament.

Third, because the apostles Matthew and John had direct knowledge, they did not need "sources," as dependency hypotheses contend, but depended largely upon their personal reminiscences of events. Although literary independence does not deny that Matthew and John possibly consulted other apostles and eyewitnesses, their primary source was their own experiences during Jesus' ministry. Regarding information in their Gospels about the teachings of Christ that antedate their conversion or lay outside their personal experiences (e.g., the Transfiguration in Matthew 17), such information was learned through other eyewitnesses or by research. Tradition states that John knew the other three Gospels and decided to give a different viewpoint. Mark and Luke were not apostles, so they did not have direct knowledge of what they wrote. Papias indicates that Mark "had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15-16) but based his Gospel on Peter's reminiscences. His Gospel, therefore, reflects Peter's preaching along with what Mark learned in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12, 25), where he probably had contacts with scores of eyewitnesses. Although Mark was rejected by Paul after the first missionary journey (15:36-41), he traveled with Barnabas (v. 39) and joined Paul again after his problems had been resolved (Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). He thus had ample access to eyewitnesses. Luke's reliance on eyewitnesses and his involvement with Paul gave him contacts also.

Compositional Factor Two: Oral Tradition Based in Apostolic, Eyewitness Teaching

The church's interest in Jesus' teaching. Another compositional factor in the writing of the Synoptic Gospels is oral tradition. Early in the second century, Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in the province of Asia.227 Not much is known of Papias's life beyond the comment of Irenaeus that he was "one of the His writing dates between ca. 95 and 110.229 The early date makes his works crucial; he is one of only a few early witnesses. Papias indicates the highly valued position of oral tradition from the apostles or the elders:

For unlike most I did not rejoice in them who say much, but in them who teach the truth, nor in them who recount the commandments of others, but in them who repeated those given to the faith by the Lord and derived from truth itself; but if ever anyone came who had followed the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples, had said, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, the Lord's disciples, were saying. For I did not suppose that information from books would help me as much as a living and surviving voice.230

The New Testament itself indicates that oral tradition played a significant role in the early church. Jesus' Great Commission immediately commanded constant doctrinal instruction: "teaching [didaskontes] them to observe [terein] all that I commanded you" (Matt. 28:19). The present tenses of the verbs teaching and to observe probably indicate a habitual catechetical process and subsequent obedience required of converts.2"' Luke 1:2, too, refers to the traditions received from eyewitnesses of Jesus' life.

The early church repeatedly appealed to eyewitnesses of events about which they spoke (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 10:41). Acts 2:42 tells how they "continually devoted themselves to the apostles teaching" (see also 4:2; 5:25, 28, 42; 13:12; 15:35; 17:19; 18:11, 25; 20:20; 28:31). In Acts 20:35, Paul cites a teaching of Christ not recorded in the Gospels: "It is more blessed to give than to receive." The early church's choice to replace Judas with Matthias (1:21-22), Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost (2:1-24), Peter's message to Cornelius's household (10:3643), and Paul's message in Pisidian Antioch demonstrate the early church's great interest in Jesus' life. Paul distinguishes between his own words and those of Jesus: "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:10). He tells of the Lord's stipulation that laborers in the gospel should make a living from the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14; see Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7) and relates Jesus' words when instituting the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

During the early days, the apostles and eyewitnesses probably repeated Jesus' teaching orally, especially while still in Jerusalem. Constant repetition of this teaching undoubtedly became stereotyped and developed into a nucleus of material from which the Gospel writers drew. The highest percentage of literary agreement in the synoptics is in sections of triple or double tradition where Jesus' sayings are recorded. Linnemann observes that such agreement, rather than showing literary dependence, is a testimony of the remarkable reporting of the writers: "The great extent of similarity in content, and particularly the roughly 80 percent agreement in the words of Jesus, most readily shows that the writers strove for precise reporting."232 All three synoptic writers doubtless drew upon oral traditions that accumulated around Jerusalem through the repetitive preaching of the first Christians, and that repetition accounts for many agreements in wording. Drawing upon accumulated tradition does not imply that each Gospel writer could not place his own emphasis on the tradition, but it ensures similarities that indicate the early church's care in preserving the tradition.

Modern misconceptions of synoptic phenomena. Modern conceptions of the synoptic phenomena derive from Western practices in transmitting data, not from first-century practice. The Two-/FourSource and the Neo-Griesbach Hypotheses reflect how the modern mind thinks of only written ways to preserve data. The modern Western mind gives less attention to memorization and the remarkable ability of a trained mind to preserve accurately large blocks of oral data. Therefore, a weakness in modern concepts of synoptic phenomena stems from a failure to consider the Jewish milieu of the Gospels and how data were preserved then.

Birger Gerhardsson and Harald Riesenfeld have stated a compelling case for extensive oral tradition as a basis for the Gospels. They do so because of a Jewish culture around the time of the Gospels' composition that developed the written and oral Torah and facilitated amazing feats of memorization. Gerhardsson's thesis simply summarized is that "Jewish piety, as it is seen during the centuries around the beginning of the Christian era, has been appropriately characterized as torah-centric. The people of the Covenant knew that they had the incomparable privilege of being entrusted with God's holy Torah... , the source of Life and Salvation."233 This realization of privilege produced among the Jews an amazing desire to preserve not only the written Torah as expressed in the Old Testament but also the oral interpretation of that law, or oral Torah, because "[i]n its widest meaning, the term Torah is used as a collective designation for the whole of the authoritative, sacred tradition (doctrine); not merely that which is codified in sacred Scripture, but also that which is carried forward in sacred oral tradition .11114 During the Rabbinical period around the time of the writing of the Gospels, this oral tradition was painstakingly passed on with zeal equal to that for the Written Torah. The Oral Torah, or "tradition of the elders," was also preserved by highly developed school systems in Palestine. Because the Oral Torah could not be written down, the Jews developed various devices for its meticulous preservation, including mnemonic devices, methods of repetition, and means to counteract forgetfulness.235 The devices were remarkably effective in light of the Oral Law's complexity, extremely large size, and diversity of forms. It was passed on carefully from the mouth of the teacher to the disciple.23'

That cultural milieu forms the model for the early church's preservation of its traditions regarding Jesus. Gerhardsson argued, "Jesus exercised his ministry, and the early Church developed, in a milieu in which tradition was known and recognized for what it was.... As early as the oldest preserved documents of the young church, the epistles of Paul, of which the majority were written in the fifties, we see that the early church had a tradition (paradosis) which was regarded as authoritative.""' Accordingly, this Jewish system of memorization provided a paradigm for the early church.

Jesus, the apostles, and others in the early church were raised in this system. As an itinerant teacher, Jesus would have required that at least His closest followers memorize His sayings (e.g., John 14:15, 21, 23-26; 15:7, 10, 14). Thus, the beginnings of gospel tradition lie with Jesus Himself. Riesenfeld argues, "In the Gospels we are shown very clearly that Jesus was a teacher, and especially in his relation to his disciples.... He gave them instruction, and in this we are reminded, mutatis mutandis, of the method of the Jewish rabbi. And this implies that Jesus made his disciples, above all the Twelve, learn, and furthermore that he made them learn by heart! 1211

The early church would also have recognized the importance of Jesus' words and deeds because they viewed Him as more than an earthly teacher; they recognized Him as someone superior to Moses and all other channels of revelation (e.g., Heb. 1:1-3; 3:1-4:13). As Riesenfeld notes, "The words of Jesus and the reports of his deeds and his life, although originally transmitted by mouth, were conceived from a very early date to be the New Torah, and hence as the word of God of the new, eschatological He adds, "It is significant that the original NT designation for the gospel tradition was not euangelion-this word stands for its missionary appeal-but logos and logos theou-terms which correspond with the names current in Judaism for `Holy Jesus entrusted His words to His disciples, commanding them to make disciples and teach all nations what they had been taught (Matt. 28:19-20). The disciples passed on Jesus' words about His messianic consciousness, the significance of His person, and the rules of conduct for the community.241

After the Ascension, the apostles not only gave their eyewitness testimony to the deeds of Jesus but also interpreted the Word authoritatively. Thus, the Gospel writers could base their work on "a fixed, distinct tradition from, and about Jesus-a tradition which was partly memorized and partly written down in notebooks and private The oral tradition eventually was written in the form of the Gospels, emulating the written Torah of the Jews and reflecting the greater revelation through Messiah Jesus.

Hints of this Jewish model of tradition exist in the NT epistles. Gerhardsson summarizes,

According to Paul, the church possesses a normative standard which he refers to as "tradition" or "traditions" (paradosis, paradoseis, 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). The manner in which this is passed on is expressed in the verbs paradidonai, `hand over' (tradition), and paralambanein, "receive" (as tradition), 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1, 3; Gal. 1:9; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 3:6. The young Christian congregations are to "maintain" or "hold fast to," or "uphold" these traditions; the verbs used are, among others, kratein (2 Thess. 2:15), katechein (1 Cor. 11:2), and hestekenai (1 Cor. 15:1).243

Such catechetical instruction is different from historical-critical concepts of tradition criticism, being anchored especially in apostolic and other eyewitnesses who constantly checked the accuracy of the transmission. The main repository of that teaching was the apostles and other eyewitnesses, not a later, nebulous "Christian community" who lived long after the events in the Gospels. The Gospels reflect, either directly (Matthew and John) or indirectly (Mark and Luke), the eyewitness teaching of the apostles, as they wrote down those traditions. The Gospels did not result from a gradually evolving story that developed over a long period. They reflect a stable tradition of the life of Christ as it happened. Contrary to form-critical speculation, the Gospel traditions are anchored in carefully transmitted history, based partly but not exclusively upon oral tradition.

Compositional Factor Three: Short Written Accounts

The probability of brief written sources. Although oral tradition partially explains Gospel origins, short written accounts probably existed very early alongside oral tradition, accounting for synoptic material. The prologue of Luke's Gospel indicates that Luke was aware that many others had composed written accounts: ".. . inasmuch as many [polloi] have undertaken [epecheiresan] to compile [anataxasthai] an account [diegesin] of the things accomplished among us" (Luke 1: 1). The term diegesin, a "narrative account," was often used of historical writing in classical and Hellenistic Greek literature.244 Also, Luke's use of anataxasthai, "to compile," points toward something in written form.245 Luke traces the origin of these narratives to "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (Luke 1:2). Although Two-/Four-Source proponents include the Gospel of Mark or Q among these sources'246 the documents produced by the "many" (polloi) possibly included not only longer works on the life of Jesus but also short written accounts. The term anataxasthai does not lend itself to a source consisting of a compilation of sayings such as Q. It most likely points to a connected series of narratives in topical or chronological order.247 The eyewitnesses on whom Luke relied as sources did not include the "many" who had previously undertaken to compile accounts because he uses a term with a slight pejorative force to describe their undertaking, epecheiresan, in Luke 1:1.24" He was not including Matthew or Mark among those earlier efforts because he would not have deprecated other canonical books through the use of such a term.

In Jewish practice of the day, especially in rabbinic circles, disciples kept private notes of their rabbinical instruction. Gerhardsson relates, "There is a good deal of evidence that the majority of Jesus' disciples came, not from some Jewish sect, but from the mainstream of Judaism: from the section of the people which looked to the learned Pharisees as its teachers and spiritual leaders.... [J]ust as the Rabbis' pupils had their own private notes.... so they began within the Church to write down parts of the tradition concerning Christ in the same way."249 Furthermore, the apostle Matthew held a position in Roman civil service as a tax collector, a position that demanded education and ability."' Gundry, a supporter of the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis, accepts short written accounts stemming from apostolic origin:

[T]he Apostle Matthew was a note-taker during the earthly ministry of Jesus.... [H]is notes provided the basis for the bulk of the apostolic gospel tradition.... Shorthand was used possibly as early as the fourth century B. C. and certainly by Jesus time.... Thus, from both the Hellenistic side and the Judaistic side, it is wholly plausible to suppose that one from the apostolic band was a note-taker--especially since the relationship of Jesus to his disciples was that of a teacher, or rabbi, to his pupils."'

The combination of exacting oral tradition and short written accounts helped not only to ensure the accuracy of the Gospels' records of events and sayings but also to provide a reasonable explanation of why the synoptics have extensive agreement among themselves.

The argument from order not valid. A dependency response to this agreement in content might be that oral and written sources can explain some agreements, but how does literary independence explain general agreement in narrative sequence of all three Gospels? This response is known as the argument from order. Long ago, Wrede commented, "[T]he strength of the Markan hypothesis really lies in the fact that the sequence of the narratives in Mark underlies the sequence in Matthew and Luke"252 Streeter employed this argument from order in defense of his Four-Source Hypothesis: "The relative order of incidents and sections in Mark is in general supported by both Matthew and Luke; where either of them deserts Mark, the other is usually found supporting him" 253

Neo-Griesbach advocates contend that the argument from order instead supports the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Farmer contends, "The phenomena of agreement and disagreement in the respective order and content of material in each of the Synoptic Gospels constitute a category of literary phenomena that is more readily explicable on the hypothesis that places Mark third and Matthew and Luke before him than on any alternative.""'

The Independence View response to the argument from order has several observations. First, Streeter's now-famous argument actually is a hasty generalization that begs the question, that is, it assumes what it is trying to prove. Stoldt, a proponent of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, observed, "[N]owhere 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.... Insofar as all three do not coincide, the parallelism of one of them to Mark ceases as soon as it begins with the other."255

Second, if the argument from order is so fluid that both Two-/FourSource advocates and Two-Gospel proponents can tailor the statistics to "prove" their case, the argument is highly subjective, and the validity of the argument is seriously questionable.

Third, even proponents of dependency admit that Streeter's classical arguments, like the one from order, are dubious. Tuckett, a staunch advocate of the Two-/Four-Source Hypothesis, has admitted that "contemporary debate [on the synoptic problem] has highlighted the weak and inconclusive nature of some of the arguments that have been used to promote the Two-Source theory." He directly refers this admission to the argument from order.256

Fourth, Linnemann, after careful analysis of Mark's pericopes and content, made the following important statistically summarized observations:

According to my reckoning, based on Kurt Aland's Conspectus locorum parallelorum evangeliourum, 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!

Of these fifty-eight sections, no fewer than twenty-one (36.21 percent) relate to Christ's death and resurrection-more than one-third, although passion and resurrection narratives in Mark amount to a total of just twenty-four units out of 115, or 20.87 percent. Of the twenty-four sections relating to the passion and resurrection in Mark, twenty-one occur in the same sequence in all the Synoptics (87.50 percent).

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 thirtyseven sections appear in the same sequence among ninetyone 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.25'

Linnemann admits that similarities in narrative sequence between Mark and Matthew and Mark and Luke are considerably greater than the similarities in all three synoptics.2S8 She observes, however, that such figures are based on material common to both Gospels, calculated from the standpoint of Mark. If the Gospel of Matthew rather than Mark were the standard, the common narrative sequence between Matthew and Mark is less than half or 48.88 percent. If it were Luke, the percentage is 43.55.259 Such recalibrated figures make it dubious that Mark furnished the framework for Matthew and Luke.

Fifth, the most reasonable explanation of the common order at times in the synoptics is that all three reflect the core apostolic teaching that was being circulated and that surrounded the sayings and deeds of Jesus during the period after His ascension. The core apostolic teaching was anchored in the historical events of Jesus' life, and all three synoptics reflect the core as stabilized through memorization and short written narratives. Thus, all three Gospels worked from an order dictated by tradition and agreed upon by eyewitnesses to Christ's life. Variation would naturally occur in transmission under such conditions, with such variation being exhibited in the synoptics.

Agreements and disagreements in order and content are most reasonably explained by historical sequence, that is, the Synoptic Gospels convey a report of what Jesus said and did historically. One would naturally expect extensive agreement in narrative sequence in that historical reportage. Similarities in narrative order do not prove dependency hypotheses, nor are they as extensive as is commonly supposed. As Linnemann argues, "Common sequence in narrative by no means necessitates the use of the same literary source; it can also arise when several persons independently report the same succession of events."260

Historical-critical theology has either totally ignored such a position or dismissed it as uncritical. Such a dismissal, however, stems not only from extreme prejudice against the historicity of the Gospels but also from an assumption of literary dependence.

The argument from parenthetical material not valid. In arguing for a common written source, Stein argues, "One of the most persuasive arguments for the literary interdependence of the synoptic Gospels is the presence of identical parenthetical material, for it is highly unlikely that two or three writers would by coincidence insert into their accounts exactly the same editorial comment at exactly the same place ."261 His strongest case rests on "let the reader understand" in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 as a "most impressive agreement between Matthew and Mark. 1262 He also cites several other passages to bolster his case.263

Several considerations nullify Stein's "parenthetical material" argument. He begs the question by assuming literary dependency and reading the text to fit his assumption. For example, in Matthew 24:15 = Mark 13:14 the phrase "let the reader understand" is not the Gospel writers' editorial comment but Jesus' comment that readers of Daniel should understand the meaning of Daniel's writing. Even Gundry, a Two-Source Hypothesis advocate, understands the phrase as Jesus' words, not side remarks of an author.2M If this be so, both Gospel writers faithfully recorded Jesus' words rather than one copying a parenthetical remark from another.

Also, sometimes Stein's examples lend themselves to explanations other than literary dependency. For instance, statements like "he said to the paralytic" (Matt. 9:6 = Mark 2:10 = Luke 5:24) flow naturally in the story and are necessary to clarify the narrative. In that passage, Jesus perceived the thoughts of His critics and addressed them first ("Why do you think evil in your hearts?") and then shifted to address the paralytic. The comment "he said to the paralytic" is necessary to clarify the shift in persons addressed. Such side comments occur naturally as eyewitnesses recounted the story of how Jesus addressed His critics and then spoke to the paralytic. If that is the way it happened, literary dependence is unnecessary.

In parenthetical passages listed by Stein, wording in parallel passages differs. Although Matthew 9:6 = Mark 2:10, for instance, agree with "he said [historical present] to the paralytic," Matthew added the temporal adverb then that is absent in Mark, and Luke used the past tense said and a participle rather than a noun to refer to the paralytic. Such variations, rather than occurring from one Gospel writer's copying another writer's work, bolster the explanation of a naturally occurring editorial phrase resulting from accurate narration by eyewitnesses as they independently retold the event .211

None of the examples cited by Stein constitutes clear evidence for dependency. Closer examination reveals that other explanations are likely. Terming these explanations "side comments" or "parenthetical material" begs the question by assuming the conclusion to be proven. Random combinations of agreement and disagreement argue for literary independence, not dependency.

The existence of Aramaic versus Greek tradition. Another argument against the Gospel writers' using short written accounts from apostolic sources is that Jesus and the disciples usually spoke Aramaic, not Greek. In Matthew 16:13-18, for example, the evidence points to Jesus' using an Aramaic pun in referring to Peter as the rock (= Mark 8:27-30 = Luke 9:18-21; see "Cephas" in John 1:42; 1 Cor. 15:5; Gal. 1:18).266 This pun demonstrates that oral and written tradition would have existed in Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek. The differing languages create a necessity for dependency among the Gospels to explain common literary phenomena in Greek.

Such an argument, however, is not substantial. First, by the time of the New Testament, Judaism and Hellenism had experienced considerable interpenetration. This interpenetration is evident in the terminology of the New Testament. The Jewish institution of the Sanhedrin, for instance, derived its name from the Greek word synedrion, thus indicating the Greek influence in the heart of Palestinian Judaism."' Tesephta Sota XV 322.6 relates, "Permission was given to the House of Rabban Gamaliel to teach their children Greek owing to their relation with the (Roman) government." The Babylonian Talmud Sota 49b quotes Rabbi Simeon as saying, "There were a thousand young men in my father's house, five hundred of whom studied the Law, while the other five hundred studied Greek wisdom."

Second, studies indicate that Jesus' language environment was not exclusively Aramaic but also included considerable use of Greek .261 Gundry reasoned, "[W]e can be sure that the tradition about Jesus was expressed from the very first in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.... We cannot naively work on the assumption that everything was originally in Aramaic, that we should seek Aramaic equivalents wherever possible, and that wherever Aramaic equivalents cannot be traced we must reject authenticity."269 Jesus, living in the town of Nazareth in Galilee, where Gentiles who spoke Greek dominated, probably was familiar with Greek His whole life. Peter, Andrew, James, and John needed Greek to sell their fish in Gentile markets of Galilee. These circumstances, coupled with the missionary emphasis of the gospel, ensured that both the oral and the written messages were in the lingua franca (i.e., Greek) of the civilized world as well as in Aramaic. As Argyle notes, "If Jesus and his disciples were as familiar with Greek as with Aramaic, the transition from the oral Aramaic stage to the Greek literary stage would have been natural and easy."271

Third, an increasing number of scholars argue that Greek was the primary language spoken in Israel in the time of, and perhaps even in the ministry of, Jesus. Porter comments,

The arguments for this position rest firmly on the role of Greek as the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, the linguistic and cultural character of lower Galilee during the first century, the linguistic fact that the NT has been transmitted in Greek from its earliest documents, a diversity of epigraphic evidence, significant literary evidence, and several significant contexts in the Gospels that give plausibility to this hypothesis. Whereas no contemporary scholar would probably argue that Jesus spoke only in Greek, a number of scholars have argued in various ways that Greek was in widespread use by upwards of the majority of Jews in the multilingual society of firstcentury Palestine and, therefore, may well have been a language of Jesus at least on occasion.271

The history of the early church reveals that, although the apostles and eyewitnesses may have spoken Aramaic, contacts with the Hellenistic environment in Israel would have compelled them to know Greek as well. James, for example, the half brother of Jesus and the head of the Jerusalem church, wrote a Jewish epistle that bears his name, but his style of writing reflected literary Koine.272 Because of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) and the increased Jewish hostility toward the Messiah (e.g., Acts 8:1), the church quickly moved outside Jerusalem into the Hellenistic cultural environment. Moreover, Hellenized Jews were a significant group even in Jerusalem (6:1-6). These circumstances, as well as changing situations, necessitated that tradition-both oral and written-be preserved predominately in Greek with Aramaic being quickly eclipsed as dominant in the early church as the focus switched from Jewish to universal proclamation among Gentiles.

The agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. Another factor in literary dependency is the approximately 230 agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark.27 Advocates of the Two-Source Hypothesis, such as Streeter, have labeled these agreements as "minor," "deceptive," "completely baseless," and "irrelevant" in that they "do not require any explanation at all."274 In contrast, Neo-Griesbach advocates, such as Farmer, recognize that these agreements have great significance.275 Although both hypotheses have battled over the significance of these agreements, the agreements of two Gospels against one in all three combinations has received scant attention. A scanning of Farmer's Synopticon reveals two agreeing against one in all possible alignments: Matthew and Luke against Mark, Matthew and Mark against Luke, Luke and Mark against Matthew.276 Although the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark may be sufficient to dislodge Markan priority, they are not sufficient to establish the primacy of Matthew over Mark and Luke, as advocated by the 2GH. Two-Source advocates have downplayed their significance, and Neo-Griesbach advocates have made too much of them. If the three Gospels agree or disagree with each other in any combination, no Gospel can be superior.

Admitting the phenomenon of agreements of any two synoptics against the third, Farmer writes, "[11f there are agreements between Matthew and Mark against Luke, and Matthew and Luke against Mark, and Luke and Mark against Matthew, then none of these ... hypotheses is valid that does not allow for direct literary dependence among all three..""' The preceding statement reflects, however, the prejudice of assuming literary dependency. The phenomenon of varying combinations of agreements and disagreements is readily explainable under literary independence but not under any form of dependency.

All three synoptic writers worked from stereotyped oral tradition and short written sources, readily explaining such agreements of two against one. Literary dependence cannot explain such relationships. For example, the pericope of the healing of the paralytic that occurs in triple tradition (Matt. 9:1-8 = Mark 2:1-12 = Luke 5:17-26) has approximately nineteen agreements of omissions and inclusions of Matthew and Luke against Mark, twenty-four agreements of omission and inclusion of Mark and Luke against Matthew, and seventeen agreements of omission and inclusion of Matthew and Luke against Mark.27' Pitting two Gospels against another yields the same results in other pericopes, eliminating the claim that one Gospel is literarily ascendant in terms of dependency. The simplest solution is also the best: all three writers worked from shared, common traditions that at times closely agreed and at other times differed, especially as the eyewitnesses added their personal perspectives to the accounts.

Compositional Factor Four: Interpersonal Contacts Between Apostles

In all probability, Matthew, Mark, and Luke had personal contacts with each other; therefore, the writers had ample opportunities to exchange information about the life of Christ, especially during the early days of the church in Jerusalem (e.g., Acts 1:13-14; 2:43-47; 4:3235). Such personal contacts eliminate the need to account for the phenomena through post-Enlightenment concepts of literary dependence.

No details are known about Matthew's career. Acts 12:12 indicates that Matthew was frequently in the home of Mark because the disciples met there. Matthew's early life around Jerusalem most likely would have brought him into contact with John and Mark.

Luke would have been acquainted with John Mark because Colossians 4:10, 14 and Philemon 24 say that Luke and John Mark were with Paul in Rome; both were with Paul during his first Roman imprisonment (ca. A.D. 60-62). Also, the "we" sections of Acts (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16), if understood to show Luke's participation in Paul's ministry, would have provided Luke ample opportunity for contact with apostles, other eyewitnesses, and the core proclamation of the early church (Acts 21:1-26, 28). Luke and Mark were the mainstays for Paul during his final days before martyrdom (2 Tim. 4:11, 13).

The preceding circumstantial evidence does not prove conclusively that the authors conferred with each other, but the evidence does make it highly plausible that they would have known a common, core tradition-both written and oral-prevalent in the first-century church. Their exchange of information and personal contacts with eyewitnesses best explains the synoptic phenomena.

Compositional Factor Five: Inspiration of the Holy Spirit

The uniqueness of the Gospels as divinely inspired documents. The Independence View explains the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels, recalling that the sources were eyewitnesses who, in many cases, reproduced the exact wording of dialogues with and sermons by Jesus. Of ultimate importance in this connection is that their memories received stimulation through the Holy Spirit's guidance in accord with Jesus' promises to the disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" and "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come" (John 14:26; 16:13 NASB).

The factuality and accuracy of the Gospels stem from their uniqueness as divinely inspired documents-as God-breathed as well as Godguided documents. No other documents in ancient historiography share this characteristic, making the synoptics qualitatively different from any other document. They thus enjoy an exclusive position. The divine factor so overshadowed the human factor that the accuracy of the Gospels is ensured.

Wrong assumptions produce wrong concepts. Attempts to draw parallels to the Gospels from other ancient historiography are tenuous and ignore the unique position of the Gospels as divinely inspired. Evangelical Darrell Bock, for example, defends his view of the Gospels' limited accuracy by citing the work of the ancient historian Thucydides (fifth century B.c.) as a model of ancient historiography. In History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22.1, Thucydides wrote,

As to the speeches that were made by different men, either when they were about to begin the war or when they were already engaged therein, it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself heard, and for those who from various other sources have brought me reports. Therefore the speeches are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration, the sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.279

Bock argues, "[T]he Greek standard of reporting speeches required a concern for accuracy in reporting the gist of what has been said, even if the exact words were not remembered or recorded. The ancients also recognized an author's right to summarize and bring out the contemporary force of a speaker's remarks. In other words, the historian sought to report and edify.""' He continues, "This tradition became a standard for Greco-Roman history.... This procedure sounds much like that cited by Luke in 1:1-4. The Evangelists were able to search out what Jesus said and did because they had access to people and communities who had been exposed to Jesus or his intimate followers.""' For Bock, "The Gospels give us the true gist of his teaching and central thrust of his message" because they are patterned after such ancient historiography.282

Several replies to Bock's hypothesis are in order. First, Bock's position, citing Thucydides as a pattern for the Gospels, is precarious. The Gospel writers claim Spirit-energized memories; Thucydides did not. Although Thucydides might have forgotten and was summarizing, the Gospel writers were supernaturally assisted in a way different from anyone else. Their writings are thus in a qualitatively different class. As a result, in a pattern different from any other in the ancient world, they reflect Jesus' teaching and activities more accurately.

Second, the pattern for historiography in the Gospels is not so much Thucydides but, as Gerhardsson and Riesenfeld argued, the Jewish practice of precise oral and written tradition. Bock thus uses the wrong paradigm. Although Luke was a Gentile who wrote in a more literary style, the sources of his information were accurate and precise because he drew from eyewitness tradition based upon Jewish apostles.

Third, Bock commits an error similar to that of Ladd, who emphasizes equally divine and human elements in inspiration. The result of that position is a standard of accuracy for the Gospels that is not qualitatively different from other ancient documents. Would not the Holy Spirit, who directly energized the minds of the writers, have caused the Gospel writers to display a greater level of accuracy than that evident in any other document? In inspiration, the Holy Spirit so overshadowed the human element as to ensure the supernatural accuracy of the Gospels.

Fourth, Bock's assertion of the "true gist" and "central thrust" of Jesus' words in the Gospels smacks of liberalism, especially as reflected by the Jesus Seminar, which contends that one must search for the historical Jesus because only the "gist" and "central thrust" are present in the Gospels. Bock's position leaves unanswered the degree to which the "gist" and "central thrust" in the many sayings of Jesus were reported in the Gospels. The question of degree forces evangelicals to assign different levels of accuracy to Jesus' words. Surely, those who advocate inerrancy and verbal inspiration of the Bible should maintain the orthodox position that Jesus' sayings and deeds are recorded with highest accuracy in the Gospels.

Divine inspiration: a rejected factor in dependency hypotheses. As was catalogued earlier, the Neo-Griesbach and the Two-/FourSource Hypotheses arose at a time when the inspiration of the Gospels was being rejected. R. H. Lightfoot, who formed the bridge between form and redaction criticism, acknowledged as much: "[T]he priority of St. Mark was discovered just at the time when the Bible was losing its age-long position and prestige as the infallible book, the complete and final word of God, the absolute organ of religious truth.... It chanced, however, that, just as this belief began to crumble, the discovery was made that among the four Gospels one was quite definitely on a superior historical level ."'8' Thus, dependency hypotheses arose as companions of the abandonment of plenary, verbal inspiration of the Gospels.

Conclusion

The Independence View is qualitatively different from both the TwoDocument and the Neo-Griesbach Hypotheses. Three important characteristics highlight these differences.

First, literary independence represents the historic, orthodox position of the church-that the Gospels are three apostolic, eyewitness accounts to the life of the Savior. Its historical roots lie in early church history and represent the exclusive belief regarding Gospel origins throughout church history until the rise of philosophical ideologies such as rationalism, deism, and the Enlightenment. In contrast, dependency hypotheses are the product of philosophical presuppositions that are hostile to both Gospel origins and concepts of biblical inspiration and authority; hence, dependency hypotheses are not methodological but ideological approaches. Echoing Spinoza, dependency hypotheses do not seek understanding of the Gospel texts as they were intended to be understood; rather, they seek to explain away the plain meaning of the text.

Second, the Independence View takes seriously the evidence of early church history regarding Gospel origins, operating under the axiom that those closest to the events related in the Gospels had accurate information regarding how the Gospels originated, instead of mere conjectures posited in later rationalistic hypotheses. Dependency hypotheses, then, originated through modern antipathy toward and rejection of evidence from church history.

Third, the Independence View associates itself with the plenary, verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Gospels. All three synoptics are viewed as equally inspired, with none being preferred over the others. Moreover, the Independence Approach associates itself with grammatical-historical hermeneutics and traditional harmonization that stems from the authority and accuracy of the Gospels. In contrast, dependency hypotheses are linked to modern views of errancy and views of either partial inspiration or noninspiration of the Gospels. Tacitly or explicitly, one Gospel is preferred as the historical source of another. Moreover, dependency hypotheses promote rationalistic forms of interpretation such as form-critical suppositions and redactional hermeneutics. As a result, the adoption of dependency hypotheses inevitably leads evangelicals to some degree of deprecation of both the Gospels' inspiration and their historicity and accuracy.

One must hold either to a normative view of inspiration that upholds the orthodox position of divine superintendence of the documents and become a proponent of the Independence View or to literarydependency theories and abandon a normative view of inspiration. No middle ground exists. The credibility of the Gospels is at stake. The church's contact with her Lord is through His Word, the Gospels. If evangelicals continue this unrelenting march toward embracing historical-critical ideologies, the historical foundations of the Gospels will be lost to the evangelical church. Only the Independence View provides the necessary safeguards and reflects the orthodox approach to Gospel origins.

Endnotes

1. George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 115. Because Ladd is viewed as having the greatest influence on the current generation of evangelical Bible scholars, this chapter will use him as an example of the current drift toward historical-critical ideologies.

2. Ibid., 116.

3. Ibid., 127.

4. See Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, eds., The Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998); Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990); idem, Is There a Synoptic Problem? trans. Robert W. Yarbrough (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).

5. For details of her conversion, see Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible, 20.

6. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 45.

7. Ibid., 10.

8. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 11; see also F. David Farnell, "The Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism," in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 85-131; Norman L. Geisler, ed., Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981); idem, "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 42 (March 1999): 3-19.

9. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 11.

10. Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible, I1 1.

11. See Farnell, "Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism," 117.

12. Ladd, New Testament and Criticism, 40-41.

13. Ibid., 40.

14. Ibid., 141, 168-69.

15. Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible, 29, 39.

16. Ladd, New Testament and Criticism, 13, 18.

17. George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 248-49.

18. Ibid. A review article by Norman Perrin was especially critical of Ladd. See Norman Perrin, "Against the Current," review of Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism, by George Eldon Ladd, Interpretation 19 (April 1965): 228-31. See also Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, 250.

19. Perrin, "Against the Current," 230.

20. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, 250.

21. Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 76; see Gerhard Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 19 n. 33.

22. Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 76-77.

23. Nils Dahl, "The Problem of the Historical Jesus," in Kerygma and History: A Symposium on the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Roy A. Harrisville (New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 156; cf. also R. S. Barbour, Traditio-Historical Criticism of'the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1972), 6.

24. David Laird Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 171-76, 198-260.

25. Ibid., 199.

26. Ibid., 172.

27. Ibid., 174, cf. 171.

28. Ibid., 361.

29. Henning Graf Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 412.

30. Ibid., 1.

31. Ibid., 4, 6.

32. Colin Brown, Christianity and Western Thought, vol. 1, From the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1990), 24; cf. idem, Jesus in Protestant European Thought, 1778-1860 (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1985), 29-55; Farnell, "Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism," 117.

33. Francis A. Schaeffer, Trilogy, bk. 1, The God Who Is There (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 7.

34. See Farnell, "Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism," 85-86, 117.

35. Geisler, "Beware of Philosophy," 3, 14.

36. Robert L. Thomas, "Epilogue," to The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 379.

37. Norman L. Geisler, "Inductivism, Materialism, and Rationalism: Bacon, Hobbes, and Spinoza," Biblical Errancy, An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 10.

38. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 19-20.

39. See Farnell, "The Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism"; and idem "Form and Tradition Criticism," in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 11013, 187-89.

40. See F. David Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church: A Testimony to the Priority of Matthew's Gospel," The Master's Seminary Journal 10 (spring 1999): 53-86; Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, eds., "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," in The Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 37-84.

41. George Kennedy, "Classical and Christian Source Criticism," in The Relationship Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. William O. Walker Jr. (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978), 147.

42. W. R. Farmer, ed., "Introduction," to New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Conference and Beyond (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), xxiii.

43. Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987), 111.

44. See W. R. Farmer, ed., "The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy," in New Synoptic Studies (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 17-35.

45. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, with an English translation by Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library Series (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), 1:297 (emphasis added). All quotes from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History are from the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise indicated.

46. A. C. Perumalil, "Are Not Papias and Irenaeus Competent to Report on the Gospels?" Expository Times 91 (August 1980): 332-37, elaborates on Papias's and Irenaeus's scholarly competence.

47. Edouard Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, trans. Norman J. Belval and Suzanne Hecht, ed. Arthur J. Bellinzoni, 3 vols. (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1993), 3:186-87.

48. C. Steward Petrie, "The Authorship of `The Gospel According to Matthew': A Reconsideration of the External Evidence," New Testament Studies 14 (1967-1968): 15.

49. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.11.1-2.

50. Ibid., 5.11.3-4; Clement Stromateis 1.1.1.11; see also J. Stevenson, The New Eusebius, rev. W. H. C. Freud (London: SPCK, 1987). 180 (Stromateis 1.1.11.1-3; Ecclesiastical History 5.11.3-5).

51. W. R. Farmer, ed., "The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy," in New Synoptic Studies (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 7.

52. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7; Clement, Hypotyposeis 6. The quotation comes from Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Volume II, trans. J. E. L. Oulton, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 46-59.

53. Admittedly, Clement's words may allow for Luke to be written first, but because Luke is never mentioned in any other writings of the early Fathers as being written first and never placed first in any canonical list, Clement's words find special importance for the priority of Matthew as the first Gospel written.

54. For information from others, see Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 39-58.

55. Giuseppe Fiov. Gamba, "A Further Reexamination of Evidence from Early Tradition," in New Synoptic Studies, ed. W. R. Farmer (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 21 n. 10. For further discussion of other ancient documents that support Clement's tradition, see ibid., 21-29.

56. Orchard and Riley, The Order of the Synoptics, Why Three Synoptic Gospels? 1 11; see also Thomas and Famell, Jesus Crisis, chap. 2.

57. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 28; D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 70-71; R. T. France, Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 34-38; Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations, vol. 1 of The Four Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 139-60, 225.

58. Massaux, Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3:188.

59. Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, Mark, vol. 2 of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998), xxix.

60. See Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 58-75.

61. Wayne A. Meeks, "Hypomnemata from an Untamed Septic: A Response to George Kennedy," in The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. William O. Walker Jr. (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978), 170-71.

62. For further evidence, see "Part 2: The Independence of the Gospels," in Thomas and Famell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 52-72.

63. John Chrysostom, Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel According to St. Matthew 1.5-6 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [NPNF], 10:3). For further evidence of literary independence, see "Part 2: The Independence of the Gospels," in Thomas and Farnell, "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church," 57-77.

64. John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1, trans. A. W. Morrison, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972 ), 82.

65. Grant R. Osborne, "Historical Criticism: A Brief Response to Robert Thomas's `Other View,"' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 (March 2000): 113.

66. See L. Berkhof, New Testament Introduction (or Special Canonics), limited ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans-Sevensma, 1915), 40; see also 33-42.

67. Ibid., 40, 52.

68. Ibid., 41.

69. Ibid., 42.

70. Henry C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943).

71. Ibid., 102-18.

72. Ibid., 110.

73. Ibid., 112-14.

74. Ibid., 115.

75. Ibid., 117.

76. Ibid., 110-18 (esp. 117).

77. Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible, 17-18.

78. Ibid., 20.

79. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 15.

80. Ibid., 19-42.

81. Ibid., 152.

82. Ibid., 158-59.

83. Ibid., 178.

84. Robert G. Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), 54-59; Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey, rev. Walter M. Dunnett (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 139-45; idem, The Genius of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 19-37, 41-42.

85. Gromacki, New Testament Survey, 55.

86. Ibid., 59.

87. Tenney, New Testament Survey, 145.

88. Tenney, Genius of the Gospels, 27, 42.

89. Jacob Van Bruggen, Christ on Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 151-52.

90. Ibid., 154.

91. Ibid., 85.

92. Ibid., 18; see also 18-23, 84-85.

93. John M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 106-7.

94. Ibid., 95.

95. Ibid., 108.

96. Ibid.

97. Thomas R. W. Longstaff, review of On the Independence of'Matthew and Mark, by John M. Rist, Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 100 (March 1981): 127-30.

98. David Hill, review of On the Independence of Matthew and Mark, by John M. Rist, Scottish Journal of Theology 32 (1979): 584.

99. John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), xxiii.

100. Ibid., xxiii.

101. Bo Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

102. Ibid., 150-89.

103. Ibid., 180-81.

104. Thomas, "Epilogue," to The Jesus Crisis, 379.

105. Although not all advocates of the Independence View cited herein would necessarily agree with every essential element and axiom listed in this chapter, these elements nevertheless have been historically, as well as characteristically, associated with it.

106. Thomas, "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical," 108.

107. For a comparison of individuals involved in each area, see Farnell, "Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism," 86; Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 9-15, 19-42; Geisler, Biblical Errancy, 7-237; Norman L. Geisler, "Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Errancy," Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 307-34.

108. Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, 345.

109. Brown, Christianity and Western Thought, vol. 1, From theAncient World to the Enlightenment, 214.

110. The work was written in Latin, Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (1789-1790, republished with additions in 1794).

111. Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, 322.

112. Colin Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 1778-1860 (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1985), 8.

113. Forrest Baird, "Schaeffer's Intellectual Roots," in Reflections on Francis Schaeffer, ed. Ronald W. Ruegsegger (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 147.

114. The German reads: "Das N.T. muB erklaret werden, wie jedes alte Buch erklart wird" (Johann Jacob Griesbach, Vorlesungen fiber die Hermeneutik des N.T. mit Anwendung auf die Leidens-und Auferstehungsgescichte Christi, ed. Herausgeben von Johann and Carl Samuel Steiner [Nurnberg: Zehschen Buchhandlung, 1815], 53).

115. Griesbach's comment is "Die Genauigkeit, besonders bei den N.T. Scriftststellem, fehlt oft" (Griesbach, Vorlesungen, 139).

116. Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, 312; Baird, "Schaeffer's Intellectual Roots," 140.

117. Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, 313.

118. Gerhard Delling, "Johann Jakob Griesbach: His Life, Work and Times," J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976, 11.

119. Cited in Delling, "Johann Jakob Griesbach: His Life, Work and Times," 11.

120. Griesbach, Demonstration That Mark, 135.

121. See Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, 318-19.

122. Norman Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 5-6.

123. Edwin A. Abbott, "Gospels," in Encyclopaedia Britannica (reprint of 1879 article) (Chicago: R. S. Peale, 1892), 10:801-2.

124. See Farmer's discussion, Synoptic Problem, 25-26, 178-79.

125. See William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, trans. J. C. G. Greig (Cambridge and London: James Clarke, 1971).

126. See Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Collier/ Macmillan, 1968), 330-3 1.

127. Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? 7.

128. Ibid., 13.

129. Ladd, New Testament and Criticism, 141.

130. Ibid., 148.

131. McKnight, What Is Form Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 2.

132. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 195.

133. Ladd, New Testament and Criticism, 116.

134. Ibid., 116-17.

135. Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971 [1964]), 153.

136. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, 127.

137. Ibid., 121.

138. Ibid., 118.

139. Robert Henry Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1934), 10, 12.

140. Etienne Gilson, The Unity of Philosophical Experience (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), 14.

141. Cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15-16.

142. See F. David Farnell, "Form Criticism and Tradition Criticism," 216-17.

143. This guilty-until-proven-innocent bent is prevalent not only with liberal practitioners of HC but also exists among evangelicals (see Farnell, "Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism," 85-86, 117; and Geisler, "Beware of Philosophy," 3, 13-14). Evangelical Osborne denies this "burden-of-proof " charge leveled against evangelicals: "The [Jesus] Seminar considers a saying guilty until proven innocent, exactly the opposite of evangelical approaches"; "evangelicals give it [the criterion of authenticity] only a limited role"; "evangelicals are optimistic about the historicity of the Gospels" (Grant Osborne, "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical," JETS 42 [June 1999]: 196). Osborne's remarks contain, however, a tacit admission that a saying in the Gospels could be guilty of error. Wilkins remarks, "Unwittingly, in his statements, he [Osborne] admits some of the very points he so adamantly denies elsewhere in the article.... What is exactly the opposite of considering a saying guilty until proven innocent? It is considering a saying is innocent until proven guilty. He rightly faults the Jesus Seminar for being predisposed against historicity. While I'm glad he and other Evangelicals who use HC are predisposed toward historicity, I'm uncomfortable, as are Thomas and Farnell, with the fact that they find any of Jesus' words unhistorical" (RobertWilkin, review of "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical," by Grant Osborne, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 [spring 2000]: 84). The Independence View with its assertion of the inerrancy of Scripture denies the possibility of Scripture's being unhistoric.

144. Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, 322.

145. Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1986, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988)], 4.

146. Ibid., 123.

147. Jack Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 23548. Rogers and McKim use the logic of "Scottish `Common Sense' Philosophy or Realism" to attack orthodox concepts of inerrancy.

