How Were the Gospels Written?

"How Were the Gospels Written?" Wenham, pp. 198-216

A question central to Wenham's book is the manner of the composition of the gospels. Recent scholarship has taken a view of literary dependence which assumes a different manner of composition than is typical among authors, that is, a lifting of words and phrases from other texts in order to create a new text. Wenham suggests that this is highly unlikely. p. 198 "It is unlikely that one evangelist worked directly on the scroll of another. Ancient historians relied on their memories and the briefest of notes."

As opposed to this literary dependence, Wenham suggests an extensive oral background. The Roman culture of the time, as well as the Jewish culture, emphasized learning oral traditions, speeches, sayings, and the like. While people did clearly take notes on what they heard, the educational process generally emphasized speaking and writing from spoken sources, not writing and copying written sources.

On pp. 201-202 Wenham suggests that Matthew's gospel was written first, taking from Matthew's recollection and notes that he may well have taken over the years. He may well have written a version in Aramaic or in Greek. This gospel would have likely been based on the instruction in the life and work of Jesus which was given to people who came to Jerusalem wishing to hear from the apostles about the Christ.

Wenham discusses the writing of Marks gospel on pp. 202-207. He is clear that there are more variables to be considered in Mark's gospel. It may well have been structured based on Matthew's gospel. Tradition says the content is dependent on Peter's teaching. It is quite possible that Peter would have used a copy of Matthew's gospel in his preaching and teaching, as a prompt or an organizational aid. This would explain some of the parallelisms between Matthew and Mark. Mark also, of course, may have been quite familiar with Matthew's gospel. Yet because of the amount of concentration and work required to make an actual copy of a scroll, particularly with the customs of the time (no writing desk, for example), it is unlikely that Mark would have copied passages from Matthew. Rather, Mark would have approached the work with an intention of providing another view of Jesus' life and work, informed by Matthew and by the preaching of Peter, but not strictly dependent on Matthew's writing for quotations.

We turn our attention to Luke's gospel from pages 208-213. According to Luke's prologue there were already written sources. Yet Luke seems to have other sources of information as well, sources he trusts a good deal. Luke presents himself as someone who is experienced in the gospel and in teaching, as well as someone who has done thorough research. The length of Luke's gospel suggests that he planned it to fit within one standard scroll. This can explain his selectivity in usage of material which appears in Matthew and Mark. Matthew already gave a comprehensive account, so would have been used here and there as needed. Mark, being much shorter, may have served Luke as an outline. Based on notes pulled from those sources and his own notes, Luke could have worked out his overall plan, then cut it in order to fit on a scroll. It would seem natural for him to keep the material which was not included in the existing gospels so as to present his on view of Jesus' life.

Wenham wraps up this chapter with some notes about the genealogies of Jesus. It may well be that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, while in Matthew we have the genealogy of Joseph. It may be that one of the genealogies is one of birth and the other is one indicating the legal inheritance of the royal power of David. Whatever the differences we seem to have two different traditions for the genealogy. There is no definitive explanation.