Monthly Archives: August 2012

Books of the Bible, Church History

Are the Synoptic Gospels Interdependent? Part 1

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

It seems clear that the first three Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – are interdependent.  That is, they share common literary and oral sources.  Daniel Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies, lays out the case for this interdependence in an article called “The Synoptic Problem.”  Most Christians have given this very little thought, but I think that the more we know about the process God used to give us the gospels, the better we can understand them.

Wallace presents four arguments for the interdependence of the synoptic gospels.  First, there is the agreement in wording.  According to Wallace, “The remarkable verbal agreement between the gospels suggests some kind of interdependence.”  Wallace notes that many laypeople reject this idea and argue that the Holy Spirit inspired each of the synoptic authors to write identical words in many cases, that the gospels are all independent of each other.  But does this make sense?  Wallace thinks not.

First, it cannot explain the differences among the writers—unless it is assumed that verbal differences indicate different events.  In that case, one would have to say that Jesus was tempted by the devil twice, that the Lord’s Supper was offered twice, and that Peter denied the Lord six to nine times! In fact, one might have to say that Christ was raised from the dead more than once if this were pressed!

Second, if Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic (at least sometimes, if not usually), then why are these verbal agreements preserved for us in Greek?  It is doubtful that each writer would have translated Jesus’ sayings in exactly the same way so often.

Third, even if Jesus spoke in Greek exclusively, how is it that not only his words but his deeds are recorded in verbal identity?  There is a material difference between remembering the verbiage of what one heard and recording what one saw in identical verbiage.

Fourth, when one compares the synoptic materials with John’s Gospel, why are there so few verbal similarities?  On an independent hypothesis, either John or the synoptics are wrong, or else John does not record the same events at all in the life of Jesus.

Wallace’s second argument for interdependence is agreement in order.  “Although there is a great deal of disagreement in the order of the pericopae [story units] among the synoptic gospels, there is an even greater amount of agreement.”  In other words, there is a lot of commonality in the way the three synoptic writers ordered the stories about Jesus.

A counter-argument here may be that the reason the order of the stories are the same is because they are in chronological order.  Wallace, however, notes that the gospel pericopae are not all in strictly chronological order.  Why is that?

First, there is occasional disagreement in the order.  For example, many of Matthew’s parables in chapter 13 are found in Luke 8 or Luke 13. The scribe who approached Jesus about the great commandment is placed in the Passion Week in Matthew and Mark, and vaguely arranged elsewhere in Luke.

Second, it is evident that quite a bit of material is grouped topically in the gospels—e.g., after the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew come several miracles by Jesus.  Indeed, “Matthew has furthermore arranged his entire Gospel so that collections of narratives alternate with collections of sayings.”

Third, the early patristic writers (e.g., Papias) recognized that the gospel writers did not follow a strict chronological arrangement.

Fourth, there is a studied reserve in the gospels from pinpointing the dates of the various incidents.  Introductory comments such as, “immediately,” “after this,” “on another occasion,” “one day,” etc. are the norm.  In other words, there seems to be no intent on the part of the evangelists to present a strict chronological sequence of events.

In part 2 of this series, we will look at the final two arguments that Wallace gives for the interdependence of the synoptic gospels.

Historical Christ, Resurrection

Should We Calculate Prior Probabilities to Determine if Jesus Was Resurrected?

29 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I am aware that there are philosophers who employ Bayesian analysis to determine probabilities that historical events occurred, but I am becoming skeptical of the value of these analyses.  A Bayesian analysis requires a calculation of the prior probability that a historical event occurred, without considering any of the evidence we have that the event occurred.  But how we do calculate prior probabilities for a historical event?

I think the problem was clearly illustrated in a debate between Greg Cavin and Mike Licona.  Cavin mounted an attack on the resurrection of Jesus by arguing against the prior probability of it.  Remember that prior probability calculations ignore the actual evidence for the event.  Here is Licona’s summary of Cavin’s argument (note: Greg Cavin has contacted me and denied that he made the argument presented below, so I have edited the comments below to represent a generic argument made by a generic atheist named Bob; even if Cavin did not make this argument, I have heard arguments like it made plenty of other times by other atheists):

[Bob’s] first argument is the probability that Jesus rose is astronomically low, since, even if God exists, he doesn’t have a tendency to raise people from the dead. In support he said that, of the estimated 100 billion people who have lived and died on the Earth, the historical evidence is inadequate to suggest that any have been raised from the dead. So, even if the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection were good, there would still be only a 1 chance in 100 billion that Jesus was raised.
Bob argues that the prior probability of Jesus rising from the dead is 1 in 100 billion.  Given this low prior probability, there is no need to even look at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.  The evidence doesn’t matter because it can never overcome 1 in 100 billion odds.  Here is Licona’s response:
I replied that historians don’t use prior probabilities in historical inquiry.  One cannot calculate the prior probability that the U.S. would drop nuclear bombs on Japan during WWII, since in all of human history no nation had dropped a nuclear bomb on another before or since WWII.  Moreover, I’ll be 51 in two weeks.  That’s a lot of days in my life. Yet Sunday was the first day I had ever spent in Temecula, California. Given my “tendency” not to go to Temecula, one should conclude that I wasn’t there that evening.  Historians examine a historical report then look at the evidence for the event occurring.  Thus, prior probabilities are the wrong tool for historical inquiry.  It’s like using a calculator for an archaeological dig.
I think Licona’s response is compelling.  You cannot determine whether a historical event occurred without actually examining the evidence for it.  Calculating prior probabilities may be an interesting exercise, but I doubt that it is the best way to approach historical inquiry.  It just doesn’t matter that resurrections are rare.  In fact, even Christians claim that resurrections are rare in history.  But that fact just has no bearing on whether Jesus rose from the dead.