148. Wallace seems to have revived an argument similar to that of Rogers and McKim, that evangelicals maintain too exacting a concept of inerrancy: "Our modern descriptions of bibliology grow out of this [Scottish common sense and the nineteenth-century Princeton] era" (Daniel B. Wallace, "An Apologia for a Broad View of Ipsissima Vox" [unpublished paper read at 51st Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Danvers, Massachusetts, 18 November 1999], 2-3 n. 2, 18-19 n. 76).

149. Rogers and McKim's work received a number of responses, one of which was from the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy with its "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy." See Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, 285.

150. The ICBI purpose statement printed inside the front cover of the "Catalogue" of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (Oakland, Calif.: 1983).

151. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy," JETS 21 (December 1978): 292, see also 289-96.

152. Ibid., 292.

153. For multiple examples of evangelical historical critics who have denigrated the historicity of the Gospels, see Thomas, "Prologue" to The Jesus Crisis, 13-34; Farnell, "Form and Tradition Criticism," 185-232 (esp. 207-22).

154. See John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 28; see also, John D. Woodbridge, "Review Article, Biblical Authority: Towards an Evaluation of the Rogers and McKim Proposal," in Trinity Journal NS (1980): 165-236.

155. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, 28-29.

156. O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 2d ed. (Providence: Brown University, 1957); O. Neugebauer and A. Sachs, eds., Mathematical Cuneiform Texts (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1945); H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon: A Sketch of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley (New York: Hawthorne Books, 1962). See also Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, 162.

157. Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 86-88.

158. Ibid., 97.

159. Ibid., 243-44. For further details, see also Mark A. Noll, "Common Sense Traditions and American Evangelical Thought," American Quarterly 37 (summer 1985): 216-38; cp. also Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, British andAmerican Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 103-31.

160. Noll, Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, 243-44.

161. Allister McGrath, A Passion for Truth: The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism (Downers Grove, I11.: InterVarsity, 1996), 169.

162. lain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 197. For further refutation of this idea, consult John D. Woodbridge and Randall H. Balmer, "The Princetonians and Biblical Authority: An Assessment of the Ernest Sandeen Proposal," in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 251-79; Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, 119-40.

163. Hasel, New Testament Theology, 20.

164. Ibid., 21 n. 36; see also Werner Georg Kummel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans. S. MacLean Gilmour and Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 62-65.

165. Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 18-19; Hasel, New Testament Theology, 28.

166. Ladd, New Testament and Criticism, 14.

167. Ibid., 12.

168. Ibid., 35.

169. Ibid., 16-17.

170. All quotes are from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise specified. Copyright the Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995.

171. Matthew's fulfillment formulas contain a similar recurring theme that clearly supports the assertion against Ladd's limited infallibility view. For example, Matthew 1:22 records, hina plerothee to hrethen hypo kyriou dia tou prophetou. Here Matthew views the human prophetic agency as the intermediate means of the prophecy (dia), whereas God is viewed as the ultimate, direct Agent (hypo kyriou). See also Matthew 2:5, 15, 17; 3:3; 4:14; 8:17;12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 22:31; 24:15; 27:9 for similar constructions. This wording of Matthew is hardly commensurate with Ladd's idea of dual agency but indicates the overshadowing of the human element by God.

172. Donald A. Hagner, "The New Testament, History, and the Historical-Critical Method," in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. DavidAlan Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 83, see also 73.

173. Ibid., 86.

174. Ibid., 86-87.

175. Ibid., 90.

176. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, vol. 33a of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger (Dallas: Waco, 1993), xli.

177. Ibid., 123.

178. Ibid., 83.

179. Brown, Jesus in European Protestant Thought, 172.

180. J. A. Philip, Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966), 123.

181. Augustine, Retractions 42, in The Fathers of the Church, trans. M. I. Bogan (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press of America, 1968), 60:150.

182. Harvey K. McArthur, The Quest Through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress through the Centuries, 1966), 85.

183. Ibid., 87.

184. Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, 304-5.

185. The work consisted of seven anonymous pieces written by Reimarus, but the seven pieces were parts of a much larger work, Apologie oder Schutzschrift fur die vernunftigen Verehrer Gottes. Im Auftrag der Joachim JungiusGesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg herausgegeben von Gerhard Alexander, 2 vols. (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1972). See also Colin Brown, Jesus in European Thought, 1-6.

186. This reference notes especially the sixth, Ueber die Auferstehungsgeschichte ("Concerning the Resurrection Story"), and seventh fragments, Von dem Zwecke Jesu and seiner Junger ("On the Purpose of Jesus and That of His Disciples"). Reimarus: Fragments, trans. Ralph S. Fraser, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), has an English translation of the sixth and seventh fragments.

187. Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 6.

188. Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, 310.

189. Ibid., 311-2.

190. Ibid., 307.

191. Ibid., 332-41.

192. Ibid., 336.

193. Robert L. Thomas, "Redaction Criticism," in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 233-67.

194. An example of this would be Harold Lindsell's harmonization of Peter's denials by assuming there were six of them (The Battle for the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976], 174-76).

195. See Robert L. Thomas, "Current Hermeneutical Trends: Toward Explanation or Obfuscation?" JETS 39 (June 1996): 241-56.

196. Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 55.

197. Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia, 1974), 25.

198. See Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 55; Ernest Troeltsch, "Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology (1898)," in Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 11-32.

199. Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 173.

200. For more weaknesses of the historical-critical ideology, consult Maier, End of the Historical-Critical Method, 1 1-92.

201. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 67.

202. Ibid., 11, 13.

203. Ibid., 11.

204. See, e.g., Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, 143; and Gromacki, New Testament Survey, 54.

205. Brooks Foss Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 8th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1895), 195. Apparently, Westcott took these percentages from William Stroud, A New Greek Harmony of the Four Gospels Comprising a Synopsis and Diatessaron (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1853), cxvii, 359. Among others, Harrison (Introduction to the New Testament, 143) and Gromacki (New Testament Survey, 54) cite Westcott's table.

206. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, 143.

207. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 197-98.

208. Ibid., 200.

209. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 14.

210. For additional data to support literary independence, see ibid., 67-207.

211. Ibid., 152.

212. The recent Jesus Seminar contrasts sharply with the early church when labeling the gospel of Thomas "[a] significant new independent source of data for the study of the historical Jesus" (Robert W. Funk, Roy Hoover, et. al., eds., The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus [New York: Macmillan, 1993], 15).

213. For further information, consult such works as Brooke Foss Wescott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 6th ed. (1899; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980); Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 257-64; Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon, Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 24-35.

214. Justin Martyr, First Apology 1:66-67 (ANF, 1:185-86). See Harrison, New Testament Introduction, 102.

215. J. H. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, 2d impression with new preface (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), 104; N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels: Some Basic Questions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 16.

216. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 44.

217. For Clement, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7; Tertullian Against Marcion IV.v; for Origen, see Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.25.310.

218. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke 1-IX, vol. 28 of Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 37.

219. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 114.

220. For the texts of many of these patristic sources that testify regarding the authorship and circumstances surrounding Luke and the other Gospels conveniently located in one section, consult Kurt Aland, "Testimonia Patrum Veterum," in Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, editio duodecima (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1976), 531-48.

221. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, International Critical Commentary (ICC), 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 3; Wilhelm Michaelis, "autoptes," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, 1976), 5:373.

222. Kark Heinrich Rengstorf, "hyperetai," in TDNT, 8:543.

223. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, trans. Eric J. Sharpe (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961), 243.

224. Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition, with a foreword by W. D. Davies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 19-29.

225. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7.

226. John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 358; see also, idem, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

227. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.36.1-2.

228. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.3-4; see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1-2.

229. Yarbrough gives five convincing arguments supporting this date (Robert W. Yarbrough, "The Date of Papias: A Reassessment," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26 [June 1983]: 181-91). See also Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 611-13.

230. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 39.15.1-4.

231. Alexander Balmain Bruce, "The Synoptic Gospels," in The Expositor's Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 340.

232. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 106.

233. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 19; see also Birger Gerhardsson, The Origins of the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 11-14.

234. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 21.

235. Ibid., 33-181; idem, The Origins of the Gospel Traditions, 15-18.

236. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 114; idem, Origins of the Gospel Traditions, 19-26.

237. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 13.

238. Riesenfeld, Gospel Tradition, 22.

239. Ibid., 20.

240. Ibid.

241. Ibid., 28.

242. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 335.

243. Gerhardsson, Origins of the Gospel Traditions, 27-28.

244. Plato, Republic 3.392D; Friedrich Buchsel, "diegesis," in TDNT 2:909.

245. Gerhard Delling, "anatasso," in TDNT, 8:32-33.

246. E.g., I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, in the New International Greek Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).

247. Bruce, "The Synoptic Gospels," 458.

248. Paul W. Felix, "Literary Dependence and Luke's Prologue," in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 274-76.

249. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 201-2.

250. T. C. Lawson, "The Dates and Origins of the Gospels," Evangelical Quarterly 10 (1938): 278.

251. See Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's School: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), 182-83; see also Edgar J. Goodspeed, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist (Philadelphia: Winston, 1959), 115, 159-60.

252. William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, trans. J. C. G. Greig (Cambridge and London: James Clarke, 1971), 149.

253. Streeter, Four Gospels, 151.

254. W. R. Farmer, "A New Introduction to the Problem," in The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal, ed. Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr. (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985), 164.

255. Stoldt, History and Criticism, 136.

256. C. M. Tuckett, "Jesus and the Gospels," in The New Interpreter's Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 8:75-76.

257. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 85, 91.

258. Ibid., 91-92.

259. Ibid.

260. Ibid., 83.

261. Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 37; see also Osborne, "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical," 199.

262. Stein, Synoptic Problem, 38.

263. See Matthew 9:1-8 = Mark 2:1-12 = Luke 5:17-26; Matthew 8:28-29 = Mark 5:1-8 = Luke 8:26-29; Matthew 27:15-18 = Mark 15:6-10; Matthew 26:5 = Mark 14:2 = Luke 22:2; Matthew 26:14 = Mark 14:10 = Luke 22:3; Matthew 26:47 = Mark 14:43 = Luke 22:47; Matthew 9:21 = Mark 5:28.

264. Gundry, Matthew, 481.

265. Another example is Mark 5:8 = Luke 8:29, where Mark gives direct narration of Jesus' command to the unclean spirit, whereas Luke gives a thirdperson summary of Jesus' actions in exorcising the demon. That proves nothing regarding identical parenthetical material.

266. As Carson notes, "[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable. ... The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra because it is trying to preserve the pun" D. A. Carson, "Matthew," in Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:368.

267. For further examples, consult Franz E. Meyer, "Einige Bermerkungen zur Bedeutung des Terminus `Sanhedrion' in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments," New Testament Studies 14 (July 1968): 545-51.

268. For a more detailed treatment of these points, consult Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, "The Languages Spoken by Jesus," in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 127-43.

269. Robert H. Gundry, "The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine," JBL 83 (1964): 408.

270. Argyle notes, "Any Jewish tradesman who wished his business to prosper would be eager to make his range of customers as large as possible and so would welcome Greek-speaking Gentile customers as well as Jews. This would apply especially in Galilee of the Gentiles where the majority of the population was Gentile and Greek-speaking" (A. W. Argyle, "Greek Among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times," New Testament Studies 20 [1973]: 87).

271. Stanley E. Porter, "Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?" Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 204.

272. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 30.

273. For a cumulative listing as well as a historical study of these agreements, see Frans Neirynck, The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (Leuvan: Leuvan University Press, 1974).

274. Streeter, Four Gospels, 295-331.

275. Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 118-4 1.

276. W. R. Farmer, Synopticon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).

277. Farmer, Synoptic Problem, 210.

278. Statistics based on this writer's personal compilations.

279. This quote of Thucydides taken from Charles Forster Smith, Thucydides, Loeb Series (London: William Heinemann, 1928), 39.

280. Darrell Bock, "The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?" Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 79.

281. Ibid., 79.

282. Ibid., 78.

283. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation, 10.

Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C. Williams

BEFORE ENTERING INTO THE response proper to the Independence View, two observations are in order concerning the overall theme and tone of the chapter.

Sticks and Stones

A child's song goes, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me " Oh, that this were true. In truth, one may win a theological debate in conservative circles in one of two manners: (1) provide the best evidence, thus overwhelming the opposing point of view, or (2) play the liberal trump card, claiming that one's own position is orthodox and the opposing position is liberal. Thus, if the opposing position is liberal, one's own position automatically wins. This seems to be Farnell's attempt in his "Negative Assessment" section, in which two lines of negative argumentation are used.

First, Farnell's rhetoric. Intermingled throughout the chapter are powerful words that constitute a polemic against the opposing views: "join[ing] the flock who sheeplike follow," "assumptions," "ideologies inherently hostile to the Word," "lack objectivity," "instead of proof I find only assertions," "sets the opinion of philosophers above God's Word," "deviations from orthodoxy," "departure from orthodox doctrine," "gained access to Troy by hiding inside a hollow wooden horse," "the neutralization of the Word of God," "does not faithfulness to Scripture take precedence," "inventing the Two-Source Hypothesis," "strained interpretations," "inspirational degradation," "subjective," "unchecked imagination," "plain, normal interpretation," "the Gospels' limited accuracy," "smacks of liberalism," and "abandonment of plenary, verbal inspiration of the Gospels." Such rhetorical use of words tries to prove by assertion rather than by evidence. Farnell offers no proof for the veracity of these statements, merely an assertion that they must be true. Such unsupported accusations are, indeed, disconcerting. An example of one such accusation is the tendentious endnote (n. 143) arguing that the article "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical" (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society [JETS] 1999) contains a "tacit admission that a saying in the Gospels could be guilty of error" and might "find any of Jesus' words unhistorical." The article, in fact, does not find any of Jesus' words unhistorical, nor does it hint that such may be so. Farnell merely assumes so on the basis of his presuppositions. Assumptions are, in fact, the problem with Farnell's chapter. It makes assumptions about evangelical scholars (Bock, Blomberg, Stein, etc.) that simply are not true.

The use of such rhetorical devices throughout the entire chapter undermines all other points of view except the Independence View, which just happens to be the view that is orthodox. But how can one be certain that the Independence View is orthodox and that the dependency theories are not? Farnell states that an approach that seeks sources behind the Gospels is "hermeneutically misguided because the sources behind the Gospels are not inspired." And because Farnell has determined that the sources cannot include the Gospels, then those sources are not inspired. But what if the sources behind the inspired Gospels were other inspired Gospels? If Niemela is, in fact, correct in his interpretation of Luke 1:1-4, then nothing unorthodox occurs in using other parts of Scripture as source material for composing a new Gospel. As was mentioned in the conclusion of the MH chapter, if any of the Gospel authors did, indeed, use another Gospel as source material, and if we as investigators of Gospel origins ignore that fact, we are not being faithful to the Word of God and to proper models of interpretation. It would be, in this case, similar to ignoring the literary dependence between Chronicles and Kings. Thus, if the use of one Gospel by another Gospel writer occurred, the sources behind the Gospels would indeed be inspired. Therefore, the approach that examines such sources would not be hermeneutically misguided.

Second, besides closely associating evangelicals with liberal tendencies and movements (for example, `Rock's assertion of the `true gist' and `central thrust' of Jesus' words in the Gospels smacks of liberalism, especially as reflected by the Jesus Seminar"), Farnell states that those who do not hold to the Independence View are unorthodox. Not only does Farnell's rhetoric throughout the chapter attack the opposing views' reverence for Scripture but also the chapter ends with a direct claim to orthodoxy: "One must hold either to a normative view of inspiration that upholds the orthodox position of divine superintendence of the documents and become a proponent of the Independence View or to literary dependency theories and abandon a normative view of inspiration. No middle ground exists." And also, "Only the Independence View provides the necessary safeguards and reflects the orthodox approach to Gospel origins."

These types of statements are not unlike papal statements. Farnell's statements are, however, very unlike current evangelical scholarship. Today's evangelical scholar presents the evidence for his or her position, followed by an admission of humility in his or her interpretation. Such humility is a normal outcome of the many interpretive problems stemming from each interpreter's own hermeneutical presuppositions and blindness. That is not to say that any interpretation whatsoever is valid. The MH chapter does not hold to reader-response criticism with its emphasis on the truth of a literary document being found by each reader in his or her own interpretation. It is, indeed, of utmost concern, as Farnell agrees, to uphold the truth of Scripture, emphasizing, in fact, inerrancy and the truthfulness of the Gospel record. It is unfortunate that Farnell labels the position of the MH chapter as holding to an "errancy" view when, in fact, that chapter disclaims errancy as forcefully as does Farnell.

Two Can Play That Game

Farnell's accusation that the other positions presented in this volume are liberal is based upon their admission that an Evangelist, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, might have used another Evangelist's written word as a source. Any position that adopts such an admission, claims Farnell, cannot hold to inerrancy because it implies the acceptance of one Gospel over another as the ultimate source of truth. Yet, Farnell's own statements could be used against him to claim that his position, too, allows for errancy.

It is claimed that one Gospel author's using another author's work of necessity introduces errors into the text. Farnell fails to see, however, that his understanding of apostolic history may result in the same introduction of errors. He states the following: "Matthew, Mark, and Luke in all probability had personal contacts with each other; therefore, the writers had ample opportunities to exchange information about the life of Christ, especially during the early days of the church in Jerusalem (e.g., Acts 1:13-14; 2:43-47; 4:32-35)," and he later adds, "Their exchange of information and personal contacts with eyewitnesses best explains the synoptic phenomena" Does not the admission of verbal contact between the authors amount to, in essence, the same thing as contact through writing? That is, what is the difference between Luke's consulting with Mark in speech-and thus varying his story a little bit by the increased knowledge that Mark is able to supply-and Luke's conferring with Mark's written Gospel to secure the same type of information? The outcome would bear little difference if it is held that God, through the Holy Spirit, oversaw the entire process and ensured the accuracy of the written Gospels. The MH chapter is in total agreement with Farnell's statement, "God's superintendence of His Word also guaranteed the supernatural accuracy of the product."

Apparently, however, Farnell admits almost the same thing as does Bock, whom he castigates as one who holds to the Gospel's limited accuracy. In the Independence View chapter, Farnell states, regarding the Gospels' originating from tradition and eyewitness accounts, "Variation would naturally occur in transmission under such conditions, with such variation being exhibited in the synoptics," and "those eyewitnesses guarded against substantial variation." Is not Farnell making the same claim to limited accuracy as does Bock? Might one now launch a polemic against Farnell for this admission, which, if one overinterprets it, admits to errors being introduced into the historical chronology of the events of Jesus' life? Farnell does claim, after all, that variation has occurred. An admission of any type of variation from the truth of the historical situation amounts to an admission of the introduction of errors. Why would the story need to be varied? Is Farnell also to be lumped into the liberal camp because of these admissions that "smack of liberalism"?

Farnell, too, cites works that clearly have a liberal philosophical background, such as Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT, see nn. 221-22). Farnell, to support his own views, cites, in fact, many authors who use critical methods as evidence, including Fitzmyer, Gerhardsson, Marshall, Bruce, Gundry, and so forth. For consistency's sake, one must question the value of the conclusions of such works, given their philosophical basis. Farnell also admits that one may use a synopsis, although they were developed within the same philosophical mold as source criticism. Is this being consistent?

The preceding examples are cited to show that one must maintain balance and Christian humility in matters relating to Scripture interpretation. It is easy to play with words to accuse another person of liberalism. Farnell's own admission of variation in the tradition is, in fact, enough to accuse him of adopting the same position of which he accuses other evangelicals-that variations in the tradition imply errors.

Bock, along with the writers of the other two chapters in this volume, do not accept the liberal presuppositions of the dependency theory. Such writers hold to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who oversaw the entire writing process such as to ensure the accuracy of the final product. The preceding point must be reiterated: the inspiration and accuracy of the Gospels is due to the overseeing of the Holy Spirit in the entire process. Part of such overseeing, however, may have been the inclusion of contact between the Gospel writers, not only at the oral level, as Farnell acknowledges, but also at the literary or written level. No major difference between the two positions exists as long as one continues to include the presence of the Holy Spirit in the entire process.

Farnell's view is not, in fact, all that different from the MH as presented in this volume because he, too, admits that the tradition "was partly memorized and partly written down in notebooks and private scrolls." Speculating that the apostles took notes when they consulted with one another, as Farnell has done, in essence amounts to admissions of dependency theories, that is, a consultation existed at the literary level between apostles. Instead of positing, as the Independence View suggests, that the Gospel writers consulted written notes, the dependency views suggests that they consulted written gospels. Given that the Gospels are inspired documents and that the written notes were not, the MH actually assumes higher accuracy in the final written product because the Gospel authors did not consult merely written notes, which may have contained errors, but the final written product, which was clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit to ensure its accuracy. The MH may, then, be more orthodox in this regard than the Independence View and certainly admits of a higher degree of accuracy.

A Question of History and Presuppositions

The major concern with the Independence View as presented in this volume, however, regards not so much Farnell's rhetoric or his reversible arguments in terms of scriptural errancy and inspiration as Farnell's claim that dependency views, by claiming that the Gospels are related literarily, necessarily adopt a liberal philosophy. This claim is based upon Farnell's (and others') survey of the history of the Synoptic Problem. Farnell's survey demonstrates the dominance of the Independence View until the Enlightenment and attempts to show that source criticism, and thus dependency theories, arose within the context of the errancy position of liberal philosophical methods. And much of what he reports is true. The roots of current source criticism are found in this philosophical context. Two questions remain, however. First, did no church father believe in dependency? Second, did no one in the eighteenth century analyze the Gospel texts and, without accepting the philosophical roots of modern source criticism, conclude that the Gospels were dependent?

Niemela's chapter makes clear that at least two church fathers believed that the Gospels were interrelated literarily. Niemela concludes regarding Chrysostom, "The preceding passage shows that Chrysostom assumed literary collaboration. He believed that Mark knew Matthew." Regarding Augustine, Niemela concludes, "Textual observations led Augustine to conclude that Mark consulted Matthew and Luke." Niemela is not alone in believing that Augustine held to literary dependency between the Synoptic Gospels. This belief is also held by William Farmer (The Synoptic Problem, 2) and David Peabody (in New Synoptic Studies, 43), the latter of whom says, "We may infer, then, that comes ('companion') is just one more term by which Augustine may refer to Mark's literary dependence upon Matthew." Thus, two examples can be cited of church fathers who admitted to textual consultation or textual dependency between the Synoptic Gospels. If this is the case, literary dependency did not arise with the philosophical systems of the Enlightenment, as Farnell claims, but was an accepted theory from the very beginning.

