James Still's "Critique of New Testament Reliability and 'Bias' in NT Development"--my initial response.

My Comment 22:

---

[date: June 20, 1998]  

---

In other words the Jesus sayings--from oral tradition to the final canonized form that we have today--constantly evolved in a dynamic process which reflected the zeal and enthusiasm of the early Christians who preserved them.

Robertson remarks on the reasons why it is difficult to separate the various Jesus traditions from each other:

You see, the position that James takes here-basically that the individual churches/communities 'changed' (i.e. "constantly evolved in a dynamic...") what it was taught according to its 'zeal' and other factors-is one specific theory within a broader field of Synoptic theories. James maintains that the differences between the obviously similar Synoptic gospels are due to deliberate, and often confrontationally-based, changes to some original source. For example, some community (leader) would take Mark and disagreeing with large parts of it, would recast the Marcan material to suit their tastes, beliefs, needs, "zeal" etc-irrespective of what "actually happened." In this way, James can find implicit disagreement with earlier forms of 'the Word of God", implying that the early church perhaps did not even SEE the early gospels as 'inspired' and certainly not authoritative. If, on the other hand, the changes are either (1) NOT changes, but rather simple variances due to eyewitness factors or stylistic preferences (e.g., Jewish audiences vs. Gentile); or (2) non-ideological disagreements, but expansions, emphases, etc, then the position that the later writers held the earlier writings to be 'authoritative' and even 'inspired' (since so much of the material would have been treated with respect and honor by the sheer adoption of the vast majority of the material) would be much more probable.

So, we will need to spend a little time here on the 'Synoptic Problem".

The 'problem' itself can be stated somewhat simply: how do we account for the noticeable similarities and yet considerable differences between the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matthew, Mark, and Luke). James gives the example of the passage about the denunciation of the Pharisees by John the Baptist (Mt 3.7-10; Luke 3.7-9), bringing to the reader's attention the striking identity of the vast majority of the passage (although he missed the details again; there are not two differences, but THREE -the conjunction kai is additional in Luke).

Assuming that the three gospels are written by three different people, the existence of such similarity can be explained by at least three different theories:

1. Eyewitness Theory: All three were based on first-hand eyewitness testimony, with the dissimilarities being due to (1) different eyewitness word choices or (2) details remembered/noted;
   
   
2. Oral Tradition Theory: All three drew upon a common stock of oral traditions of the church, which was transmitted through preaching and liturgy, with the differences being either due to (1) alternate transmission paths; (2) authorial selection/arrangement of material; or (3) deliberate modification by the writers;
   
   
3. Literary Dependence Theory: Some of the gospels were written in dependence on earlier written gospels, with large scale borrowing/adoption and modifications by the later authors. [I will henceforth abbreviate this theory by LD.]
   
   

Within Literary Dependence, there are three main competing schools:

1. The Two-Document/Two-Source hypothesis: That Mark was the earliest gospel, that there was a body of 'sayings' material (i.e., Q), and that Matthew and Luke were dependent on these two 'sources' (as their main sources). [Abbreviated 2SH]
   
   
2. The Two-Gospel hypothesis: That Luke and Mark were dependent on canonical Matthew (which already contains all the 'sayings' material already). [This later position is called the Neo-Greisbachian position.] [Abbreviated 2GH]
   
   
3. The Farrer hypothesis: That Matthew used Mark, and that Luke used both, dispensing with the need for Q.

How I intend to approach this question:

1. I want to survey scholarly trends in today's New Testament field (to demonstrate the move away from the position that James espouses);
2. I want to point out that the majority-view position does not in any way require the conclusions that James reaches
3. I want to evaluate the two main arguments for Literary Dependence: the argument from verbal identify and the argument from order;
4. Finally, I want to sketch out the gospel formation process as I see it

 

Twenty to thirty years ago, the field was overwhelmingly dominated by Two-Source proponents. Scarcely a textbook challenged this theory (although, as Linnemann pointed out, 2SH was never actually tested, only accepted without contest! [NT:ITSP]). In the last two or three decades, however, there are three main shifts in scholarly opinion that are relevant to our investigation here:

1. The growing population of "We Give Up" scholars. The radical proliferation of alleged sources and documents required by ANY theory of source-relatedness has led many to this position. This might be seen in Wenham's description of the results of the Synoptic Problem Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies [RMML:xxi]:

 
"In 1979 I found myself in the Synoptic Problem Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies, whose members were in disagreement over every aspect of the subject. When this international group disbanded in 1982 they had sadly to confess that after twelve years' work they had not reached a common mind on a single issue."


