"The Intractable Problem"

"The Intractable Problem" Wenham pp. 1-10

The intractable problem Wenham identifies in chapter 1 is that Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar in many instances but have a significant degree of difference. Scholars have looked at the possibility that Matthew and Luke used Mark and some unknown source (Q) but their confidence in this view is waning.

p. 1 "For nearly a hundred years the search has been for literary solutions. Before that, belief in a common form of basic oral instruction was popular, Westcott being its most notable expositor. His views were eclipsed by the Oxford School: Sanday, Hawkins and Streeter. It is, however, perfectly possible for oral tradition to be accurately transmitted..."

Despite the idea of independence, it is clear that the Gospels are not completely independent. There seems to be an overall order of events, even of very specific details. The Gospels do not seem to exist in a vacuum. However they do not follow a pattern slavishly.

In the past century most scholars have held to a two-document hypothesis, with Mark and the hypothetical "Q" document informing Matthew and Luke. But this view has been dissatisfactory. The methodological problems involved in reconstructing a hypothetical source document and deciding the level of dependence shown in a derivative work are manifold. "Much of the argumentation is worth very little, because so many of the arguments are reversible: they can be argued either way with approximately equal cogency. This makes it essential to look for those arguments which have real weight. Another methodological snare is the temptation to fit the facts to a procrustean bed through looking for the wrong sort of solution" (p. 3).

But Wenham observes that the Gospels do exist and that they are related in some manner. A sufficient explanation of the relationship should be able to take care of all the data points observed. He goes on to observe (p. 3) "It will be noticed that the research of the last hundred years has been dominated by a belief in direct literary connections, yet a century ago the then reigning view (at least in the English-speaking world) relied on common oral tradition to explain the likenesses between the gospels." Specifically, Westcott observed that there was likely an oral tradition which would have maintained an order of events and a good deal of detail of those events, the apostolic tradition, which the evangelists would have drawn on to lay out their literary accounts. Because they were familiar with the same body of teaching and because of the orality of the culture at large they would naturally have used similar phrasing in many instances. Yet their individual literary styles would come through.

p. 4 "That the relationship is primarily literary rather than oral has been the assumption underlying most of the work of the present centry. This is strikingly illustrated by Farmer in The Synoptic Problem, where Westcott is dismissed in a footnote."

pp. 4-5 "The great question is: Have we been justified in placing so much emphasis on documentary relationships? Lying behind this is the even more basic question. Can one distinguish documentary dependence from indebtedness to a common oral tradition?"

p. 5 "as soon as there is identity of expression for more than about a dozen words in succession, one leaps to the conclusion that the connection must be literary. But this is not a safe conclusion...(examples of common statements)...Much more would Greek-speaking Christians in the first century have memorised many of the sayings of Jesus in whatever form they were commonly taught."

Wenham is, therefore, suggesting that the literary philosophy which counts words in common is founded on an illusory premise, that the only reason particular words or combinations of words would be used is that they were found in a source document. He refers to recent scholars who have suggested complete independence of some of the gospel accounts. In a summary of works by J.M. Rist, B. Reicke, and J.W. Scott Wenham points out that there are flaws in a theory of complete independence. After all, there are striking similarities in some of the subject matter of the gospels.

p. 7 "[This] means in Matthew 14-28 and Mark 65:14-16:8 seventy items all in order (except for a minor difference in the way the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig-tree are related), and this in spite of various omissions or additions by one or the other evangelist [exists]. Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, it seems more likely that one evangelist followed the other or that both followed a common written source, than that a standard order for reciting the oral tradition had been memorised, but not consistently adhered to."

Scott's suggestion is that Luke's reference to sources in the prologue of his gospel is a reference only to oral sources, never to written sources. However Wenham observes that "Luke's words are in fact compatible with his knowing only oral traditions, or knowing Mark and Q, or knowing Matthew and Mark" (p. 8).

In conclusion, Wenham considers that the intricate structure of the Gospels is not likely to exist outside of some written source which could inform authors. There is evidence that information traveled quite quickly and broadly, suggesting that the evangelists would be familiar with other Christian writings. Yet there are distinct orders of events known but not consistently adhered to, allowing for a large measure of independence among the evangelists.