Interestingly, Farnell does not interact with the possibility that Chrysostom or Augustine may have believed in a literary dependency among the synoptics. If Augustine held, in fact, to such a dependency theory, then current holders of dependency theories can be in agreement with the quotation that Farnell used regarding Augustine: "These sixteenth- and seventeenth-century harmonies ... proceeded on the basis of Augustine's assumption that all four Gospels were uniformly true and without admixture of the slightest degree of error." In other words, Farnell admits that Augustine held to an inerrant position. Coupled with the probability that Augustine held to inerrancy despite holding to a dependency theory, one must conclude that it is possible, despite Farnell's claim to the contrary, both to be orthodox and to hold to dependency views.

The second concern with Farnell's historical survey of dependency theories is that it omits the first written defense of literary dependency in the Enlightenment. True, many people were influenced by the philosophy of the time and held to dependency theories to show that the Bible contained errors. Farnell may be correct, indeed, in his assessment of Griesbach and his views of inspiration, but the rise of dependency theories actually occurred before Griesbach. And the very first documented defense of literary dependency was not developed with the aim of attacking biblical errancy. No one has taken the time, however, to investigate this work and include it in a survey of the Synoptic Problem. Dr. Henry Owen wrote Observations on the Four Gospels (London, 1764). Note the date. Owen wrote a full nineteen years before the effort of Griesbach (see Matthew C. Williams, "The Owen Hypothesis: An Essay Showing That It Was Henry Owen Who First Formulated the So-Called `Griesbach Hypothesis,"' Journal of Higher Criticism 7 [2000]: 109-25), and a full ten years before Reimarus's Fragments were published (1774-78).

Henry Owen, a defender of biblical accuracy, wrote, "How, then, came they not to avoid the many contradictions observable among them? These are only seeming contradictions; and vanish most of them, on a close comparison of the several passages: and were we sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the facts, the views of the Relators, the turns of their expressions, and the method they used in their computations, the rest would doubtless immediately disappear; and the several Gospels would perfectly correspond with each other" (p. 83). No better explanation can be found of Farnell's (and the MH's) view on the accuracy of the Gospels than here in Owen, the very first defender of the dependency theory of Matthean priority.

Although the synoptics were related literarily, Owen states that they are "one complete, entire system of Divinity, supported by the strongest proofs that the subject is capable of, and defended against all the objections which either Jews or Gentiles, or even its more dangerous heretical Professors, could make to the truth and certainty of it." Thus, Owen, predating Farnell by some 250 years, saw the problem that the philosophical systems could have upon the study of the Gospels and came to their defense: "Of all the heretical notions founded on Philosophy and vain Learning, none made a quicker progress in the world, or were more injurious to the truths of the Gospel" (p. 85). Interestingly, the first defender of a dependency view makes the same claims and arguments as does Farnell, a defender of the Independence View.

Owen showed, in fact, that the use of one Gospel as a literary source by another Gospel writer was a positive sign: "They likewise quoted each other's words, and thereby recommended each other's Histories. A circumstance of great advantage, whatever some may think of it, to the service of the Christian cause. For by this means they became not only mutual Vouchers for the truth of these genuine Gospels, but at the same time joint-opposers of all those spurious ones, that were impiously obtruded on the world" (p. 110, emphasis in the original). Owen continues, "In this state of things, when so many Gospels appeared in the World, all claiming an equal authority, how were the true ones to be distinguished from the false?" (p. 109, emphasis in the original). Owen's answer: "St. Luke, by his quotations, referred his Readers to the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Mark, by the same method, referred again both to St. Matthew's and St. Luke's" (p. 111).

It would be interesting to know Farnell's response to Owen's argument. It is easy to say that the four Gospels, as we now have them, are the true, inspired Gospels. But in the early church before the canon was fixed, the "authentic" Gospels would not be so clearly distinguishable from the "spurious" ones. Thus, Owen's argument addresses two matters: (1) the accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels, despite the fact that they used one another as sources; and (2) the reason for literary dependence, that is, one Gospel served as testimony to the veracity of the others. Instead of seeing dependency as a negative, as does Farnell, Owen saw it as a great positive, used by God to show the world the true Gospels.

The omission of Owen's defense of the truthfulness and accuracy of the Gospels-the first defense of literary dependency of the Synoptic Gospels by a modern author-raises questions about the overall emphasis of Farnell's survey of history. Yes, much of source criticism arose in a philosophical era that sought to question the accuracy of the biblical texts. But Owen predated these other attempts, thus demonstrating that it is indeed possible to be a defender of the biblical texts as accurate while simultaneously believing in a dependency theory, in this case, the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Thus, strong dis agreement is warranted regarding Farnell's conclusion that one must accept the Independence View or bow the knee to idolatrous and unorthodox dependency theories.

The use of history and presuppositions, then, lacks strength as the guiding force for the elimination of source criticism. Still, one other point must be raised. The position of the MH, along with that of the majority of evangelicals who today use historical-critical methods, asserts that the context in which these tools developed matters little. It matters, though, how they are used today. As Ladd, McKnight, and others agree, an evangelical use exists for these critical tools if the factors of inspiration and the Holy Spirit are included in the process. One need not throw out the baby with the bathwater. When our children are ill, we take them to the doctor despite (1) the fact that most medicines and medical techniques grow out of a philosophical base that rejects the notion of God as the Creator and Sustainer of the world and (2) the promise of God in James 5:14-15: "Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up." Are we being unorthodox by relying upon these philosophical medical systems for healing our children when the Word of God is so clear?

Lack of Evidence

A major concern that flows from the preceding section ("Sticks and Stones") regards the lack of textual evidence presented to support the Independence View. In defending the Independence View, one should provide not only arguments against opposing positions but also supporting evidence from the Gospel texts themselves. The first line of evidence that Farnell gives for the Independence View, however, is a quotation of Linnemann, and it occurs only after approximately one-half of the chapter has been presented.

One looks in vain for a reference to the 1958 articles by John H. Ludlum, which supposedly are "well nigh irrefutable in demonstrating the literary independence of the three Synoptics" (Jesus Seminar, p. 133). Nor is there presented the type of argumentation used by Robert L. Thomas ("Historical Criticism and the Evangelical: Another View, JETS 43, [March 2000]: 103-4), who discusses passages at length with specific examples to show that the dependency theory is not as probable a conclusion as the Independence View. Although Farnell cites Louis Berkhof, Henry C. Thiessen, Eta Linnemann, Robert G. Gromacki, Merrill C. Tenney, Jakob Van Bruggen, John M. Rist, John Wenham, and Bo Reicke as adherents to the Independence View, very little is cited in the material of these authors that one could classify as evidence for the Independence View.

This lack of evidence is clearly seen in the summary that Farnell makes at the end of his chapter. He cites what he perceives as the three main differences between the Independence View and the dependency views: the Independence View (1) is the historic, orthodox position of the church; (2) takes seriously the early church history; and (3) associates itself with the plenary, verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Gospels. None of these three points lends itself to presenting any kind of scriptural evidence for the correctness or plausibility of the Independence View. The other two positions presented in this volume would, in fact, also claim points 2 and 3 and try to demonstrate that they, too, are "historic, orthodox positions." Thus, little in Farnell's chapter serves to prove the superiority of the Independence View vis-a-vis the Gospels themselves.

Once again, all of this leads to the conclusion that the Independence View, as presented in this volume, stands or falls with the historical survey and the conclusion that source criticism automatically carries with it the full acceptance of liberal philosophy. As was shown earlier, the conclusions of the historical survey do not warrant agreement. Thus, little evidence is left by which to analyze the Independence View.

Miscellaneous Comments

Given that Farnell rejects historical criticism in its entirety, we wonder how he can accept textual criticism. Farnell's coeditor of The Jesus Crisis (see Thomas, "Historical Criticism and the Evangelical," p. 110) stated that "textual criticism is free of the ideological presup positions that pervade Historical Criticism." Given, however, that Griesbach played an instrumental role in the development of textual criticism, it is difficult to see how one can separate the philosophical backgrounds of textual criticism from source criticism. Is it not inconsistent to use textual criticism and not source criticism, especially given the similarities between the two disciplines, as is discussed in the MH chapter?

Farnell claims that the mass of data used to defend the dependency theories "were assembled after the hypotheses came into prominence." In other words, the philosophy drove the development of these theories in an effort to discredit the validity of God's Word, and then data were assembled afterward to defend these theories. But it was shown earlier that Owen-although driven by the evidence to believe in dependency-was not, as was Griesbach, driven by a motivation to discredit Scripture. Owen states, "If [I] assert[s], that the later Evangelists perused and transcribed the Writings of the former, it is upon no other account, but that [I] was forced to do it by the evidence of fact" (vi).

Famell cites Gerhardsson as evidence that the Gospel authors would have relied on excellent memories to recall and record accurately the biblical events. Gerhardsson's evidence raises two questions. First, why would excellent memories be needed, given Farnell's assurance that "The factuality and accuracy stem from their uniqueness as divinely inspired documents-as God-breathed as well as God-guided documents"; "The divine factor so overshadowed the human factor that the accuracy of the Gospels is ensured"; "In inspiration, the Holy Spirit so overshadowed the human element as to ensure the supernatural accuracy of the Gospels?" In other words, a problem with consistency seems to be present in Farnell's position. Did the Gospel authors record the data correctly because of their "sharp minds" or their collaboration with other apostles, or because they were led spiritually into accuracy? Farnell seems to suggest that both are necessary: "[L]iterary Independence accounts for the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels by noting that they were accounts of eyewitnesses whose sharp memories, [were] aided by the Holy Spirit." One wonders, though, how the Gospel writers' using eyewitness accounts under the guidance of the Holy Spirit differs from the dependency view, which asserts that the Holy Spirit ensured the accuracy of the written Gospel, while allowing the use of another written source to ensure accuracy.

Farnell does not go into detail as to why the Gospel of John is so vastly different in content and order from the Synoptic Gospels. He notes that both Matthew and John were apostles, which should lead the two of them to agree in much more material than one finds. The Independence View needs to explain why three of the Gospels are so similar to one another and why the three are so different from John. It is easy for the Independence View to state that the similarities in the synoptics are due to the use of a common core material from the life of Jesus, but one wonders if the common core were so fixed, as Farnell states, why vast differences exist between the synoptics and John?

Farnell's third axiom notes, quoting Linnemann, that the reason for four independent Gospels stems from the legal principle of Deuteronomy 19:15b: "[O]n the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed." Yet, even if one accepts the most radical form of the Two-Source Hypothesis, two witnesses do give testimony-Mark and John-thus meeting the legal requirements of Deuteronomy. But Farnell misses the point and the complexity of the Two-Source Hypothesis: not just four witnesses exist, as Famell's Independence View believes, but five-Mark, Q, Matthew, Luke, and John (see the MH chapter for explanations of each). Thus, the MH seems to constitute a better theory regarding axiom three because it provides a larger number of independent witnesses.

After reviewing material relevant to the Independence View, one must reiterate that the Independence View is a viable option for solving the Synoptic Problem. One finds, in fact, compelling evidence to believe that literary independence is a plausible solution. Such evidence derives, however, from the evidence of the texts themselves and not by a survey of ancient church history and philosophical presuppositions.

John H. Niemela

Mismatched Shoes

Many years ago, a salesman sold a pair of shoes to me after fitting only my right foot. What seemed to be a matched pair actually contained a left shoe that was slightly smaller. Trying on both shoes before the purchase precludes such unpleasant surprises. When Dr. Farnell argues against those who take a low view of Scripture, he offers a matched pair-calling into question the Bible's inspiration and inerrancy as one shoe and liberalism as the other shoe. But Farnell's discussion of a literary relationship between the synoptics fails to provide a matching pair; literary dependence as one shoe does not of necessity mean that liberalism constitutes the other shoe.

The Term: Two-Gospel Hypothesis

Farnell calls the 2GH the Neo-Griesbach Hypothesis. Regarding its origin, however, the first clear articulation of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis comes from an early Father, Augustine. Although the Matthew-Mark-Luke sequence is often known as the Augustinian Hypothesis, Augustine later accepted a Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence (cf. to the 2GH presentation in this volume). Calling the 2GH the Neo-Augustinian Hypothesis is more accurate than referring to it as the Neo-Griesbach Hypothesis. The Two-Gospel Hypothesis did not originate within the Enlightenment but within the patristic period. Although the Two-Gospel Hypothesis owes its existence to a conservative (Augustine) rather than to liberals, would anyone think to call it the Neo-Augustinian Hypothesis? The name Two-Gospel Hypothesis is the best term because all Two-Gospel hypothesists agree that Mark consulted two Gospels: Matthew and Luke. But three versions of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis exist: (1) many scholars accept Griesbach's sequence, Matthew-Luke-Mark; (2) Busching proposed Luke-Matthew-Mark; and (3) some scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were independent of each other.

Historical-Critical Ideologies

Farnell's article has two main parts: "analysis of the presuppositional and historical roots of the literary dependance theories (negative assessment) and evidence that commends the Independence View (positive assessment)." The opening to his positive assessment serves as the thesis statement.

Several essential elements comprise the core axioms of the Independence View. The elements also warn against adopting historical-critical ideologies that spawned Enlightenmentbased literary dependency hypotheses.

His thesis encompasses, however, more than the Synoptic Problem proper-it addresses (1) the sequence of the synoptics and (2) whether a literary intersynoptic relationship exists. The thesis goes beyond the stated topic of the book, the origins of the Synoptic Gospels. It is necessary, therefore, for this response to focus on that narrow topic, although appreciation is in order regarding much of what Dr. Farnell has said that is outside the topic.

Dr. Farnell's proving that interbiblical literary collaboration contradicts a conservative evangelical position would be reason to reevaluate the conclusions of the 2GH as presented in this volume. Neither Farnell, however, nor The Jesus Crisis (which he coedited) has established that acceptance of a literary intersynoptic relationship necessarily involves a low view of Scripture or "historical-critical ideologies." The place for circling the wagons against liberals, however, is not at a literary connection versus independence. To do so is reminiscent of Elijah, who drew his battle lines so exclusively that he could not see the seven thousand prophets who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Yes, conservatives need to guard against the leaven of creeping liberalism, but they must avoid making inconsistent judgments.

That someone accepts literary collaboration between biblical books should not call into question his or her conservative credentials. Robert Thomas, a colleague of Dr. Farnell, recognizes literary collaboration between Kings and Chronicles and between 2 Peter and Jude. Who would use this recognition to question Thomas's conservative credentials? The shoe does not fit, so why would anyone treat the corresponding shoe (literary collaboration between the synoptics) as a test of conservative credentials?

Such is not to say that all is well within evangelical Christianity. Some scholars are like weathervanes, constantly changing the direction of their views to agree with the ephemeral winds of doctrine. But what weathervanes gain in popularity they lose in credibility. Dr. Farnell makes a legitimate point: the desire to win the approval of the scholarly world can lead an evangelical to compromise the fundamentals of the faith. Dr. Thomas proves, however, that acceptance of literary collaboration between biblical books does not make one into a weathervane who changes direction to impress scholarship. The argument coupling literary collaboration with liberal biblical scholarship is a mismatched pair of shoes at best.

De-emphasis of Luke 1:1-4

The credibility of Farnell's view depends upon (1) his interpretation of epecheiresan ("taken in hand") in Luke and (2) disproving any overlap between the eyewitnesses (v. 2) and the many (v. 1). Farnell's chapter devotes, however, only one sentence to these issues: "The eyewitnesses on whom Luke relied as sources did not include the `many' who had previously undertaken to compile accounts because he uses a term with a slight pejorative force to describe their undertaking, epecheiresan, in Luke 1:1." The Jesus Crisis, on the other hand, dedicated the bulk of pages 274-78 to items (1) and (2). Dr. Farnell's one-sentence assertion fails to overcome the arguments that the 2GH presentation adduces. A brief summary follows.

Regarding (1) the meaning of epecheiresan, independence advocates construe Luke 1:1-4 as, "Many have tried (but failed) to write an account, so it seemed good to me to write an account successfully." Does Luke hint that his predecessors, the many, failed? The major premise (i.e., Luke would not disparage Matthew or Mark) starts, but does not end, the syllogism on the right foot. A syllogism follows:

Major premise: Luke would not disparage Matthew (Mark),

Minor premise: Luke disparages the accounts he knew (Luke 1:1-4),

Conclusion,: Matthew (Mark) was not an account that Luke knew.

Evangelicals recognize the dual authorship-that is, God and manof Scripture, do they not? Furthermore, Dr. Farnell accepts Matthean priority. Syllogism2 incorporates these circumstances:

Major premise2: Neither God nor Luke would disparage Matthew (Mark),

Minor premise2: God and Luke disparage the accounts they knew (Luke 1:1-4),

Conclusion2: Matthew (Mark) was not an account that God or Luke knew.

The Independence View may see Lukan ignorance of Matthew resolving the supposed dilemma, but who would say that God questions a book that He had already inspired? Neither Syllogism, nor Syllogism2 results in a viable conclusion. Neither God nor Luke disparage Matthew in Luke 1:1-4; God knew Matthew's Gospel; and nothing about the verse requires Luke to be ignorant of Matthew. Moreover, Paul would have every reason to use Matthew's Gospel in ministry, so why would Luke not know that book as well?

Luke 1:1 does not require a pejorative understanding of epecheiresan, thus, Luke's writing does not disparage Matthew. Theophilus needed not only an account of Christ's earthly ministry but also a post-Ascension account of His ministry through His apostles (Acts 1:1). Therefore, Luke's prologue introduces not only his Gospel but also Acts. Note the significant word us in "the things surely accomplished among us." Luke carefully reserves the first person pronoun in narration for events in which he also participated. He distinguishes we sections of Acts from they sections (where he was absent). Luke 1:1 speaks of many accounts that overlap not only with his Gospel but also with Acts.

Assume for a moment that Luke had read Matthew's Gospel and introduces Luke plus Acts in his prologue. As Luke surveys existing narratives and considers his reader, he might say, "If I were to give Theophilus an existing book, it would be Matthew. But he also needs a fresh account of the church. The best way to lay the foundation for Acts is to write a new Gospel highlighting certain links between what Christ began to do and teach (Acts 1:1) and what the apostles continue to do and teach." The fact that Theophilus needed Luke-Acts disparages neither Matthew nor any other account.

Regarding item (2), the grammar does not preclude overlap between the many of Luke 1:1 and the eyewitnesses of verse 2. Both Farrell in his article and Paul Felix (The Jesus Crisis, p. 276) assume that kathos ("just as") absolutely differentiates eyewitnesses from many. Ephesians 1:3-4, however, has the same grammar: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He [God the Father] chose us in Him." The kathos in Ephesians 1 does not distinguish the first God the Father from the second God the Father. Thus, Luke 1:1 and Ephesians 1 are like a matched pair of shoes.

Luke 1:1-4 does not imply that Luke's predecessors failed; God does not pronounce Matthew a failure. Paul would have welcomed Matthew's Gospel, so it is quite reasonable for Luke 1:1-2 to thank Matthew discretely for being an eyewitness minister of the Word who wrote a Gospel account.

De-emphasis of Patristic Arguments

Compared to Scripture, patristic evidence is a secondary source of evidence. Whereas The Jesus Crisis devoted its longest chapter to patristic evidence in support of literary independence, it forms one of the shortest sections in Famell's main article in this volume. That article cites Dr. Osborne's conceding the patristic evidence to the Independence View. The brief treatment suggests that Dr. Farnell expected the same from the 2GH.

The 2GH, however, is comfortable with patristic evidence. Farnell's main patristic argument (in both The Jesus Crisis and his main article) is one from silence. The first sentence under the heading "Dependency Hypotheses Unsupported Among the Church Fathers" reads, "An analysis of the church fathers results in one conspicuous conclusion: they support neither the Two-Source Hypothesis nor the TwoGospel Hypothesis." Arguments from silence prove nothing. Robert Thomas, for example, believes in literary collaboration between KingsChronicles and 2 Peter-Jude despite what seems to be complete silence among the Fathers concerning a literary relationship between those books. The few Fathers who address the issue of a literary connection favor literary contacts, placing a great burden of proof upon the Independence View. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Clement clearly perceive literary connections.

Augustine

Consider the following multiple-choice exam. What does the statement mean?

Dr. Farnell did not choose to write his response to the 2GH in ignorance of the 2HG presentation for this volume.

A. When he wrote, Dr. Farnell had previously met the author of the 2GH.

B. When he wrote, Dr. Farnell knew that John H. Niemela was an author in this volume.

C. Dr. Farnell read the 2GH article before writing a response to it.

Answer C is the only one that explains "did not choose to write ... in ignorance." Although statements A and B are true, they hardly answer the question. Choosing to write in ignorance of a tome means choosing not to read it before writing. The following statement by Augustine resembles the exam question:

[No] ... individual [Gospel] writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done.

Choosing "to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done" speaks of willful ignorance (refusing to read a predecessor's work). No other interpretation of the preceding citation takes seriously the matter of choice. The exam question and Augustine's statement are like a pair matching of shoes: Augustine believed in a literary relationship. For Farnell to reject what Augustine says would be fair, but he should no longer claim Augustine as a supporter of the Independence View.

Not only did Augustine accept a literary solution but also he switched from accepting a Matthew-Mark-Luke writing sequence to that of Matthew-Luke-Mark. The 2GH chapter shows Augustine's contention that Mark sometimes follows Matthew and at other times follows Luke. This statement constitutes the embryo of the main argument for the 2GH (order and content). Order and content still forms a powerful apologetic for the 2GH.

Someone might object that Augustine made a denial regarding superfluous additions to the Gospels. That is an excellent point, one that favors a literary solution. Is Augustine's thrust (1) that none of the later Gospels contain superfluous additions, or does he mean (2) that none of the later Gospels are superfluous additions? Thomas and Farnell favor view 1, construing superfluous additions as similarly worded parallels. Under the Independence View, the later Gospels indeed contain what Augustine would call superfluous additions, but God (not the human writers) is responsible for them. This view cannot be what Augustine meant.

No, the 2GH chapter argues that Augustine means that each Gospel has its own overall purpose, so Luke's Gospel is not a superfluous addition to Matthew. Nor are Mark or John superfluous additions. Each Gospel, agrees Augustine, makes its own contribution. This does not preclude later Gospel writers from reading each other's books.