Wenham also describes the "reluctant submission" of the Q/LD theories by so many [RMML:2]:
 
"It is true that throughout this century the great majority of scholars have held to some form of the two-document hypothesis, believing that Mark came first and that Matthew and Luke independently built their gospels out of Mark and another source or sources known as Q. Probably, judging by the attitude of the members of recent gospels conferences, most scholars who have examined this theory critically have not been particularly impressed with its logical weight, yet they find no other theory convincing, and, since life is short, they have been content to go along with the majority and accept it as a working hypothesis."

"But throughout this century there has been a steady stream of scholars who have been so dissatisfied with the theory on which they have been brought up that they have felt bound to try to do better, and a number have got to the point of publishing their findings. Yet, not only has no new consensus emerged, but the debate has reached such an impasse that the problem begins to look insoluble. In 1985 A. J. Bellinzoni assembled a collection of the most significant articles in The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. In its final essay J. B. Tyson concluded: 'After reading these essays it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that nothing convincing has emerged from this long and torturous discussion."



Indeed, the German scholar Reisner can say [cited by Linnemann, [NT:ITSP:39]]:
 
"Since the mid-1960s there have been many indications that the situation in Synoptic studies is undergoing significant change....The majority of researchers, it is true, are hanging on to the old theory, but it has lost a good deal of its self-evidentness. Especially in English-speaking quarters there is a growing dissatisfaction with the usual solutions. Framer has announced the appearance of a large new study which will advance further arguments for the 'Griesbach hypothesis.' But similar work is underway elsewhere, e.g. at the Synoptic studies institute of the University of Nimwegen. Virtually every imaginable solution to the Synoptic problem, no matter how marginal its merits, currently finds advocates."


And even those who still accept the 2SH, have come to realize the tentativeness with which it must be held. So NT:CMM:38:
 
"The two-source hypothesis provides the best overall explanation for the relationships among the Synoptic Gospels, but two caveats must be introduced in conclusion. First, the process through which the Gospels came into being was a complex one, so complex that no source-critical hypothesis, however detailed, can hope to provide a complete explanation of the situation. Granted that at least one of the evangelists was an eyewitness, that various oral and written traditions unrecoverable to us were undoubtedly circulating, and that the evangelists may even have talked together about their work, the "scissors-and- paste" assumptions of some source critics are seen to be quite unfounded. Recognizing this complexity, along with the stubborn persistence of phenomena that the two-source hypothesis cannot satisfactorily explain, we should treat this hypothesis more as a working theory than as a conclusion set in concrete. Especially important is the need to be open to the possibility that, in a given pericope, an explanation based on the two-source hypothesis may not fit the data. For a given text we thus may conclude that Matthew is more primitive than Mark, or that Luke has followed a special eyewitness source rather than Mark, or that Matthew has relied on his own remembrance or written notes rather than on Q.


Also, the growing importance of Literary criticism (as opposed to Historical criticism), which treats the final-form documents as unitary literary creations, is implicitly a statement about the usefulness and/or 'rigor' of traditional source or form criticism. Indeed, this has been explicitly commented upon by Melick in FBI:434-435:
 
"In the late 1960s, a major shift in biblical studies occurred. Concerned with the relative fruitlessness of previous critical analyses, some biblical scholars called for a new way of approaching the Bible. Source, form, and redaction criticisms left many with the cold feeling that the text had been destroyed by constant cutting, pasting, and reanalysis. Was the Bible ever intended to be so treated?

"Many observed that the Bible had remained a powerful book for people of faith, regardless of the historical factors that brought it about. Religious people through the centuries found meaning from the pages of Scripture apart from the historical questions of critical studies. Perhaps it would be better to approach the Bible from literary perspectives. This meant determining appropriate criteria for categorizing Scripture. Further, it meant interpreting Scripture in light of these categories.

"These scholars left traditional critical methods for many reasons. Some were disenchanted with the findings of critical scholars. Too often they concluded with their prior assumptions. Others simply sought to approach literature holistically rather than piecemeal. Still others developed new approaches to biblical literature strictly from their literary studies. For various reasons, therefore, many scholars called for new methods in biblical studies."
 