Chrysostom: Point 1

The 2GH chapter observes Chrysostom's assertion that Mark omitted Christ's genealogy because he followed Matthew. Following that assertion, Chrysostom says, "Therefore (dio) he took a short course, as putting his hand to what had already been spoken and made manifest." According to Chrysostom, Mark omitted certain things because he followed Matthew, which gave him freedom to omit. Advocates of the Independence View cannot simply ignore the "therefore" (dio). Chrysostom's argument presupposes a literary relationship.

Chrysostom: Point 2

This leaves one other citation from Chrysostom. The 2GH chapter observes that Chrysostom set up a diatribe in which he mentions opposing views before arguing for his own. His point suggests a musical analogy because Chrysostom likens a group of people who communicate as from one mouth to a choir singing in unison. Three modes of choir singing are possible: in unison, in harmony, or in disharmony. A summary of Chrysostom's diatribe follows.

Objection 1: A soloist Gospel would be better than the quartet of Gospels.

Reply 1: A soloist Gospel would be sufficient, but four Gospels in harmony is better than a soloist Gospel or a quartet of Gospels singing in unison.

Objection 2: Yes, it is true that the quartet of Gospels do not sing in unison, but the problem is that the quartet of Gospels are in disharmony (not harmony).

Reply 2: Actually, they are in harmony, not disharmony. Furthermore, that they are in harmony yields a far simpler apologetic task than that of convincing others of the hypothetical (and untrue) case of four Gospels independently singing in unison without having any connection to each other (e.g., not hearing each other).

The statement from Chrysostom follows (Homily on Matthew 1.5-6):

[Objection 1 ] "What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all?" [Reply 1 ] One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.

[Objection 2] "But the contrary," it may be said, "hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance." [Reply 2] Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this [four identical Gospels in unison] cometh not of simplicity.

Chrysostom does not claim that the four Gospels speak as if from one mouth. He applies that phrase to a choir's singing in unison. His second reply clarifies that none of the Gospels' many differences defy harmonization. They sing in harmony, not in unison. The 2GH chapter shows that (contrary to the Letter of Aristeas), Chrysostom supposed that seventy men independently produced identical, wordfor-word translations of the Old Testament into Greek. This has seventy men speaking with one mouth. Chrysostom could have accepted four identical Gospels as written independently by four men. He recognized, however, that the four Gospels are not identical. That he did not need to argue for four identical Gospels written independently spared him from an apologetic nightmare. Chrysostom argued against a hypothetical case. He does not affirm the Independence View as reality (as Farnell assumes).

Summary of Chrysostom

The quotation considered in Chrysostom Point 1 shows that he believed in a literary connection. Chrysostom Point 2 neither affirms nor denies a literary connection. Chrysostom did not do what Farnell tries to extract from him. Even theorizing that Chrysostom believed the Independence View, what would it prove? Only what one fallible Father believed.

Clement of Alexandria

Thomas and Farnell acknowledge that Clement believed that John consulted the synoptics, and Clement does not affirm or deny an intersynoptic literary connection. Although Clement explicitly affirms one Gospel's use of literary collaboration, how can Thomas and Farnell claim him as an advocate of their view?

Summary of the Fathers

Augustine, Chrysostom, and Clement were not silent. They believed in a literary connection between the Gospels. Farnell has not established from patristic evidence (or from Luke 1:1-4) that the idea of a literary connection is foreign to the early church.

Arguments from Recent Scholars

When Dr. Farnell mentions various scholars favoring a literary connection, he implies that a low view of Scripture is a necessary corollary. If so, then Augustine, Chrysostom, Clement, and even Robert Thomas would necessarily hold a low view of Scripture.

Farnell also suggests that the liberal views of Enlightenment pro ponents of a literary intersynoptic connection taint their conclusion. This suggestion illustrates a logical error called the genetic fallacy, that is, appealing to a view's source to test its truthfulness. An irony for Dr. Farnell is that Augustine articulated the Two-Gospel Hypothesis long before the Enlightenment. Thus, no need exists to attribute the Two-Gospel Hypothesis to the Enlightenment. Griesbach did not claim to have originated his view. He seems to have owned books authored by Owen and Busching (earlier Two-Gospel advocates). Griesbach's name was attached to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis not because he originated it but because he popularized it. The printing press enabled him to publish the first Gospel synopsis, and the process of arranging a synopsis on a page led him to observe that Mark's order is always seconded by Matthew and/or Luke. This arrangement of order and content is what the 2GH calls Mark's alternating agreements with Matthew and Luke.

Like Griesbach, the present author created a synopsis, which was the basis for statistically testing the alternating agreements. Wrestling with a synopsis is what produced the 2GH convictions reflected in the 2GH presentation in this volume (secondary literature was secondary in producing such convictions). It is inaccurate and unfair for Farnell to charge that a literary relationship causes a lower view of Scripture. Many scholars who accept literary collaboration in Scripture have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Treatment of Order

Dr. Farnell rejects traditional order-only arguments, as do most TwoGospel hypothesists. He has not discovered, however, the nonreversible alternative: order and content. When one lists synoptic parallels in book sequence (as does the 2GH presentation), a pattern emerges. If Matthew omits a parallel to Mark or places it differently than does Mark, then Luke and Mark place it in the same sequence as each other. Likewise, if Luke omits a parallel to Mark or places it differently than does Mark, then Matthew and Mark agree concerning its sequence. (One category of exceptions occasionally applies: a few passages are unique to Mark alone.) The 2GH calls the general pattern Mark's alternating agreements with Matthew and Luke. The 2GH chapter shows that alternating order-and-content agreements differ from reversible order-only arguments. The simplest explanation of this alternating order is that for some sections Mark drew upon Matthew (like in scroll form) for his outline, whereas for others he drew upon Luke. Does this say that the Holy Spirit did not guide and inspire Mark's outline decisions and his words? No, it is quite compatible with the highest view of inspiration.

In analogizing the order-and-content argument, the 2GH chapter presented an illustration by Thomas Edgar. Although Dr. Farnell does not develop Edgar's Gettysburg illustration, a summary follows. Edgar asserts that three independent accounts of the battle would have similar order. The assertion is reasonable because historical knowledge of commanders, troop movements, engagements, and unit casualty figures are fairly complete.

Unlike Gettysburg, however, we possess no hour-by-hour, day-byday, month-by-month account of where Jesus went or of what He said and did on each day of His ministry. In light of the preceding lack of content information, how do three accounts parallel each other so closely? John shows that alternate outlines of Christ's road to the Cross are possible. John 21:25 indicates that four Gospels could (potentially) have included so much nonoverlapping content that their order would be incomparable. (We can compare A-B-C, C-A-B, etc. How would one compare D-E-C or F-G-C with A-B-C? Order discussions require overlapping content.)

Dr. Edgar assumes that the first three Gospels would share much content. In assuming that, it seems reasonable that they would have a similar order. If, however, assumptions cannot be made about both order and content, the expectation changes. Order agreements presuppose content agreements. The body of available content circulating in the church was greater than that contained by Matthew-Luke-MarkJohn. Apart from a dictation theory of inspiration, the presence of earlier synoptic accounts offers an instrument for the Holy Spirit to draw upon as He inspired the later Gospels. This limits the number of likely outline choices, in both order and content. It is time, then, to abandon Lachmannian order-only thinking. The issue is order and content, the backbone of the 2GH. It is unfortunate that the order-and-content argument remains the best-kept secret of the 2GH. Drs. Farnell and Edgar offer good cases against the order-only issue, but they need to consider Mark's alternating order-and-content agreements with Matthew and Luke.

Short Accounts

Luke 1:1 says, "many have taken in hand to compile a narrative." Dr. Farnell interprets this to affirm that many short accounts (e.g., snippets) existed. Consider verses 1 and 3 together: "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to compile a narrative .... it seemed good to me also, ... to write [an] orderly [account]" (RSV). Luke does not mean that the existence of many snippets made it seem good for him to write an orderly snippet. Compiling a narrative refers to longer writings, not snippets. Luke's own two-volume work corresponds to longer accounts, not to isolated bits and pieces. Farnell's attempt to see the many writers in verse 1 as the transition between the oral and written stages is not convincing. Luke wrote when longer accounts existed. The fact that Luke-Acts meets a specific need does not cast aspersions on any or all of his predecessors. Matthew could well be one of these longer accounts.

Conclusion

The Independence View is to be commended for maintaining a high view of Scripture. And although the Independence View is correct in its perception of the problems that exist in evangelicalism, it is unfortunate that Dr. Farnell treats a low view of Scripture and a literary synoptic solution as corollaries. His critique of the many issues that lie outside of the Synoptic Problem proper precludes a full development of the Independence View.

If holding a literary synoptic solution inevitably led to a low view of Scripture, then Dr. Farnell's decision to offer a broad thesis would make sense. Acceptance of literary collaboration is not, however, a slippery slope, as Dr. Thomas's acceptance of literary collaboration between Kings-Chronicles and 2 Peter-Jude proves. It seems wiser in this volume, then, to focus exclusively upon the synoptic solution. Other topics should appear in future books.

Regarding the Independence View, it is important not to couple literary-dependence theories with a low view of Scripture, thereby coming home with a mismatched pair of shoes. The Independence View needs to reexamine its case. Many scholars who accept an intersynoptic literary solution have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Robert L.Thomas

REGARDING THE ORIGINS OF the Synoptic Gospels-Matthew, Mark, and Luke-evangelicals generally fall into three camps: (1) those who believe that literary interdependence existed among the Gospel writers, (2) those who believe in literary independence, and (3) those who are undecided or have never given much thought to the matter. The three chapters of Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels offer the three major alternatives: the Markan Priority View, the TwoGospel View, and the Independence View. The three presentations and corresponding responses constitute a brief dialogue among the proponents of the three views. The volume's introduction, the case for each view, and the responses to each view will aid those who are unfamiliar with the issues first to understand the importance of examining how the three Gospels originated and, second, to formulate their own opinions on this vital matter.

In concluding this dialogue, a summary of the evidence that the participants advance will be helpful in reviewing the issues and controversies involved. The evidence is summarized in three sections that follow, presented in the order of this volume's chapter sequence. The unindented portion gives a summary of the evidence favoring each view. The indented portions give the responses to each view at locations appropriate to the evidence being responded to. Various portions are further identified by MP (Markan Priority), MH (Markan Hypothesis or Priority), 2GH (Two-Gospel View), and Ind (Independence View).

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ONE: THE CASE FOR MARKAN PRIORITY

[Markan Priority View unindented and introduced with MP; responses indented and introduced with 2GH (Two-Gospel View) and Ind (Independence View)]

2GH: Discussions with the Jesus Seminar

Niemela raises the question as to which evangelical view would provide the best response to the Jesus Seminar. He observes that both the MH and the Independence View would have to debate theologically divergent opinions, but regarding the 2GH the Jesus Seminar would have to account for Niemela's order-and-content statistics in trying to defend Markan priority, which accounting would lay groundwork for a more open-minded discussion.

Ind: Farnell proposes several significant problems that raise questions about the viability of the MH.

MP: A Brief History of the Synoptic Problem. Osborne and Williams use the early church fathers Clement and Augustine to address Gospel sequence, the former preferring Matthew-Luke-Mark and the latter preferring Matthew-Mark-Luke. Before introducing the MH, Osborne and Williams mention the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence of the Owen-Griesbach theory from the late eighteenth century, which arose in Germany and England in the latter half of the nineteenth century. They note the opposition to Markan priority that has arisen from the middle of the twentieth century until the present, raising questions about whether Markan priority is as assured a hypothesis as it was once thought to be.

Ind: The Problem of Presuppositions

Farnell summarizes briefly the main points made in his own chapter. (1) After seventeen hundred years of literary independence's being the accepted position in the church, literary-dependency concepts developed when Spinozist rationalism, combined with other philosophical ideologies, infiltrated the church and resulted in a rejection of the Synoptic Gospels as inspired documents. (2) No objective, scientific investigation of the Synoptic Gospels was performed by literary-dependency advocates to prove literary dependence. (3) Literary dependency inevitably entails an errancy view of Scripture because of the presuppositional grid from which literary dependence derived. (4) Evangelicals who opt for literary dependency are no exceptions to this general rule.

Farnell notes that Osborne and Williams fail to mention the negative presuppositional grid from which the Two-Source View was derived in spite of no evangelical scholar's as yet putting into practice literary dependency theories without dehistoricizing the Gospels.

The Problem of Church History

Farnell observes that proponents of Markan priority such as Osborne and Williams have chosen to ignore the abundance of information about Gospel origins that is available from the ancient church. Instead, they emphasize the ambiguity of the early Fathers regarding a few matters rather than the unanimous voice of the Fathers against Markan priority. Proponents of Markan priority also choose to ignore the absence of evidence that would favor dependence in the early church, and they fail as well to deal with decisive evidence for literary-independence views among the early Fathers.

MP: Possible Solutions to the Synoptic Problem. Osborne and Williams name five possible solutions to the Synoptic Problem. In addition to the two already mentioned, they list the Multiple Source Hypotheses, Oral or Independent Solutions, and the possibility that the problem is insoluble. They state that none of the five solutions is conclusive but name the MH as being the most probable.

A Synoptic Relationship of Literary Dependence

In addressing the agreements and disagreements between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the areas of content, wording, and order, Osborne and Williams note the large percentage of agreements in content between the three Gospels. They examine, too, several passages wherein precise agreement in wording appears among the three synoptics. They conclude that the exactness of the verbal similarities strongly suggests literary dependence. Adding to this consideration, they note that Jesus' probable use of Aramaic and His manner of citing OT passages in the Gospels increase the likelihood of literary dependence among the Gospel writers. Osborne and Williams explain the differences in the Gospels by suggesting that the authors were writing to different communities, that the writers disliked redundancy, or that they appealed to short-term memory in setting their sources aside before writing each passage.

Osborne and Williams next observe the great similarity in order of events, which argues for literary interdependence. They acknowledge, however, that differences in order are troubling for those scholars proposing literary dependence, but they posit that the vast differences between the synoptics and the Gospel of John is another indication of literary dependence among the synoptics. All things considered, Osborne and Williams conclude that some type of literary relationship must have existed between the synoptics.

Markan Priority: The Four-Source Hypothesis

Osborne and Williams identify the four sources as Mark, Q (i.e., sayings material common to Matthew and Luke), M (an additional source used by Matthew), and L (an additional source used by Luke). They examine Streeter's five heads of evidence favoring Markan priority: (1) Matthew and Luke reproduce 91 percent and 55 percent, respectively, of Mark's material; (2) Matthew and Luke alternately reproduce the exact wording of Mark 30-60 percent of the time (i.e., Matthew and Luke rarely agree with one another in wording against Mark); (3) Matthew and Luke generally agree with the order of Mark but not with each other when they depart from Mark; (4) Matthew and Luke improve Mark's more primitive wording; (5) Markan prior ity best explains the distribution of Markan and non-Markan material throughout Matthew and Luke.

Analysis of the Evidence for Markan Priority. Osborne and Williams discuss briefly Streeter's first, second, third, and fifth lines of evidence but give more attention to his fourth line (i.e., Matthew's and Luke's improvement of Mark's primitive wording). (1) They cite Mark's "eyewitness fragments" but conclude that these are not really decisive in determining priority. (2) Mark has several Aramaic expressions that are omitted in Matthew and Luke. (3) Matthew follows the LXX more closely when he is relying on Mark. (4) Although Mark is the shortest Gospel, when relating parallel accounts, those accounts are generally longer in Mark. (5) Mark presents more theological difficulties than do Matthew and Luke in such passages as the feedings of the five thousand and the four thousand and Jesus' encounter with the wealthy young man. (6) The redactional phenomena are more easily explained if Matthew and Luke were using Mark as a source than if Mark were using Matthew and Luke. (7) Mark's candor and bluntness make him the most primitive of the synoptics. (8) Mark's use of duplicate expressions is best explained in 196 of 213 cases if Mark's Gospel were the source of the other two.

2GH: Where's the Beef?

Niemela recalls the old commercial in which a hungry customer receives a minuscule meat patty inside a massive hamburger bun. She asks, "Where's the beef?" He notes that Osborne and Williams present a smorgasbord of Markan priority arguments, but even Osborne and Williams seem to ask, "Where's the meat?" They cling to Markan priority even though failing to refute the logic of those who consider the Synoptic Problem to be insoluble. Niemela judges their preliminary conclusion about literary dependence to be more confident than their final conclusion about Markan priority, which they consider to be the best theory in an uncertain world. They list some Markan priority arguments that may have a tidbit of evidence but see them all as reversible.

According to Niemela, the atomistic analysis of Osborne and Williams yields reversibility because they bifurcate content from order. They acknowledge the reversibility of Streeter's first argument, and they reject Streeter's second and third points as well. Niemela observes that Farmer overcame the problem of reversibility, pointing out that Matthew often departs from Mark's order or content, as does Luke. The chisquare system enables statisticians to test the independence of two categorical variables and so can be used regarding order and content for examining the independence of Matthew and Luke.

Niemela cites Osborne and Williams as being correct in saying that Streeter's order-only argument lacks meat. They also dismiss Streeter's fifth point before going on to other meatless issues such as the Gospel with the most Aramaic expressions being original, the form of OT citations, and the relative length of Mark's pericopes. Niemela also criticizes Osborne and Williams for questioning Mark's omission of the Sermon on the Mount, observing that putting Mark first does not explain why God omitted the Sermon in Mark's Gospel. Psychological reflection on why a writer omitted this or that is fruitless.

Niemela criticizes Osborne and Williams for trying to match Mark 8:21 with Matthew 16:12 instead of with Matthew 16:11, with which it is most clearly parallel. Properly aligning the verses shows that Matthew did not take Mark's negative statement and turn it into a positive one, as Osborne and Williams contend. Niemela finds deplorable the way in which some scholars assume that later Gospel writers corrected earlier ones, as though the Gospels had an adversarial relationship.

After reviewing their reversible and, in Niemela's opinion, often fanciful arguments, he asks how a series of reversible arguments can, as Osborne and Williams contend, prove anything.

Ind: The Problem of Logic and Acute Subjectivity

Farnell continues to show that Osborne and Williams support their position on the basis of internal evidence exclusively, in spite of a number of weaknesses in such an approach: (1) exclusive use of internal evidence ignores important external considerations such as philosophical presuppositions and church history; (2) Osborne and Williams point to "extensive studies" that have supported the Two-Source View but fail to mention that all of these studies have assumed from the start what they set out to prove (i.e., literary dependence); (3) in using internal evidence alone, as they do with Streeter's fourth head of evidence, Osborne and Williams come to the Gospels with a predisposition toward literary dependency and the results "discovered" reflect their psychological disposition toward what they have already assumed; (4) because of the subjective nature of internal evidence, conflicting views such as the MH and 2GH both can use internal evidence in supporting their positions, when in reality there exist agreements of all combinations of two Gospels against the third-Matthew and Mark against Luke, Matthew and Luke against Mark, and Luke and Mark against Matthew-pointing to the Independence View as the only viable option.

Farnell calls attention to the highly developed memorization skill in ancient times, which, combined with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, easily account for the many agreements that appear in the Synoptic Gospels. To use the differences of the Gospel of John as an argument for literary dependence among the synoptics is to ignore what Clement of Alexandria said about John's deliberate avoidance of repeating material that he knew had already been recorded in the other three Gospels. Osborne and Williams's having to resort to a hypothetical document called Q illustrates a significant problem in their support of literary dependence and Markan priority.

MP: Analysis of Streeter's Fourth Head of Evidence. Osborne and Williams believe that Mark's primitive wording is the only firm evidence for Markan Priority. Scholarly opinions have varied regarding the validity of this evidence, but most scholars have seen merit in it, because Mark would hardly have written a grammatically unrefined Gospel if he were using the grammatically refined Matthew as his source.

2GH: Streeter's Fourth Argument

Niemela calls attention to Osborne and Williams's admission that Streeter's fourth head of evidence is their only real argument. He debates their assumption that consulting a predecessor's work should improve Mark's style if Mark had been dependent upon Matthew and Luke.

MP: Studies on the Linguistic Argument. Osborne and Williams refer to various studies that have sought to uncover criteria by which to identify secondary texts. Both Two-Gospel advocates and TwoSource advocates have made their proposals. The Two-Source advocates have seemingly arrived at the more satisfactory answers, but a need remains for a set of scientifically based criteria.

Relationship Between Text Criticism and the Synoptic Problem. Osborne and Williams believe that such scientifically based criteria (see the following paragraph), bearing many similarities to Streeter's fourth head of evidence, are available in the field of textual criticism. Because of this similarity, Osborne and Williams proceed to apply these specific text-critical principles to the Gospel texts to determine priority. The precise relationship between textual criticism and source criticism enables one to examine Matthew's handling of Mark in the same way as one would examine a scribe's intentional changes in making a copy of Mark's Gospel. Although many differences exist between the author of the first Gospel and the copyists' handling of Mark, many of the changes made by scribes could have been made by Matthew as he used Mark as a source. In line with this theory, Osborne and Williams examine the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, pericope by pericope, to look for evidence of priority.

The seven text-critical principles that they apply to the question of priority are (1) the variant that best explains the origin of the others is original, (2) the more difficult reading is more original, (3) the variant that best conforms to the author's usage is more original, (4) the lessrefined grammatical and lexical forms are more original, (5) the lesssmooth text is more original, (6) the less-harmonious reading is more original, and (7) the less-orthodox reading is more original.

An Examination of Matthew and Mark Using Text-Critical Principles for Determining Priority. After a detailed word-by-word, pericope-by-pericope study of about 25 percent of Mark's Gospel, Osborne and Williams repeatedly found that identifying Mark's Gospel as the source of Matthew supplied the best explanation. They present two examples suggested by Scot McKnight in which understanding Mark as the source of Matthew is preferable because Mark has the "least likely reading." They then detail eleven examples of their own, applying text-critical criteria, which reflect the probability that Mark's Gospel was the source Gospel for Matthew. They follow this with a summary list of all of the Markan passages where the same conclusion results.

Conclusions to the Use of Text-Critical Criteria for Finding a Solution to the Synoptic Problem. On the basis of their study, Osborne and Williams reach the following conclusions: (1) text-critical arguments consistently support Markan priority and Matthean posteriority, (2) the kinds of readings in their comparison of Matthew to Mark are the same as one finds in Mark's apparatus in comparison to Mark's text, and (3) anyone who uses the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and does not agree with Markan priority is inconsistent.

2GH: Matthew as a Scribe-Author

Niemela notes the plan of Osborne and Williams to expand Streeter's fourth point (i.e., by making Matthew into a scribeauthor), which, according to Niemela, opens a Pandora's box full of evil. He notes that from a practical standpoint, the use of more than one manuscript at a time by a scribe was impossible, a consideration that poses an obstacle to Williams's proposal. Niemela thinks that few changes took place outside the realm of the scribes' short-term memory, which would not yield the differences in the Gospel outlines that are observable.

Niemela illustrates by comparing a scribe to a secretary who transcribes a tape recording, short section by short section, and an author to a graduate student who has time to listen to the recording repeatedly so that he is able to summarize the whole paper. Niemela criticizes Williams for not differentiating between Matthew the author and a scribe, and he says that later Gospel writers did not focus microscopically as a scribe, saying that Williams lowers Matthew to a semiscribe status in copying and changing Mark word by word. Niemela says that if this is the big proof of the MH, the meat is missing.

Ind: The Problem of Presuppositional Effect on Practice

Farnell notes that, although Osborne and Williams claim to have separated their use of historical-critical techniques from the negative roots of the ideology, they fall into the same patterns of denigrating the inspiration of Scripture as their liberal counterparts. He notes that Osborne and Williams refer to the four Gospels as "four-Spirit-inspired narratives" but then use such phrases as "clumsy wording" and "odd placement" to refer to what the Spirit inspired. He proposes that the alleged parenthetical statement "let the reader understand" in Jesus' Olivet Discourse is not parenthetical, as Osborne and Williams contend, but is rather an expression that Jesus spoke to encourage an understanding of the OT book of Daniel.

Farnell calls attention to what Osborne and Williams call "discipleship failure" in Mark 6:51b-52 and 8:21, where for theological reasons, Matthew allegedly changed Mark's account of the disciples' reactions to cast them in a better light. Farnell calls this an example of their proposing that an author fabricated changes in the historical narrative for theological purposes. Farnell points to Mark 6:5f., where Osborne and Williams call Mark's account "a difficult, seemingly inconsistent descrip tion," and notes that this is a strange statement coming from those who call the Gospels "Spirit-inspired narratives."

Farnell also refers to the statements of Osborne and Williams in which they say that Matthew "invented this saying" (Matt. 23:5b) because of what they call Mark's "bizarre phrase" (Mark 12:38). Farnell also focuses on Osborne and Williams's apparent endorsement of Wrede's "messianic secret" theory (i.e., for theological reasons, the early church invented Jesus' commands for silence that are found in Mark's Gospel).

Regarding Osborne and Williams's principal support for Markan priority (i.e., the use of text-critical principles), Farnell notes that (1) text-critical principles are designed to detect errors in order to recover the original reading, (2) comparisons between inspired Scripture and error-filled scribal copies are baseless, and (3) the use of these principles reduces the Gospel writers to the level of scribal ineptitude in their writing abilities.

Farnell then cites five examples from Osborne and Williams's chapter in which some level of error is implied in Mark's account that Matthew corrected in his Gospel. Farnell uses these examples from Osborne and Williams to show the impossibility of divorcing evangelical historical criticism from the roots of nonevangelical historical criticism and its view of biblical errancy.

MP: Problems for the Two-Source Hypothesis. Osborne and Williams acknowledge that Markan priority cannot be looked upon as an assured result because of the "minor" agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. Osborne and Williams offer possible explanations for these "minor" agreements: (1) the "Mark" text used by Matthew and Luke could have been different from the Mark we know today; (2) the agreements may have been independent alterations to Mark's Gospel where Matthew and Luke happened to agree; (3) Mark may have overlapped with another tradition used by Matthew and Luke (e.g., Q); (4) the agreements can be explained by text-critical problems that exist in some instances; (5) Luke used Matthew as a source, but this is improbable. They prefer Stein's solution to the problem (i.e., the agreements are explained as a combination of coincidences in redaction of Markan material, overlapping of Mark and Q, textual corruption, the use of a different version of Mark's Gospel, and overlapping oral traditions).

Other problems faced by the Four-Source View include the following: (1) the view is more complex than the Two-Gospel View because it must theorize the existence of three additional sources: Q, M, and L; (2) evidence from the church fathers unanimously favors the priority of Matthew; (3) omissions of Markan material by Matthew and Luke are hard to explain; and (4) instances of Markan redundancy occur, where he appears to have conflated Matthew and Luke. Osborne and Williams cite a possible solution for each of these problems.

2GH: Problems for the Markan Hypothesis

Niemela emphasizes Osborne and Williams's acknowledgment that the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are problems for the MH, but he denies Tuckett's claim that these minor agreements are also problems for the 2GH; the 2GH does not expect Mark to follow Matthew and Luke whenever their outlines match. This is not a problem for his view.

Niemela challenges Osborne and Williams's conclusion that the church fathers are a problem for both the MH and the 2GH and points to Augustine as an advocate of the TwoGospel Hypothesis. In response to their claim that Mark's omissions of Matthew and Luke are as great a problem as Matthew's and Luke's omissions of Mark, Niemela points to his order-and-content statistics in his main article.

MP: The Existence and Meaning of Q

Osborne and Williams see Q as a possible source to account for the sayings of Jesus that are found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. No such document has ever been found nor is it referred to in any ancient literature. Although the existence of Q communities is doubtful, four reasons can be cited for Q's existence as a written document: (1) the likelihood of literary dependence among the synoptics, (2) the priority of Mark, (3) the presence of material common to Matthew and Luke, and (4) the probability that Luke did not use Matthew. The argument for the fourth of these reasons is the radical differences between Matthew and Luke, especially in the order in which sayings and events are given and in the absence from Luke's Gospel of Matthean modifications of Mark.

M and L: The Other Sources

M and L are symbols used to refer to the source material common to Matthew and Luke, respectively. Whether these sources were written or oral is a matter of debate. L represents sources used by Luke in, for example, the infancy narratives, the travel narrative, and the Emmaus Road journey. M represents Matthew's memory because he was the author of the first Gospel. Hence, M and L are symbols for a wide range of sayings peculiar to the first and third Gospels.

2GH: Q, M, and L

Niemela notes that Osborne and Williams's arguments for the existence of Q depend upon Markan priority and the independence of Matthew and Luke, both of which are dubious in light of order-and-content data. With the existence of Q questionable, Niemela finds it unnecessary to discuss M and L. The 2GH sees Q, M, and L as nonentities that represent what Mark omitted but what was in Matthew and/or Luke.

MP: Conclusion

The relationship of the Gospels to one another is quite relevant because of its impact on apologetics, exegesis, and the theology of each Gospel. No view of origins can claim certainty, but because of the evidence from the Gospels themselves, Osborne and Williams prefer the Two-Source Hypothesis.

2GH: Conclusion

Niemela finds that the main weakness of the Markan Priority View is that it lacks a comprehensive nonreversible line of evidence such as the chi-square statistical support enjoyed by the 2GH. He agrees with Farnell that it is time for evangelicals to take a stand for a high view of Scripture, an issue on which Niemela perceives equivocation on the part of Osborne and Williams because of their allowance for Matthew and Luke to correct Mark's theology. The 2GH upholds that high view as well as high standards of scholarship before those who challenge it.

Ind:: Summary Observations

Farnell reviews the four problems with the MH and expresses a hope that his remarks will serve as a foundation for further dialogue.

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER Two: THE CASE FOR THE Two-GOSPEL VIEW

[Two-Gospel View unindented and introduced with 2GH; responses indented and introduced with MP (Markan Priority View) and

Ind (Independence View)]

2GH: Literary Collaboration and a High View of Scripture

Niemela expresses his concern over liberal hermeneutical approaches that undermine the Bible but does not feel that literary collaboration compromises inerrancy, inspiration, or the need for a consistent hermeneutic. He rejects redaction criticism because it denigrates the authority of Scripture.

MH: Literary Collaboration and a High View of Scripture Osborne and Williams begin their response by stating their agreement with Niemela that one can believe simultaneously in a dependency theory between the Synoptic Gospels and in inspiration and inerrancy. They cite Niemela's proof that other biblical authors use biblical sources, as in the collaboration between Kings and Chronicles and between 2 Peter and Jude. They further agree with Niemela's exegesis of Luke 1: 1-4, that because God is the ultimate author, He was free to use a formerly inspired Gospel as a source for a second or even a third inspired Gospel.

Also, they concur with Niemela's point that the church fathers are only a secondary source of evidence. Yet, they think it ironic that Niemela would discredit the Fathers because their unanimous testimony of Matthean priority is one of the main supports claimed by the 2GH. They note Niemela's silence on this particular irony. They return, however, to reiterate their agreement with him that Luke 1 biblically shows that it is acceptable for Evangelists to have used one another as sources when they wrote their respective Gospels.

Osborne and Williams criticize Niemela at another point. They call him unwise in spending more than one-third of his chapter defending the 2GH against the claims of The Jesus Crisis. They call it sad when an evangelical has to spend so much space defending himself and his views against the claims of other evangelicals.

2GH: The Independence View and Luke 1:1-4

Niemela notes that Luke 1:1-4 is the only passage that directly addresses the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels. But he cites Thomas, Farnell, and Felix in The Jesus Crisis as saying that the passage precludes rather than allows for Luke's use of another canonical Gospel, and Niemela questions the conclusion that Luke disparages the writings about Christ that have preceded his.

God Is Scripture's Ultimate Author. Niemela points to God as well as Luke as the author of Luke's Gospel and argues that God would certainly not speak disparagingly of a canonical Gospel written earlier than Luke's Gospel. Niemela reasons that Luke's language, if anything, speaks positively of earlier accounts of the life of Christ.

Luke's Total Contribution. Niemela discusses how Luke's Gospel prepares the way for Acts in a way that Matthew's Gospel could not have done. Luke's emphasis on Gentiles, women, the Holy Spirit, and finances are parts of that preparation. Niemela points out that Luke's Gospel is the first volume of a two-volume work and ventures an opinion that Luke-Acts was done in two volumes because, if it had been done in one volume, its size would have exceeded first-century limits on scrolls.

Niemela disagrees with Felix's discussion in The Jesus Crisis that distinguishes the "eyewitnesses" in Luke 1:2 from the "many" of Luke 1:1 who earlier had attempted accounts of Jesus' life. Niemela includes Matthew and his Gospel in both groups. He concludes that Luke's research could even have included a canonical Gospel.

Summary of Luke 1:1-4.On the basis of his study of Luke 1:1-4 as the only direct statement of Scripture on the subject, Niemela concludes that Luke 1:1-4 does not preclude literary collaboration among the synoptics.

The Three Views. Niemela presents the three views of order and content: the MH, the Independence View, and the Griesbach form of the 2GH.

Markan Hypothesis. In testing the MH, Niemela's chapter is a statistical investigation of order and content as a means of testing the independence of Matthew and Luke regarding Mark.

Independence View. Because the Independence View also argues for the independence of Matthew and Luke regarding Mark, Niemela states that the issues of order and content are as applicable in testing this view as they are in testing the MH.

MH: The Lack of Traditional Arguments for the 2GH

Osborne and Williams fault Niemela for omitting some of the evidence that has historically been used to defend the 2GH. He says nothing of Dungan's "macrostructural" evidence, the most important of which being the relative order of pericopes between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, including an extensive graph of the different pericopes. Osborne and Williams also cite Niemela's omission of the "simplicity" argument for the Two-Gospel View, which relates all of the Gospels to one another, thus eliminating the need for Q. Because of his emphasis on statistics, they say, Niemela does not treat the traditional arguments at length. They conclude that if one is not convinced by the statistics, little else exists in support of the 2GH.

Ind: Ignoring the Presuppositional History of the TwoGospel View

Farnell responds to Niemela's rejection of the claim that intersynoptic literary collaboration is an example of wrongheaded scholarship, offering the following observations.

(1) He commends Niemela's insistence on a high view of Scripture but sees that position as inconsistent with his adoption of the 2GH because the Two-Gospel Hypothesis arose from philosophical roots that are presuppositionally and historically hostile to orthodox views of inspiration. Farnell calls attention to Niemela's failure to mention the ideological skepticism behind the position he adopts.

(2) Farnell notes how Niemela splits hairs over the difference between "dependence" on the one hand and "collaboration" or "consultation" on the other. He says that if Mark "consulted" Matthew and Luke in writing his Gospel, he was dependent upon them, no matter how light or heavy his dependence may have been. Farnell also recalls that the nature of literary dependence was the problem that Griesbach, the originator of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, sought to solve.

(3) Farnell critiques Niemela's effort to distance himself from form and redaction criticism, such as characterize supporters of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. Farnell indicates that once a person acknowledges literary dependence or collaboration, that person takes upon himself or herself the obligation to explain why the copied text differs from what was copied. Doing so, Farnell says, entails the employment of form- and/or redaction-critical methodologies, although adherents to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis have not as yet become deeply engaged in those methodologies. Farnell illustrates by asking how Niemela would handle the rich young ruler's question and Jesus' answer in Matthew 19:16-17; Mark 10:17-18; Luke 18:18-19 without resorting to form and/or redaction criticism. Farrell anticipates that, as happened with the Two-Source View beginning in the 1960s, a growing popularity of form and redaction criticism will also occur among evangelical advocates of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis.

Ind: Inability to Separate from Griesbach

Farnell observes that Niemela rarely mentions Griesbach in his chapter, defending Griesbach's theory, whenever mentioning him, doing so in a somewhat positive light. Farnell notes that Niemela leaves it for his readers to gather from implication that his view of inspiration differs radically from Griesbach's. Farnell claims that in spite of this difference, aside from sequence of dependency, Niemela's kinship with Griesbach is evident.

(1) Farnell points out Griesbach's rejection of the principle of harmonization of the Gospels and the low view of inspiration that lay behind it. Niemela, Farnell concedes, does not reject harmonization, claiming that those who do reject harmonization do so because of their hermeneutical approach (i.e., the use of form and redaction criticism). Yet, the originator of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis did reject harmonization because of literary collaboration. Farnell anticipates that Niemela will face the same dilemma once he tries to explain historical discrepancies in the text that were introduced by secondary Gospel writers in their changes made to their sources. In instances such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, which Niemela sees as two sermons, Niemela escapes the dilemma by postulating that Jesus said the same thing on more than one occasion. In overall picture, Farnell sees Niemela's system as more of a hybrid combination of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis and the Independence View: to the degree that Niemela resorts to independence, he can avoid Griesbach's disdain for harmonization, but to the degree that he resorts to the TwoGospel Hypothesis, he of necessity must incorporate redaction-critical methods and join company with Griesbach in deserting traditional harmonization.

(2) Farnell names another area in which Niemela ties himself to Griesbach-his handling of church history. Griesbach rejected early church tradition, making use of only those elements that supported his theory. Just as did his predecessor, Niemela shows an acute disrespect for church history, except in those cases wherein the Fathers support his theory (e.g., Augustine).

Farnell notes that, like Griesbach, Niemela ignores the Fathers in some cases and in other cases offers reinterpretations of what the Fathers wrote. Farnell calls Niemela's reinterpretations tenuous and cites two examples. The first example is Clement, who in one instance, Niemela says, fails to explain his evidence and in another instance raises questions about Peter's view of the canonicity of Mark's Gospel. Farnell gives reasons for calling both of these reinterpretations weak.

The second example of a tenuous reinterpretation relates to Chrysostom. Niemela differs with The Jesus Crisis in its view that Chrysostom favored literary independence of the Gospels. To avoid what Farnell calls "the obvious conclusion" about Chrysostom, Niemela comes up with an "alternate interpretation" of Chrysostom's words (which Farnell attempts to refute). Farnell then questions, in light of Niemela's attempt to discredit Chrysostom immediately afterward, Niemela's assurance about his own "alternate interpretation."

Farnell next offers several general observations that relate to Niemela's dismissal of early church evidence. (1) Evidence from the Fathers does not support the 2GH. (2) Niemela is inconsistent, dismissing the only external evidence that supports one aspect of the 2GH (i.e., Matthean priority). (3) The consistency of the ancient testimony regarding the origins of the Synoptic Gospels cannot be arbitrarily dismissed as Niemela dismisses it. (4) Contrary to Niemela's assertion, no substantial evidence exists to support literary dependency until after the Reformation. (5) Niemela's reasoning is a non sequitur in concluding that a mistake by the Fathers regarding the Letter of Aristeas means that the Fathers were mistaken regarding most of what they wrote.

2GH: Mark Consulted Matthew and Luke

Niemela presents the thesis that Mark consulted Matthew and Lukethus, the convergence of Matthew and Luke in Mark-as the sine qua non of the 2GH.

Order-Only and Content-Only Arguments

Order-Only Arguments. Niemela notes that order arguments alone cannot settle the issue of priority because they are reversible; they can be used to prove either the MH or the 2GH.

He agrees with Tuckett that Lachmann's argument was nonformal because it used order-only considerations. It was reversible and therefore nonformal.

Formal order-only arguments acknowledge the following possibilities: all three synoptics have the same order, Luke's order differs from Matthew and Mark, and Matthew's order differs from Luke and Mark. But any synoptic theory can account for these three possibilities.

Content-Only Arguments. Burton considers seven classes of content-only possibilities: (a) threefold, being found in all three Gospels; (b) twofold, being common to Matthew and Mark; (c) twofold, being common to Mark and Luke; (d) twofold, being common to Matthew and Luke; (e) peculiar to Matthew (i.e., omitted by Mark and Luke); (f) peculiar to Mark (i.e., omitted by Matthew and Luke); and (g) peculiar to Luke (i.e., omitted by Matthew and Mark). Yet, as Niemela notes, Burton never correlates these seven with order. Thus, like order-only arguments, content-only arguments are reversible and do not point to one particular synoptic solution.

The Result of Order-Only and Content-Only Arguments. Because of the reversibility of both types of arguments, some scholars have considered the Synoptic Problem insoluble.

The Order-and-Content Grid and the 2GH

As a solution to this dilemma, Niemela proposes the integration of these two arguments into a single argument.

The Order-and-Content Model (OCM). Niemela notes that Farmer has identified an integrated order-and-content approach, which identifies fourteen possible combinations of order and content. The OCM contrasts with the order-only model with its five patterns and the content-only model with its seven patterns. Looking at either of these two models creates a gerrymandering problem that renders all resultant arguments reversible.

Markan Order-and-Content Model. By eliminating four of the fourteen combinations in which Mark omitted the content, Niemela reduces to ten the number of agreement and disagreement patterns involving Mark's order in relation to Matthew and Luke. Five of these ten patterns involve both fraternal- and identical-twin departures from Mark. The infrequency of these five twin departures poses a particular difficulty for the MH.

The Order-and-Content Grid. The order-and-content grid arranges the ten patterns in columns and rows the way a statistician would place them. The grid is a visual representation, showing the infrequency of fraternal twins (i.e., instances in which Mark's order differs from Matthew and Luke, each of the three Gospels has a different order, the order of Matthew differs from the order of Mark when Luke omits, the order of Luke differs from the order of Mark when Matthew omits, and only Mark includes). The MH has difficulty accounting for the infrequency of these five situations.

Inadequate Lachmannian Models. Niemela points out that the Lachmannian model is based on an order-only grid, which does not account for all possible twin combinations (i.e., not just identical twins as Markan prioritists are prone to do but fraternal twins as well). Every conceivable pattern must be accounted for.

The Best-Kept Secret

Niemela contends that the reason why critics of Farmer have not understood his order-and-content argument is the ambiguity of Farmer's term coincide. Markan hypothesists have taken it to mean "coinciding in the same way (and in the same place)," in other words, identical-twin departures. What Farmer meant was coinciding in the same place, signifying fraternal-twin departures rather than identicaltwin departures only.

Have Scholars Misunderstand Order and Content? Niemela notes that Markan prioritists such as McLoughlin, Neirynck, and Tuckett have for various reasons misunderstood Farmer's order-andcontent reasoning. Farmer wondered why the class of twin departures was so rare, but his respondents tried to account for only one aspect of that class (i.e., identical-twin departures).

Statistical Analysis

Niemela poses the question, "Why do Matthew's and Luke's desertions of Mark not coincide more frequently?" Although (a) Mark's order and content frequently matches both Matthew and Luke, (b) Mark's order and content frequently matches Matthew, (c) Mark's order and content frequently matches Luke-why, if Matthew and Luke were literarily dependent upon Mark, do they not depart from Mark in the same places more frequently? By constructing his own synopsis, using Mark as the lead Gospel for the synopsis, Niemela highlighted alternating agreements and the infrequency of all twin departures.

Niemela defined statistical units as verses and in some cases as half verses, bringing him to place the Sermon on the Mount at Mark 1:20 and to omit Mark 16:9-20 from the calculation, although placing the sermon elsewhere and including the ending of Mark's Gospel would not have affected the outcome. Niemela's calculations did not presuppose the correctness of the 2GH but turned out to be consistent with that view.

Chi-square and the MH. Chi-square has been rated as one of the top twenty inventions of the twentieth century. It is a method of calculating probabilities on the basis of statistics.

Using statistical procedures to predict the frequencies of certain combinations, Niemela calculated how many of Mark's verses should belong to each of the ten patterns (in a perfect MH world) and concluded that the number of all twin departures from Mark is statistically underrepresented. Niemela then totaled the number of verses in each pattern.

He concluded that, in every pattern representation, transpositions were underrepresented, especially where Matthew transposes the order of Mark and Luke omits and where Luke transposes the order of Mark and Matthew omits. These figures contrast with the speculations of Markan priority scholars, who would have anticipated these frequencies to have been much higher. The figures are explainable under the 2GH, however, because each set of figures is accounted for by Mark's creating his own order by transposing Matthew, Luke, or Matthew and Luke.

Calculating Chi-square. In calculating the chi-square sum, Niemela came up with a figure of 41.013,490,22.

Interpreting the sum, he determined that there are fewer than three chances in 100,000,000 that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark. From a practical standpoint, statisticians consider anything less than one in 10,000 as 0 percent likelihood. Chi-square, a respected statistical tool, challenges the independence of Matthew and Luke regarding Mark.