 

2. There is a huge resurgence of Two-Gospel advocates. The neo-Greisbachian school has produced a number of significant works in the last decade or two, making VERY strong arguments for the Two-Gospel theory (i.e., the competing theory to the two-source hypothesis, as espoused by James). The Committee of scholars which met in Jerusalem in 1984 challenged BOTH hypotheses to make pericope-by-pericope explanations. The neo-Greisbachians have published theirs, and their work BQI makes this strong claim at its conclusion [BQI:318-319]:

 
"When the work began which has resulted in this volume, the group had set itself a daunting but nonetheless modest goal. Challenged by other scholars, especially at the Jerusalem Symposium on the Interrelation of the Gospels in 1984, advocates of the Two Gospel Hypothesis set out to give a pericope-by-pericope demonstration of (a) how Mark used Matthew and Luke and (b) how Luke used Matthew.

"The latter demonstration was especially daunting because it had never been done, not even by the original Griesbachians. As work progressed on this part of the project and pieces began to fit, firm optimism began to emerge that a credible explanation of Luke's use of Matthew was possible. About two years ago, having charted the sequential relationship of Luke to Matthew in Luke 3-9, the mood changed. Hard on the heels of that advance came the painstaking process of tracing Luke's relationship to Matthew in the Travel Narrative, which for one hundred and fifty years has been the graveyard of Synoptic hypotheses. With the development of a similar chart which showed the pattern of Luke's intricate but orderly use of Matthew in the Travel Narrative, our sense of the value of this work underwent a significant transformation. We now believe that we have presented evidence which makes it difficult to hold any other position than that Luke used Matthew directly as his primary source.

"That bold assertion is based on three kinds of phenomena which have been presented in this book. The most important is the evidence that Luke followed the sequential order of Matthew in the major narrative sections of his Gospel. In Lk 3-9, Luke followed a pattern of cyclic progression. In Lk 9-19, Luke combined the material from Matthew's great speeches in thematic sections of the Travel Narrative, often following the internal order of those sayings units within their Matthean contexts. And in Lk 20-24, he adopted Matthew's basic sequential order. A second level of evidence for the direct dependence of Luke on Matthew is the number of cases, not at all inconsiderable, where Luke has preserved key phrases that were created by Matthew for redactional summaries or introductions. But what was perhaps the most delightful surprise for us was the third level of evidence of Luke's use of Matthew. We discovered that, time after time, Luke's use of Matthew was best and most easily explained by Luke's widely recognized compositional concerns; e.g., the units on prayer in Lk 11:1- 13 and 18:1-14. Throughout our compositional analysis, we observed remarkable ways in which Luke's purposes and characteristics dovetailed precisely with his use of Matthew.

"The net result of this study is, then, that we believe that more than a demonstration that Luke might have used Matthew as his source has been achieved. We believe that it will be difficult to argue that the data in Luke can be explained any other way than that Luke was thoroughly conversant with canonical Matthew and made it the basis of his Gospel.

"Certainly further research is needed to pursue many details not covered by our Demonstration, to ferret out and present anomalies to our hypothesis; in short, to test our results. For one thing, future research must include a more refined analysis of Luke's use of nonmatthean tradition.

"We now turn our attention to a pericope-by-pericope compositional analysis of Mark's use of both Matthew and Luke. With this effort, we intend to update and refine Owen's and Griesbach's original attempts. Beyond that, we are working toward a redactional analysis of Matthew independent of any assumption of Matthew's dependence on Mark and 'Q.' That task will ultimately include a tradition-historical separation of the sources of Matthew, including what may go back to the historical Jesus.

"If further examination and debate does bear out the main outlines of our contention that we now have hard evidence that the author of the Gospel of Luke made direct and systematic use of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, then it follows that the entire currently held understanding of the development of earliest Christianity-especially as it rests on the belief in 'Q"-will need a complete overhaul, since a whole series of misconceptions and false conclusions would have to be given up. As is made clear in the Introduction, this overhaul would necessarily extend to the very instruments used by all scholars in Gospel research: the synopsis and the critical text. In this sense, Luke's Use of Matthew presages the beginning of an exciting new era in New Testament studies. [italics original; bold mine]

 
 

CMM, themselves supporters of the Two-Source Hypothesis, point out that its strength has eroded greatly over the past couple of decades [NT:CMM:32]:
 

"But most scholars thought that Streeter and his predecessors had clearly proven the two-source hypothesis in general, and this explanation of gospel origins was generally assume by those, such as the redaction critics, who were working on other aspects of the Gospels...As noted above, however, this is no longer true. The two-source hypothesis has been subjected over the last thirty years to serious criticism, most notably by advocates of the two-gospel, or Griesbach, proposal, but by others also, some of whom maintain Markan priority, while questioning the existence or nature of Q. To the extent that these challenges have induced some caution into what was often an overly dogmatic and simplistic reconstruction of gospel origins, they have had a salutary effects. The two-source theory has been appropriate dethroned form the status of being an 'assured results of scholarship.'"
 