Furthermore, Niemela ruled out the possibility of a lurking variable by a further examination of the statistics.

MH: An Analysis of the Statistical Analysis for the 2GH

Osborne and Williams recognize that Niemela's defense of this view stands or falls with his statistical analysis of the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels. Thus, they view the part of their response that addresses Niemela's statistics as the most important. Williams describes his background in engineering training and experience but still asserts his difficulty in understanding Niemela's statistics as presented in the chapter.

Osborne and Williams raise several questions about Niemela's statistics. How is it that after 250 years since the inception of the Owen-Griesbach theory, Niemela uncovered the "best-kept secret" for determining the solution to the Synoptic Problem? Osborne and Williams also note that Niemela does not cite another author to show the correctness of his statistical analysis. Because he is the first person to perform such a numerical analysis, does some proof exist as to its correctness?

They then state several concerns with Niemela's statistical model.

(1) Can anyone use statistics to explain what an author did while using a source? They doubt the possibility of anyone's explaining, using mathematical statistics, what Matthew or Luke did, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to their source, namely, Mark. Osborne and Williams ask if numbers could ever explain why authors chose to include or not to include a pericope, based upon the needs of the community(ies) to which they wrote.

(2) Osborne and Williams believe that Niemela should have counted pericopes rather than verses because secondary authors made their decisions based on what to include at the level of episodes or sayings, not at the level of verses. Counting verses rather than pericopes could slant the statistics heavily in favor of Matthew, considering the length of some pericopes.

(3) Osborne and Williams also note that the numbers are only as good as the parameters that are used to count those numbers. They question which verses were counted and which verses were omitted in Niemela's system. They ask whether authors have to use the same words or whether the words have to be in the same order. Because Osborne and Williams do not know which verses count, they question the decision making for determining which verses count. Because Niemela gives no example to illustrate what counts and what does not count, Osborne and Williams have to refrain from commenting on what does or does not count in his statistics. They point out that Eta Linnemann used statistics to prove the Independence View and question the way she set up her formula. They do the same with Niemela.

(4) Osborne and Williams have questions about Niemela's chi-square sum and its huge total. Since there is nothing else done on ancient literature with which to compare it, Osborne and Williams say that their biggest concern regards the lack of a control of the use of this statistical system with written documents. They cite as Niemela's only example his comparison of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount with Luke's Sermon on the Plain. Because Niemela sees them as separate sermons, contrary to the opinion of most scholars, Osborne and Williams doubt that his statistical method with all three synoptics will be convincing to most.

(5) Osborne and Williams question why Niemela failed to comment on passages that are common to Matthew and Luke but are omitted by Mark. Because these passages constitute a major weakness in the 2GH, Osborne and Williams see this failure as a major problem in Niemela's defense of the view.

(6) Osborne and Williams think that Niemela should have shown how his statistics strengthen the traditional arguments of Farmer and Dungan that support the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. They predict that the average reader will be confused by the statistics.

2GH: Statistics and the Independence View

Niemela holds that the preceding statistics rule out the Independence View also. He states that, although the numbers' surface arrangements of patterns are easy to explain as literary phenomena, they are inexplicable apart from a literary connection.

Niemela asks why Mark always ends up in the majority in agreeing with Matthew and Luke in various combinations, and he reasons that literary features would seem to have a literary explanation. He argues that Edgar's analogy of various accounts of the battle of Gettysburg is not applicable to the Synoptic Gospels and that the Gospel of John proves that much more could be told about the life of Christ than what the synoptic writers could have memorized.

The 2GH Statistics. Niemela contends that the MH needs to explain why fraternal-twin departures by Matthew and Luke from Mark are so rare and that the Independence View needs to explain why Mark has an alternating pattern of order-and-content agreements with either Matthew or Luke. On the other hand, the 2GH thrives under such a statistical examination.

Ind: Subjectivity of Statistical Evidence

Farnell disputes Niemela's claim that his statistics are "observational" and "do not presuppose a certain synoptic solution." He shows that the statistics do presuppose literary dependence. Earlier in his response, Farnell called attention to Niemela's allowing only a slight dependence of Luke upon Matthew. Now he shows that the rarity of Mark's singular order does not prove Mark's dependence on Matthew and Luke; rather, it proves that Mark did not depend upon the other two at all because if he had depended upon them, Mark's singular order would not be just rare-it would be nonexistent. He did not depend upon them, asserts Farnell, a factor that accounts for occasions of Mark's singular order. Farnell recalls a similar phenomenon of two Gospels' agreeing with each other against a third Gospel in all combinations. Both phenomena demonstrate literary independence unless one assumes literary dependence.

Ind: The Irrelevance of the Gospel of John in Determining Synoptic Origins

In the final major part of his response, Farnell addresses Niemela's question: If writing independently, why do all three synoptic writers select basically the same material, and why did John select material largely different from the synoptics for his Gospel? Farnell refers to Clement's words that assert John's familiarity with what had already been written and his decision to cover different ground than the other Gospels reported. As an apostolic eyewitness, John did so to supplement and add to what the others had written. He did so by supplying details and events not in the other Gospels.

2GH: Other Arguments

Of Streeter's five arguments for Markan priority, the first, third, and fifth come under the umbrella of order-and-content arguments, but Niemela sees his own order-and-content grid as a superior approach to those arguments. In light of the statistical analysis outlined herein, these three of Streeter's arguments carry little weight. Also, Streeter's second and fourth arguments are inconclusive. All five arguments are reversible and overly atomistic.

Luke Consulted Matthew

The Historical Situation in Acts. Evidence from Acts favors dating the Gospel of Matthew quite early, perhaps as early as A.D. 44. Because Matthew was the only canonical Gospel available for Paul on his missionary journeys, Luke, as Paul's traveling companion, would have become quite familiar with Matthew.

Order and Content as a Clue. When Two-Gospel hypothesists speak of Luke's using Matthew, they usually mean that sometimes he did and sometimes he did not. Saying that Luke follows Matthew's order and content does not mean that he always does so, and noting that Luke does not always follow Matthew does not mean that he never does.

A sizable block of Matthew, about 370 of Matthew's 1,071 verses, belongs to patterns in which (a) all three Gospels have the same order, (b) Mark's order differs from Matthew and Luke, or (c) the order of Matthew is the same as the order of Luke. By adding verses belonging to a few other patterns, one could conclude that Luke, in writing his Gospel, consulted about four hundred Matthean verses.

Times When Luke Does Not Follow Matthew. Luke did not follow Matthew in reporting Matthew's Sermon on the Mount but rather reported a different sermon, the Sermon on the Plain. The anointing of Jesus' feet in Matthew 26 and Luke 7 are also different events.

Implications

Niemela sees the 2GH as defensible scholarship that does not compromise Scripture and, as such, furnishes an answer to the Jesus seminar.

Evangelicals and the MH. Niemela points to both the shaky foundation of Markan priority and the existence of Q as problems that the MH faces in responding to the Jesus Seminar because the seminar's views on both topics are similar to those of the MH.

Evangelicals and the Independence View. That The Jesus Crisis leans heavily upon a questionable interpretation of Luke 1:1-4 and upon a secondary tier of evidence to support the Independence View raises questions about how this view could respond to the Jesus Seminar. Plus, the Jesus Seminar couuld construe the Independence View's proto-Matthew as a Q document. The alternating order-and-content agreements revolving around Mark are also a problem for the Independence View.

Evangelicals and the 2GH. The 2GH's order-and-content statistics are a distinct advantage in discussions with the Jesus Seminar. In addition, the 2GH maintains a high view of Scripture.

MH: Various Comments on Minor Issues in the Chapter Osborne and Williams add the following brief observations about Niemela's chapter.

(1) They cite his questioning of the redaction criticism used by McKnight and of the "more radical" advocates of the Markan priority, viewing these as examples of guilt by association.

(2) They cite Niemela's failure to admit that he might be wrong and that there are possible problems with his view and consider this a lack of humility on his part. They contrast Niemela's posture with their own chapter, which is not as dogmatic. They welcome a book of this type as a challenge to present more lines of evidence.

(3) They view as circular Niemela's arguments that Luke consulted Matthew, whereby he first assigns an early date for Matthew and then assumes that Paul and Luke used Matthew's Gospel in their travels. They criticize Niemela's failure to examine the possibility that both used an Ur-Gospel or that text criticism might have caused their similarities to one another.

(4) They criticize Niemela for devoting an inadequate amount of space to Streeter's five heads of evidence. They are particularly critical of Niemela's failure to look more closely at the fourth head of evidence and the study that has gone into that fourth head in the last seventy years.

(5) They fault Niemela's repeated references to evidence for Markan priority as being "reversible" and the implication that Niemela's statistical arguments are nonreversible. They argue that the latter is uncertain. They see a vast difference between an argument that is "reversible" or possible and one that is certain or probable. They point to their defense of the MH as advancing the more probable arguments.

(6) Citing Niemela's statement that Streeter's arguments are "overly atomistic," they call Niemela's arguments overly general and take him to task for not dealing with the minute differences in the texts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They ask why, if Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources, he did not include the Sermon on the Mount, the infancy stories, or much of the teaching material that is in the other two Gospels. The major task for the MH and the 2GH is to explain why Matthew changed Mark's text or vice versa. Osborne and Williams point to their chapter for examples of why they think the MH is preferable.

(7) They close by reiterating that literary dependency is not, as some scholars have argued, the litmus test for orthodoxy. They recognize that the question of synoptic origins is important and urge readers to examine the evidence and the Gospels for themselves before making up their minds.

Ind: Conclusion

In additional comments, Farnell alludes to Niemela's unusual view of inspiration, which has God overshadowing the human author to the point that Luke could not have spoken disparagingly of the earlier Gospel of Matthew in Luke's prologue. Farnell points out that God in His omniscience did not override Luke's knowledge as human author but led him to research the life of Christ from noncanonical sources.

After reviewing his response, Farnell concludes that the 2GH fails for lack of evidence.

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER THREE: THE CASE FOR THE INDEPENDENCE VIEW

[Independence View unindented and introduced with Ind; responses indented and introduced with MP (Markan Priority View) and 2GH (Two-Gospel View)]

Ind: Presuppositional and Historical Roots of Synoptic Discussions

Evangelical Hostility to the Independence View. Farnell reviews how Ladd denigrated the Independence View and set the tone for current evangelical attitudes toward literary independence. He recalls Ladd's preference for Markan priority as an established fact but observes that Ladd was uncritical in his assessment because he ignored important presuppositional and historical evidence as well as evidence from the Gospels themselves. Evangelicals who, to confirm the authenticity of Scripture, implement ideologies inherently hostile to Scripture lack objectivity in their promotion of dependency hypotheses. Dependency theories did not arise from scientific procedures but did so under circumstances that denigrated the Gospels as inspired documents. Farnell cites Linnemann as an example of a former dependency advocate who has seen the error of her ways in supporting theories that arose from a philosophical foundation. He cites Ladd's acknowledgment of the antisupernaturalistic background of dependency theories but notes that Ladd felt competent to overcome that background. Yet, Ladd never explained how historical criticism could, while adversely affecting views of biblical inerrancy, blend with an evangelical view of Scripture.

The Biblical Paradigm: Exposure of and Separation from Error. Farnell compares Ladd's paradigm of embracing historical criticism to the biblical paradigm, which urges exposure of and separation from error rather than dialogue with it. Ladd sought to earn respect for evangelical scholarship in the world of liberal scholarship, but he never satisfied the liberal critics. They always felt his work was controlled too much by conservative presuppositions. Ladd tried in vain to unite atheistic philosophies with an evangelical view of inspiration, with the result that he was shunned by conservative evangelicals and never accepted by liberals. Gaining prestige only among moderate evangelicals, Ladd, by adopting liberal ideologies, was never able to win liberals to a conservative position.

The Hermeneutical Purpose of Historical-Critical Ideology Farnell calls attention to the original hermeneutical purpose of biblical criticism: not to determine the meaning of the text but to avoid its normal meaning. Spinoza, the originator of biblical criticism, shifted the focus from God's activity in and through Jesus Christ to the history behind the text, thus eliminating all traditional theological teaching and moral standards. Thus, the hermeneutical purpose changed from trying to determine the text's objective meaning to a subjective understanding that avoided the text's meaning. By this means, historical criticism surreptitiously entered the field of Gospel scholarship, including evangelical Gospel studies.

Evangelical Failure to Consider Presuppositions and History Farnell quotes Reventlow, Brown, and Shaeffer to show the importance of modern biblical interpreters coming to understand "hidden" presuppositions in biblical exegesis, which presuppositions affect methodologies and conclusions. Farnell considers it unfortunate that many evangelical scholars have disregarded these warnings.

Second Corinthians 10:5-Taking Every Thought Captive. Because of the presuppositional background behind source criticism, Farnell sees source-critical advocates as searching for sources behind the Gospels to confirm or deny their historicity rather than their seeing them as the inspired books that they are. Integration of dependency theories with a high view of Scripture is inherently unstable because those dependency theories are in conflict with a high view of Scripture. Dependency theories allow men to stand in judgment of Scripture rather than vice versa. Faithfulness to Scripture should take precedence over efforts to attain scholarly prestige (2 Cor. 10:5).

The Dominance of Independence Until the Enlightenment

Farnell claims that from early church history until the rise of deism, rationalism, and Enlightenment philosophies in the 1800s, the Independence View of synoptic origins dominated in Christian circles. With the rise of the aforementioned philosophies, alternate theories of synoptic origins arose as did modern views of biblical errancy. Such philosophical speculations gave rise to source criticism and its most prominent form, Markan priority.

2GH: Mismatched Shoes

Niemela acknowledges that when Farrell argues against those who take a low view of Scripture, he has a "matched pair of shoes" But, Niemela asserts, when Farnell couples a literary relationship between the synoptics with liberalism, he has a mismatched pair.

Ind.: The Independence Position in the Early Church. Farnell notes what others have noted-that historical criticism has systematically dismissed, explained away, or ignored what the early church fathers had to say about Gospel origins. One of the characteristics of the Enlightenment was to ignore all forms of tradition.

Dependency Hypotheses Unsupported Among the Church Fathers. Farrell finds no support for either the 2GH or the MH among the early Fathers. In contrast to accepting the Markan Priority View, the unanimous consensus among the Fathers was that Matthew, rather than Mark, wrote first. Their probable view was that Luke wrote second and Mark third. The early witnesses attest that Mark wrote his Gospel based upon Peter's preaching, not on Matthew or Luke, as the 2GH would have it. The scholarship of the early Fathers dictates that their evidence be factored into any serious consideration of Gospel origins.

Matthew: The Preeminent as Well as Dominant Gospel in the Early Church. Clement of Alexandria attested that Matthew wrote first and that his Gospel wielded the widest influence in the early church. Clement asserted that the Gospels with the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were the first written, thus relegating Mark to the third position. Clement gathered his information from a wide representation of the early Christian community. Because of the connection of the Gospel of Mark with the city of Alexandria, Clement's positioning of Mark as third gains more credibility. Clement was joined by other early Fathers in supporting Matthean priority.

Scholarly opinion on this sequence changed with the coming of the Enlightenment, the result being that most current NT scholars view Mark as the first Gospel to be written.

2GH: De-emphasis of Patristic Arguments

Niemela says that Farnell's main argument from church history is an argument from silence, which by its nature is weak. Niemela cites Augustine, Chrysostom, and Clement as Fathers who clearly favored a literary connection among the Gospels. Niemela also cites Augustine's words "did not choose to write ... in ignorance" as evidence that Augustine thought that Mark had read the earlier Gospels and therefore that Augustine was a supporter of literary dependence. Augustine not only supported literary dependence but also shifted to the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence of writing and became the earliest advocate of the Two-Gospel View.

Niemela also points to Augustine's words about "superfluous additions" and reasons that such additions do not refer to material not contained in the later Gospels but must refer to later Gospels themselves as not being superfluous additions.

Next, Niemela cites Chrysostom's statement about Mark's omitting Christ's genealogy because Mark followed Matthew. Niemela concludes that this indicates Chrysostom's belief in literary dependence. Moving to another Chrysostom citation, Niemela compares it to Chrysostom's speaking of a group of people singing in unison as a choir. He speaks of Chrysostom's setting up a diatribe to defend variety in the Gospels.

Niemela points to a logical error called the genetic fallacy (i.e., appealing to a view's source to test its truthfulness). He says that Farnell is wrong in tracing the origin of literary dependency to the Enlightenment, that Griesbach did not claim to have originated the Two-Gospel View but simply popularized what he had received from others, and that the real origin of the Two-Gospel View is Augustine. Niemela testifies that his own wrestling with a synopsis of the Gospels, not following Griesbach, is what led him to embrace the 2GH.

Ind: No Mention of Literary-Dependency Concepts Among the Early Fathers. Although the early Fathers had every opportunity to mention literary dependence, they never did so. Chrysostom typifies the viewpoint of the early Fathers that the four Gospel writers worked independently of each other in producing their Gospels. Literary independence continued to be the prevailing view until the time shortly after the Reformers, as Grant Osborne, a dependency advocate, acknowledges.

Modern Proponents of the Independence View

Modern proponents of the Independence View have included Louis Berkhof, Henry C. Thiessen, Eta Linnemann, Robert G. Gromacki, Merrill C. Tenney, Jakob Van Bruggen, John M. Rist (independence of Matthew and Mark), John Wenham (modified independence), Bo Reicke (modified independence), and The Jesus Crisis (a multiauthor work).

Essential Elements of the Independence View

Famell lists six axioms that constitute essential elements of the Independence View.

The Synoptic "Problem," a Historical-Critical Myth. Without an assumption of literary dependency, no real "Synoptic Problem" exists. The only problem with synoptic origins is a creation of antiinspiration and antisupernatural viewpoints, stimulated by philosophies inherently hostile to the Word of God. Evangelical advocates of dependency hypotheses have either failed to realize the presuppositional roots of their theories or followed Ladd's paradigm of asserting their ability to surmount the negativity. No evangelical as yet, however, has used historical-critical methods in the Gospels without dehistoricizing them at one point or another.

The same philosophical soil that produced modem errancy positions also produced the dependency positions on Gospel origins. This is true of Griesbach's Two-Gospel View as it is of the Two-/FourSource View with its Markan priority. Markan priority became the starting point for form/tradition and redaction criticisms that also have roots in the errancy position. The Independence View, says Farnell, rejects them all.

MH: Sticks and Stones

Osborne and Williams point out two lines of negative argumentation in Farnell's defense of the Independence View. (1) They point out his negative rhetoric to attack the other views, noting that such polemic only asserts rather than proves by evidence. Osborne points to one of Farnell's endnotes that refers to an article by Osborne in which, according to Farrell, Osborne makes a tacit admission of possible error in the Gospels. Osborne flatly denies that he finds any of Jesus' words in the Gospels unhistorical and accuses Farnell of unfounded assumptions about evangelical scholars.

Osborne and Williams wonder about Farnell's claim that only the Independence View is orthodox and point to Niemela's discussion of Luke 1: 1-4 and the literary dependence between Kings and Chronicles to defend literary dependence as orthodox. They point out that if it is true that one of the Gospel writers used the work of another, modern scholars would not be faithful to the Word of God and to proper models of interpretation if they did not acknowledge such. They observe that if some of the sources behind the Gospels were inspired, it would not be hermeneutically misguided to say so.

(2) Next, they comment on Farnell's association of evangelicals with liberal tendencies and movements and on his statements that those who do not hold to the Independence View are unorthodox. They compare his statements to papal statements, pointing out how different they are from customary evangelical humility that admits its own limitations as a result of its presuppositions and blindness in interpretive matters. They disclaim association with reader-response criticism, however, and agree with Farnell in his desire to uphold the truth of Scripture. They deny any connection with an errancy view of Scripture.

MH: A Question of History and Presuppositions

The major concern for Osborne and Williams relates to Farnell's survey of the history of the Synoptic Problem and its origin in connection with the errancy position of liberal philosophical methods. They agree with much that Farnell says about this subject but pose two questions.

(1) Did no church father believe in dependency? They agree with Niemela's survey of the church fathers in the 2GH chapter, concluding that Chrysostom and Augustine did support literary dependence. They note others who also agreed with Niemela regarding Augustine. On this basis, Osborne and Williams challenge Farnell's conclusion that literary dependence began with the Enlightenment. They further conclude that if Augustine agreed with literary dependency, and because Farnell acknowledges Augustine to be an inerrantist, then it must be possible to be an inerrantist while adhering to dependency theories.

(2) Was there anyone in the eighteenth century who performed an analysis of the Gospel texts and concluded that they were dependent, who did not adopt the philosophical roots of much of modern source criticism? Osborne and Williams answer "yes" and criticize Farnell for omitting the first written defense of literary dependency during the Enlightenment. They refer to the work of Dr. Henry Owen, Observations on the Four Gospels (London, 1764), which was written nineteen years before Griesbach set forth his Two-Gospel Theory and ten years before the publication of Reimarus's Fragments.

Owen was the first defender of the dependency theory of Matthean priority and also a strong defender of biblical accuracy. They see Owen, who predated Farnell by 250 years, as one who recognized the problem that philosophical systems could cause regarding Gospel study and rose to defend the Gospels against such attacks. Owen saw the use of one Gospel by another as a positive sign. By this means, Christians in the early church were alerted as to which Gospels were the true ones in comparison with many false Gospels that were in circulation.

Osborne and Williams disagree with Farnell's overall emphasis in his historical survey, especially on the basis of their conclusion that Owen, an advocate of dependency, predated the era of the philosophical systems that questioned the accuracy of the biblical texts.

Osborne and Williams state their agreement with Ladd, McKnight, and others that there is an evangelical use for critical tools in exegesis, as long as inspiration and the Holy Spirit are accepted as instrumental in writing the Gospels. They caution that one need not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

2GH: The Expression: Two-Gospel Hypothesis

Niemela corrects Farnell's terminology in calling his view the "Neo-Griesbach Hypothesis" and says that it should more properly be called the "Neo-Augustinian Hypothesis" because the view did not originate during the Enlightenment but during the patristic period. He prefers the expression "Two-Gospel Hypothesis."