 

Neville, in what could arguably be called the most significant contribution to the issue recently, pointed out in his conclusion [NT:AOSSC:223]:
 

"we have only recently emerged from a period when the theory of Marcan priority was almost incontestable. The present climate of 'pluralism' in gospel studies is a welcome development."
 
 
 
3. A number of scholars have left the LD school in a move toward the Oral Tradition approach. The vast number of substantive differences-even within the passages that are considered parallel or borrowed-have convinced a growing number of well-respected scholars to abandon LD in favor of various Oral Tradition theories. Wenham documents a number of these [RMML:6]:

And even the arguments James uses in his subsequent piece, have all "gone away", yet James seems unaware of the scholarly trends. So Farmer can point out [BQI:xi]:

"Customary analyses of stylistic features of the Gospels that focus on such phenomena as better or worse Greek, direct discourse vs. reported speech, increasing detail, increasing length, and greater or lesser “semiticism” have been demonstrated to be completely unreliable for determining whether a pericope or saying is early or late, since none of these linguistic traits are consistent indicators of early vs. late tradition (Sanders 1969; Frye 1978: 264–79).

Now, I do not expect James to necessarily bring up all the counter-arguments to his position by any means, but I do wish that his presentation of the material would be less dogmatic and reflect the much less 'assured results' character of the real situation today. (I am assuming that he is aware of how the Jesus Seminar position is a fringe phenomenon, and how the scholarly trends documented above have rendered his position into a 'working hypothesis' only, and not a secure position from which to make confident redactional judgments of large scope.)

And less we be misled, we must recognize that MANY of the arguments for one order or another of the gospels are quite reversible! Dungan, himself obviously a 'reluctant adherent' of the 2SH, points this out [REF:ABD, s.v., "Synoptic Problem"], as well as the importance of pre-commitments (note the phrase: "on the basis of the main tenets of..."!):

Now, NONE of these theories in themselves are "matters of faith." There are outstanding evangelicals who STRONGLY hold to the same basic version of the 2SH theory of LD of James, either WITH a written Q (e.g. E.Earl Ellis [GAG]), with an oral Q (e.g. Robert Stein, SPI), or with a hybrid Q (e.g. Ralph P. Martin, NTF). What IS at issue, within LD, is the motives behind the evangelists' 'modifications' of their predecessors' material (and what that might reveal about their attitudes toward the material).
 
 

For example, given LD, why would Matthew redact (i.e., change) some of Mark's material about the Baptism of Jesus? James looks at the parallel passages and does the classic redaction criticism 'pop psychoanalysis' thing:

Consider the explanation for the 'troubling carelessness' by evangelical Blomberg [FBI:426]:

[And, just in case James was suggesting that Matthew was adding 'unhistorical' narrative, let me be quick to point out that this specific incident is quoted by Ignatius, before most form critics will allow Matthew to have even been finished! [BLOM:206-207]

But this adversarial understanding of the early church simply presumes too much. Lemcio describes this particular historical understanding, with just a bit of sardonic wit (but practically NO exaggeration) [PJG:23]:

What kinds of 'changes' are we talking about? What kinds of modifications occurred?

But what exactly is meant by 'redaction'? What kinds of changes are in view? NT:CMM:39-40 lists the basic types of 'redactions' the Evangelists could use:

For James, who often manifests a polemical style in even his representations of MY position (even showing the same amazing psychoanalytical presumption in statements like "Glenn is uncomfortable deviating from the centuries-old orthodox view of..." and "Glenn feels that he needs to place Luke and Matthew much earlier than scholarly consensus suggests"), all 'modifications' or 'redactions' in the text amount to disagreements between rival communities or rival theological positions. [James is drawing here from the older and fading Bauer thesis, which I dealt with elsewhere.]

On the other hand, for less radical LDers, who understand the relations as being amiable and complementary, modifications or 'redactions' in the text amount to explication, addition of additional detail, elaboration of sub-themes, emphasis, and the like. In fact, a later author could indeed have considered an earlier work to be 'the Word of God' and STILL make these redactions and expansions (assuming access to the correct information with which to modify the original).

And, just to cite another Q-believer, Byrskog can delineate the nature of 'creative elaboration' by Matthew on his sources of Mark and Q thus [HI:JTOT:387]:

Or consider the conclusion of the team on BQI, in BQI:14:

Although it might be largely based on one's reconstruction of early church history (as being more adversarial during the first decades of the church, as opposed to being more unified during that period), a primary consideration MUST be given to the obvious fact that they used a vast majority of the pre-existing material! In other words, the very existence of the 'Synoptic Problem" with the 'vast' similarities of material, argues that the later authors had 'vast' respect for the earlier author's work. Why else use so much of it, with the obvious corollary that who ever saw the work would KNOW that much was borrowed?

The adversarial position must maintain that the appropriation of vast amounts of material was an attempt to supersede the other, and this presumes much more conflict in the first-century church than we have evidence for. All the controversies that show up have very focused ranges (e.g. circumcision, lapsed believers, diet) but NONE of this material shows up in the allegedly redactional material. In other words, the redactions are not 'self-serving' enough to evidence such an intense motive. We simply do not have adequate reason to believe that the level of contention required by some versions of the 2SH (like James') demands.

Indeed, Dungan in ABD (s.v. "Two Gospel Hypothesis") can draw the differences between the historical evidence between 2SH and 2GH thus:

And redaction criticism is far from neutral--too often it reflects the presumptions of the interpreter

Wenham, pointing out that these views of the authors are NOT the results of synoptic studies themselves, states the issue clearly and concisely [RMML:54]:

In fact, the evangelical scholar has two approaches to this issue: (1) either deny dependence at all or (2) demonstrate that the phenomena of dependence accords well with an evangelical understanding of the early church and her scriptures. We have seen that a growing number of well-respected scholars are beginning to move to (1), and (2) can be easily documented from synoptic studies:

And theoretically, we could stop here-there is nothing in LD or 2SH that requires that 'bias' (in the negative or anti-historical sense) be present. But let's go farther, just to examine the case of LD. How strong is the evidence that one/some of the evangelists had other gospel(s) in front of them? If the case is shaky, then even the redactional issue that James is dependent on will prove useless.

.........................................................................................................
 
 

Summary of our research so far:

1. There is a growing number of scholars who are 'giving up' on solving the Synoptic Problem (and thus abandoning the "solution" proposed by James).
   
   
2. There is a huge resurgence of scholarly support and argument/evidence for 2GH (contra James), as well as a healthy body of adherents of the Farrer position, (Marcan priority; Luke uses Matthew), for example Mark Goodacre.
   
   
3. Even believers (and "Yes, James", it IS akin to informed religious belief in my opinion-I do not make radical dichotomies between religious decisions based on some factual/cognitive content and 'scholarly' positions largely based on subjective pre-commitments!) in 2SH have noted that the confidence in 2SH has dropped from "assured results" to a "reluctant working hypothesis"!
   
   
4. The differences within the Synoptic tradition are starting to be taken seriously, with the result that many substantial scholars have abandoned the position of ANY literary dependence, with some of them falling back to the vaguer "oral tradition" models.
   
   
5. No position within the options of LD or OT are per se inimical to "faith". It is only when one imputes negative attitudes to the redactors that one can create a 'low view of scripture' that is at odds with confessional belief. Many, many evangelicals hold to 2SH and 2GH, without it at any level impugning the revelational character of the pre-Gospel traditions.
   
   
6. The adversarial reading of the redactions is NOT required by the text itself; this is something generally brought to the text by the interpreter/critic. (A "respectful" reading is just as harmonious with the data.)
   
   
7. In fact, the data of 'respectful treatment', especially by Luke, and the wholesale borrowing of material and form from one evangelists by another (i.e., the very 'identity' aspect of the 'synoptic problem'!) argues at least for a very high view of the tradition.
   
   
8. Redactional judgments are KNOWN to be quite subjective, and are generally NOT given the confidence and weight given to them by James
   
   
9. Redactional judgments are KNOWN to often display the pre-commitments of the critics/interpreters (as opposed to being 'in the text'), such as pre-commitments to the older Bauer view of a 'contentious church'
   
   
10. 2SH appears to be much more conjectural than 2GH, and indeed, even 'less neutral' than 2GH.
    
    
11. 2SH assumes major disjunction and discontinuity between the careful preservation motifs of first-century Judaism and what is conjectured to have happened (without evidential warrant).
    
    
12. Many of the arguments for this order vs. that order are reversible, and depend often on a 'best fit' argument rather than an inductive one

But let's go a step farther-how strong is the case for 'redactions' at all? To the extent that the case for LD is weak, to that same extent the existence of redactions-as modifications of literary sources-is even further weakened.