2GH: Historical-Critical Ideologies

Niemela criticizes Farnell for discussing issues that are outside the topic of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. He expresses appreciation for what Farnell says that is outside that topic but has to limit his comments to the Synoptic Problem itself. He expresses agreement with Farnell if interbiblical literary collaboration contradicts a conservative evangelical position, but he says that such collaboration does not. He cites Farnell's colleague as one who admits interbiblical collaboration without compromising conservative credentials.

Niemela admits that all is not well within evangelicalism, especially with some evangelicals who adjust their views to gain scholarly acceptance. He says, however, that accepting literary collaboration "does not make one into a weathervane who changes direction to impress scholarship."

Treatment of Order

Farnell dismisses the argument from order, as do most TwoGospel hypothesists, but he does not consider the alternative of order and content, says Niemela. He reiterates that alternating order-and-content agreements of Matthew and Luke with Mark are not the same as order-only agreements. The former are reversible; the latter are not. He points out that Thomas Edgar's Gettysburg analogy in The Jesus Crisis is not parallel because knowledge of events in Jesus' life is not as complete as a knowledge of the happenings in the American Civil War. Niemela names the order-and-content argument as the backbone of the 2GH.

Ind: Four Gospels Based upon Independent Apostolic Eyewitnesses. Farnell lists as the third essential element of the Independence View that each Gospel writer worked independently of the other three without deriving information from what the others had written. Doing so aligns with the principle of Deuteronomy 19:15b, that independent witnesses must confirm one another in a complementary fashion. The dependency theories do not conform to this principle.

Farnell denies that, as some opponents of the view have claimed, plagiarism is an issue in defending the Independence View. Synoptic evidence does not compel one to conclude that copying took place. Although Thiessen mentioned plagiarism as a minor issue, his main reason for rejecting dependency views was the inspirational degradation that accompanied them.

The Independence View accepts the four Gospels as authentic eyewitness accounts, Matthew and John as products of direct eyewitnesses, and Mark and Luke as products of indirect eyewitness testimony (Mark based on Peter and Luke based on other eyewitnesses). The Gospels, therefore, reflect the situation in the life of Jesus, not a situation of later generations, as form and redaction criticism assert.

Furthermore, the Independence View sees the Gospels as equals in authority. No Gospel has preference over the others, as would be the case if one Gospel served as a source for others. One Gospel may have more information than the others in some instances, information that may be useful in enriching a parallel account in harmonizing separate accounts, but that does not grant that Gospel a preferential position in relation to the others.

Plenary, Verbal Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Gospels Farnell's fourth essential element of the Independence View claims the four canonical Gospels as inspired plenarily and verbally. Because the Gospels are inspired by God and it is impossible for God to lie, the books are without error.

In the development of the Two-Gospel and Two-Source Views, divine inspiration of Scripture played no part at all. The architects of those theories viewed the Gospels as purely human undertakings. Viewing the Gospels from a perspective of inspiration puts the Independence View into a presuppositional grid qualitatively different from that of historical-critical hypotheses. Assuming from the start that the books are free from contradiction puts the Gospels into an entirely different category from the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" category that results from dependency presuppositions.

Some opponents of literary independence class this assumption of inspiration as a product of seventeenth-century Protestant scholasticism that nineteenth-century Princeton theologians wrongly associated with classic orthodoxy. Such opponents hold that the Bible is inspired in areas of faith and practice but not in areas of science, history, geography, and origins. They claim that the ancient world had no such high standards of inerrancy. The position of these critics stands opposed, however, to Articles XVI and XVIII of "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy." In effect, those articles state that inerrancy was not a twentieth-century innovation but existed in the ancient church and was not a product of the Enlightenment.

Adding to this fourth axiom, Farnell states that the Bible is not just another human book, as asserted by the framers of the dependency views. Ladd is an example of an evangelical who emphasized the human element over divine inspiration in producing the Bible. As a result, he developed a strange view of limited infallibility. Jesus' promise of the Holy Spirit's part in inspiration along with promises in the rest of the New Testament give assurance that the divine side of inspiration overshadowed the human side. Working through human agents, the Spirit produced accurately and entirely adequately in all matters the very words of God to men.

Traditional Harmonization of the Text. Farnell's fifth essential element of the Independence View is traditional harmonization, the type of harmonization that produces an authentic and historical record of the words and works of Jesus. This type of harmonization was the rule in Christendom until the emergence of historical-critical ideologies. The church felt that the Gospels contained no errors and therefore could be blended together into a unified picture of Jesus. Harmonies existed in the early church to refute those who claimed that the Gospels disagreed with one another. By presenting a total picture of the life and ministry of Jesus, these harmonies also edified the faithful.

With the rise of deism and rationalism during the Enlightenment, the high view of inspiration associated with harmonies began to wane. Griesbach's skeptical attitude toward the Gospels caused him to reject the traditional way the church had harmonized the Gospels. Instead, he put together a synopsis to help him detect more easily the discrepancies in the Gospels. Such synopses as that of Griesbach facilitated the rise of the Two-Gospel and Two-Source Views.

The Independence View rejects redactional harmonization because, first, it is based on the Two-Source View and, second, redactional harmonization attributes theological motivations to the authors in making changes to their alleged sources, such changes resulting in dehistoricizing the Gospels.

The Independence View recognizes that some efforts at traditional harmonization are superficial, but that does not nullify the validity of those that are done carefully.

Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics. The sixth essential element of the Independence view is grammatical-historical hermeneutics. Distinct differences exist between grammaticalhistorical hermeneutics and historical-critical hermeneutics. (1) Grammatical-historical hermeneutics has its roots in the Reformation; historical-critical hermeneutics has its roots in deism, rationalism, and the Enlightenment. (2) Grammatical-historical hermeneutics accepts the possibility of the supernatural and the intervention of God in human history; historical-critical hermeneutics is characterized by the principles of methodological doubt, analogy, and a closed continuum of cause and effect with no outside divine intervention. Thus, whenever evangelicals dehistoricize the Gospels, they practice historical-critical hermeneutics. (3) Grammatical-historical hermeneutics emphasizes an inductive meaning of Scripture based on its plain, normal interpretation; historical-critical hermeneutics assumes an interpretation and forces Scripture into a mold. (4) Grammaticalhistorical hermeneutics emphasizes the need for Spirit-guided objectivity in interpreting the Gospels; historical-critical hermeneutics emphasize philosophically driven subjectivity in interpreting the Gospels.

Independence Explanation of Synoptic Origins

Questionable Statistics Supporting Dependency. The development of arguments and statistics to support literary dependence came after the assumption of literary dependence had been made. Literary dependence did not result from observed data carefully assembled.

Obligation to Explain Differences, Not Just Similarities. Limiting attention to agreements among the Synoptic Gospels, says Farrell, is precarious because it tends to minimize the substantial differences that exist. Although dependency proponents often cite Westcott's statistics in support of dependency, Westcott himself actually concluded in favor of literary independence because of the many differences between Gospel accounts. Linnemann's statistical studies after her conversion show that the differences in the synoptics are far more numerous than the agreements.

Compositional Factors of the Independence Approach

Literary independence accounts for the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels by noting that they were accounts of eyewitnesses whose sharp memories, aided by the Holy Spirit, reproduced the exact wording of dialogues and sermons (John 14:26). Literary independence explains the differences by allowing that different eyewitnesses reported the same events in different but not contradictory ways. This combination of similarities and differences created a nonhomogeneous body of tradition without definable limits that the writers drew upon. The Independence View proposes five compositional factors involved in explaining synoptic origins.

Direct, Eyewitness Knowledge of Events Recorded. The Independence View takes seriously the consistent testimony of the early Fathers, a testimony that supports the Gospels' having been written by apostles or their close associates. Only an apostle or an associate could receive such a unanimous testimony from the Fathers, who ruled out a number of books that falsely claimed apostolic authorship. According to the Fathers, Matthew and John were apostolic eyewitnesses, and Mark recorded Peter's preaching in his Gospel. Luke wrote his Gospel based upon his close association with Paul and his own personal research.

This explanation of origins carries several implications: (1) no search for the historical Jesus is necessary; (2) speculation about form/ traditional impact on the Gospels is misleading; (3) Matthew and John did not need sources because they had direct knowledge about most of what they wrote, and Mark and Luke relied directly on eyewitnesses as was outlined earlier.

Oral Tradition Based in Apostolic, Eyewitness Teaching. Farnell emphasizes that the church had a deep interest in Jesus and His teaching and preserved an extensive oral tradition about His life. Early Fathers attest to as much as does the rest of the New Testament itself. Constant repetition of the descriptions of Jesus helped fix them indelibly on the minds of the earliest Christians.

By reading back into early Christian times, the limitations of the twentieth-century Western mind, the dependency views underestimate how much of Jesus' life and teachings earliest Christians could remember. Gerhardsson and Riesenfeld have built a strong case for regarding oral tradition as the basis for the four Gospels. Jesus, the apostles, and others grew up under the Jewish system of memorization and could have retained much more than modem Westerners could under the same circumstances.

Short Written Accounts. The Independence View recognizes the probability that the Gospel writers, Luke in particular, had access to short written accounts that had been done earlier, but the pejorative force of some of the terminology in Luke's prologue indicates that Matthew and Mark were not among those written sources. The taking of notes was a standard rabbinic practice that perhaps was followed by Matthew as an eyewitness. Such notes would explain some of the agreements among the synoptics.

Farnell has several answers to the dependency theories about why the general order of the Synoptic Gospels is the same: (1) the orders of the three do not always coincide; (2) that both the 2GH and the MH can claim the argument from order to support their theories shows the extreme subjectivity of the argument; (3) even proponents of Markan priority admit that the argument from order is dubious; (4) by adopting Matthew or Luke as a standard order, one comes up with far lower degrees of similarity than one does by adopting Mark as the standard; and (5) the best explanation for the similarities in order is that the Gospels are based upon the core apostolic teaching about Jesus that circulated after His ascension.

Farnell also notes that the argument from parenthetical material, which allegedly proves dependence, is invalid when one looks at the individual instances on the basis of exegetical merit. A correct understanding of each of the passages proves that they do not support literary dependence.

Farnell also notes the growing scholarly opinion that Jesus may have spoken Greek rather than Aramaic, removing the possibility that the Gospel writers translated from one language into another.

Farnell also cites the 230 instances in which Matthew and Luke agree with each other against a comparable reading in Mark. This is a problem that advocates of Markan priority have as yet not solved. In fact, the agreement of two Gospels against a third in all combinations eliminates all dependency theories of Gospel origins.

2GH: Deemphasis of Luke 1:1-4

Niemela notes that Farnell's case, based upon Luke 1:1-4, depends upon finding a pejorative sense in epecheiresan and on distinguishing between the "many" in 1:1 and the "eyewitnesses" in 1:2. Because Farnell devoted only one sentence to that argument in his chapter, Niemela finds Farnell's position unconvincing. Niemela repeats the related syllogisms from his chapter and again concludes that God, through Luke, would not speak disparagingly of Matthew's Gospel. Niemela adds that Paul probably used Matthew's Gospel and that Luke probably also knew it well.

Niemela understands that Luke 1:1 introduces the book of Acts as well as Luke's Gospel and that Matthew's Gospel would not have served as a suitable background for Theophilus to understand Acts. For that reason, Luke wrote his own Gospel. Niemela concludes that in light of this consideration, Luke's knowledge of Matthew does not imply a disparagement of Matthew.

Niemela compares the parallel usage of kathos in Luke 1:2 to the use of kathos in Ephesians 1:3-4 and shows how this conjunction does not require that the "many" in Luke 1:1 be distinguished from the "eyewitnesses" in 1:2.

2GH: Short Accounts

Niemela takes issue with Farnell's conclusion that Luke 1:1 refers to many short written accounts because compiling a narrative does not seem to refer to the writing of snippets. He concludes that Luke wrote when other long accounts of Christ's life existed.

Interpersonal Contacts Between Apostles. The fourth compositional factor of the Independence View notes that during the days of the early church around Jerusalem, Matthew and Mark certainly had frequent opportunities to exchange information on a verbal basis. Later, Mark and Luke were together with Paul and probably did the same on some occasions. Reviewing the information about Jesus' life was certainly among the topics of discussion among the three men, thus accounting for similarities in the Gospels that they later wrote.

MH: Two Can Play That Game

Osborne and Williams elaborate, first, on Farnell's claim that the use of a canonical Gospel by another Gospel writer would imply the acceptance of one Gospel over another as a source of truth, and, second, on his claim that the use of one Gospel by another necessarily introduces errors into the text. Osborne and Williams think that Farnell fails to see that his understanding of apostolic history may result in the same introduction of errors. They note Farnell's admission that an exchange of information took place among the writers during personal contacts. Does not such personal contact amount to the same as Luke's varying his story somewhat on the basis of additional information from Mark's written Gospel? They see no difference between the two situations and agree with Farnell that God's Spirit superintended the entire process to ensure the accuracy of what was written.

They compare Farnell with Bock in Farnell's admission that variation occurred in the transmission of data that made its way into the synoptics. They suggest that Farnell should be lumped into the liberal camp as Farnell has done to Bock. They cite Farnell's use of works derived from the same philosophical mold as the dependency views that he criticizes, works such as Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and works by Fitzmyer, Gerhardsson, Marshall, Bruce, and Gundry. They urge balance and Christian humility in matters of scriptural interpretation because Farnell's admission of variation in the tradition is sufficient to open himself up to the same accusations that he makes against others.

Osborne and Williams observe that Bock, as well as they, does not accept the liberal presuppositions of the dependency theory. Osborne and Williams agree with Farnell about the Holy Spirit's superintendence over the entire process so as to ensure the accuracy of the finished product. The only difference they see between themselves and Farnell is that the overseeing took place at the written level, not just at the oral level.

Osborne and Williams note another similarity between their position and that of Farnell-that the tradition was partly memorized and partly written down, equating the taking of notes with the position of the dependency theories, which amounts to a consultation at the literary level between apostles. In fact, Osborne and Williams state that, given the difference between the noninspired written notes and the inspired Gospels, their dependency theory ensures a higher degree of accuracy. In such a situation, their position is more orthodox than the Independence View.

Ind: Inspiration of Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit stimulated the memories of the writers is a fifth compositional factor of the Independence View. This factor gives the Gospels a uniqueness among all other literature from ancient times. John 14:26 and 16:13 are important promises of Christ to the apostles regarding the Spirit's future enablement as they undertook their writing tasks. This Spirit superintendence of the Gospels renders tenuous any attempts to parallel those books with any other works of ancient historiography. The closest parallel would be the Jewish practice of carefully retaining oral and written tradition, but even this cannot measure up to the accuracy of works inspired by the Spirit. The inspirational factor was, of course, absent in the origination of the dependency theories.

Conclusion

In concluding his defense of the Independence View, Farnell lists three qualitative differences between his view and the two dependency views: (1) literary independence represents the historic, orthodox position of the church that the Gospels are three independent, apostolic, eyewitness accounts to the life of the Savior; (2) it takes seriously the evidence of early church history regarding Gospel origins; and (3) it associates itself with the plenary, verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Gospels.

MH: Lack of Evidence

Osborne and Williams lament the lack of evidence in support of literary independence in Farnell's chapter. They criticize him for not supplying positive reasons to supplement his negative reasons in support of the view. They cite several examples of the types of positive evidence he could have used. They list the supporters of literary independence, whom Farnell cited, but ask why he offered nothing from them that would support the Independence View. They summarize his conclusion at the end of his chapter and comment on the conspicuous absence of evidence favorable to the Independence View.

Osborne and Williams summarize by saying that Farnell's case for the Independence View stands or falls with his historical survey. Because they disagree with his historical survey, they find little evidence for accepting the view.

MH: Various Comments

Osborne and Williams wonder how Farnell can accept textual criticism because Griesbach had a significant role in developing that area of study. They ask how one can separate the philosophical background of textual criticism from that of source criticism.

Osborne and Williams use the case of Owen, who arrived at his conclusions apart from philosophical assumptions, to dispute Farnell's claim that philosophically driven assumptions came first, and defenses for the assumptions were assembled later.

Osborne and Williams also question Farnell's consistency. Farnell emphasizes the sharp memories of the ancients, along with the inspiration of the Spirit, as factors in ensuring accuracy in the Gospels but questions how Spirit-inspired gleaning of material from memory is any different from Spirit-ensured accuracy through the use of other written sources.

They challenge the Independence View to explain why the Synoptic Gospels are so similar to one another but the Gospel of John differs so radically in content. Because the view maintains that the similarity is explainable by the three Gospels' dependence upon a common core of tradition, Osborne and Williams ask what happened to this common core to make John so different.

In response to Farnell's use of Deuteronomy 18:15b, they note that the Two-Source View still allows two witnesses, Mark and John. But they add that their view of Markan priority does not have just two witnesses; it has five: Mark, Q, M, L, and John.

Osborne and Williams close by reiterating their opinion that the Independence View is a viable option for solving the Synoptic Problem. But they believe that the view should be demonstrated by evidence from the Gospel texts, not by evidence from ancient church history and philosophical presuppositions.

2GH: Conclusion

Niemela commends the Independence View for maintaining a high view of Scripture but criticizes Farnell for treating a low view of Scripture and a literary synoptic solution as corollaries. Niemela criticizes Farnell again for treating issues that lie outside the Synoptic Problem proper. He again cites Thomas as proving that accepting literary collaboration is not a slippery slope leading to a low view of inspiration,* stating that many scholars who accept an intersynoptic literary solution have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Common Points of Interest

A summary of evidence from the three viewpoints may well include notice of two emphases that surface in all three presentations.

First, all contributors in their own ways profess an adherence to verbal, plenary inspiration of an inerrant Bible. Such is to be expected in a volume focused on evangelical views about the origins of the Synoptic Gospels, but it is worthy of special attention to see how each claims and defends his (their) view of inspiration.

Osborne and Williams posit that the Evangelists worked with their sources under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, highlighting and choosing what they wanted to emphasize from the longer stories and sayings of Jesus. The result of their work was four Spirit-inspired narratives. Osborne and Williams hold that the Evangelists, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used available Gospels as sources in their writing. They agree with Niemela, positing that one Gospel writer's using another as a source is not a sign of liberalism or belief that the Gospels are errant. They agree with Farnell that God's superintendence of the Word guarantees the supernatural accuracy of the final product. But they disagree with Farnell's assertion that one Evangelist's use of another necessarily introduces errors into the text.

Niemela is concerned about evangelicals who use "liberal hermeneutical approaches," but he does not see literary collaboration as compromising "inerrancy, inspiration, or the need for a consistent hermeneutic." Although he decries "the reckless abandon that characterizes redaction criticism," he fully embraces literary collaboration, including "intersynoptic collaboration," as consistent with a conservative evangelical view of inspiration. Niemela, speaking frequently of the Holy Spirit's inspiring the Gospel writers to write what they did, denies that literary collaboration in the Synoptic Gospels is a litmus test of liberalism.

Farnell's position is that any theory of literary dependence is contrary to the inspiration of Scripture. He points out that theories of literary dependence originated in an environment of antisupernaturalistic thought and that the antecedents of historical-critical ideologies are hostile toward a high view of inspiration. His fourth essential element of the Independence View is that the four canonical Gospels are inspired, plenarily and verbally, and that such a view of inspiration is not a product of seventeenth-century Protestant scholasticism that nineteenth-century Princeton theologians wrongly associated with classic orthodoxy.

A summary conclusion, based upon a synthesis of all three statements of position, is that one's view of the origins of the Synoptic Gospels somehow relates to one's view of the inspiration of those Gospels.

Second, all contributors to this work also look upon their explanations of Gospel origins as being based on evidence that is more objective than the other two.

Osborne and Williams have written,

It is obvious from our survey that a recurring critique of these works is the lack of objective criteria by which to judge secondary texts.... What is needed is a set of scientifically based criteria by which to determine chronological priority in the Synoptic Gospels.... It is our belief that such criteria may be available. Due to the similarities between textual criticism and source criticism, we believe that text-critical criteria may be used in an analysis of the Gospel texts in an effort to determine priority.

For them, objectivity lies in the application of text-critical principles to ascertain which Gospel came earliest.

In connection with his order-and-content grid, Niemela asserts, "This is the reason for saying that the 2GH order-and-content argument surfaces nonreversible data." Later he adds, "Whereas Streeter's five arguments are reversible and overly atomistic, the order-and-content grid offers the most promising avenue for resolving Mark's relationship with Matthew and Luke." For Niemela, statistics provide an objective basis for establishing the priority of Matthew.

Farnell's point is that both dependency views rely solely on internal evidence to reach their conclusions and neglect the external considerations of church history and the philosophical presuppositional backgrounds of their theories. He contends that internal evidence alone is purely subjective. For Farnell, therefore, the weightier considerations are those based upon the objective facts of what has been the traditional, longstanding position of the church and the suspect background of the dependency hypotheses.

Thus, each position looks upon itself as the one based most solidly on objective evidence.

The Final Conclusion

Determination of which case in the Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels presents the best evidence depends upon which view is most in accord with biblical inspiration and which view is based on the most solid objective considerations. You have seen the best evidence that the cases for the Markan Priority View, the TwoGospel View, and the Independence View have to offer. You have seen how each view responds to the cases of the other two views. You have seen a comparison of how the three hold the inspiration of the Gospels. You have seen why each view perceives itself as based on the best objective evidence.

It is now up to you to deliberate and reach a verdict. The final conclusion is yours. Your editor has done his best to maintain a neutral position throughout this discussion. He has his view. Now you should choose yours.

*Editor's Note: Several times in his chapter and in his response to the Independence View, Niemela portrays the editor of this volume as favoring interbiblical literary collaboration, based on statements found on page 18 of The Jesus Crisis. Niemela does not, however, elaborate on the larger context of page 18, in which this editor pointedly distinguished between the collaboration in Kings-Chronicles and 2 PeterJude and the literary dependence in the Synoptic Gospels. For purposes of editing Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, the editor has adopted a neutral stance and has not opposed any position represented in this volume-including the Independence View-as Niemela's citations might imply.

Table of Contents

Contributors /

Introduction /

The Case for the Markan Priority View of Gospel Origins: The Two-/Four-Source View /

Two-Gospel Response /

Independence Response /

The Case for the Two-Gospel View of Gospel Origins /

Markan Priority Response /

The Case for the Independence View of Gospel Origins /

Conclusion: The Evidence Summarized /

Author Index /

Scripture Index /

Subject Index /

Niemela commends the Independence View for maintaining a high view of Scripture but criticizes Farne