Jesus Puzzle: Chapter 23

Chapter 23 Critiqued:

"If the history were being created out of the text, there would be no need to adapt the text to fit the history"(JHMG:109).

Doherty wrote: “For the fact is, the story which presumably began so much is to be traced back to a single document, to the literary efforts of what may well have been a single individual” (TJP:240).

Doherty completely ignores the prologue to Luke’s Gospel which states: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-3, NASB).
The author of Luke’s Gospels claims to have obtained his/her information from eyewitnesses, meaning a number of other sources, contrary to Doherty’s assertion that the source of the “story” may well have been a single individual.

Doherty wrote: “Most Christians today still believe that. But New Testament scholars know better, and they’ve known it for almost two centuries. They have come to realize that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, rather than being independent corroborations, are direct copies of Mark. Matthew reproduces almost 90% of Mark in his own text, Luke over 50%” (TJP:240-241).

First, not all scholars agree that Matthew and Luke copied material from Mark.
New Testament scholar Joseph B. Tyson wrote:

“Although most scholars today adopt the two-document solution to the synoptic problem, it is not without its difficulties. For one thing, the dependence of the theory on a hypothetical document, Q, is something of an embarrassment, and its existence as a single document has frequently been questioned. A theory that does not depend on hypothetical sources would surely be stronger” ( TNTEC:154).
“Moreover, the arguments for the priority of Mark, as presented by Streeter and others, are subject to question. It is not correct to say, as Streeter does in his first argument, that ‘Matthew reproduces 90%of the subject matter of Mark,’ unless you already know that Mark came first. The fact that the three gospels have similar material does not in itself determine which of the three is the earliest. Streeter’s second argument says that ‘in any average section, which occurs in the three Gospels, the majority of the actual words used by Mark are reproduced by Matthew and Luke, either alternately or both together.’ In fact, however, there are places where the two agree with each other but disagree with Mark, and this in sections where they are allegedly using Mark. It is to be expected that two authors who use the same source will alter a word or two here and there, but it is surprising when they both make the same change. Streeter’s third argument on order can cut both ways. If the basic sequence is the same in two or more documents, we can assume that one has been copied. But the fact of agreement in respect to order does not in itself tell us which is the earliest of the three documents. In these three arguments, Streeter has presupposed the conclusion he intended to support, underestimated the problems with his thesis, and used a reversible argument” ( TNTEC:154-155).
“Streeter’s fourth argument suggests that Mark’s language and grammatical usage are more primitive than those of the other two. Mark used some phrases that might have caused offense, his grammatical style is rough, and he used several Aramaic words. The Aramaic words may be a sign of an early date because the original language of the Christian oral tradition was probably Aramaic. The earliest gospel writer would, it seems, be in closer contact with oral traditions in Aramaic than would the later ones. But is a rough grammatical style necessarily an indication of primitiveness? Besides, some scholars disagree with Streeter’s evaluation of Mark’s grammatical style. The NT scholar William R. Farmer, for example, feels that Mark committed no more grammatical errors than did the other two evangelists. He used some Latin expressions in writing Greek, and he included some Aramaic terms, but he almost always translated them” ( TNTEC:155).
“Streeter’s fifth argument states that the distribution of material in Matthew and Luke indicates that they combined Mark with other sources. IN describing how they did it, Streeter says: ‘Matthew’s solution was to make Mark’s story the framework into which non-Marcan material is fitted, on the principle of joining like to like. Luke follows the simpler method of giving Marcan and non-Marcan material in alternate blocks; except in the Passion story, where, from the nature of the case, some interweaving of sources was inevitable’” ( TNTEC:155).
“Once again, we find the conclusion presupposed in the argument, for we cannot speak of Markan and non-Markan material in this way, unless we already know that Matthew and Luke used Mark” ( TNTEC:155).
“These and other weaknesses in the two-document hypothesis have led a few scholars to reopen the question of synoptic relationships” ( TNTEC:155).
“It must be admitted that, for all its efforts, scholarship has not yet produced an unassailable solution to the synoptic problem” ( TNTEC:157).

Eta Linnemann, another New Testament scholar, has critiqued this view thoroughly. One of her arguments is provided below:

“The similarities in vocabulary of the Synoptic Gospels are alleged to prove their literary dependence. It is not taken into account that there are other grounds that can explain these similarities” (BCOT:47).
“The entire common vocabulary of Matthew, Mark, and Luke encompasses 839 words. Of these, 793 occur in the Septuagint. In other words, with the exception of 46 words, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels were already familiar with their entire common vocabulary from the Greek edition of the Bible. This means that 94.52% of the words that all three authors use could have been used independently of each other. None of them was required to borrow them from one of the other writers (BCOT:47).

Doherty wrote: “On the way to that execution, the evangelist introduces a memorable character, Simon of Cyrene, who helps an exhausted Jesus carry his cross. Generations of sermons focusing on this character more than justify Mark’s intention here, to convey the lesson that Christians must share in the cross of Christ and help each other through adversity. While no scriptural passages readily suggest themselves as inspiration for this feature, it does reflect a frequent element within the tale’s biblical model. There, various good-hearted people make an attempt to aid the hero, usually to no avail” (TJP:255)

First, Doherty readily admits that no scriptural passage can directly account for the Simon of Cyrene “character.”
Second, there is archaeological evidence that Simon of Cyrene was a historical figure in the first century C.E.
Third, Doherty merely alludes to the idea that Simon of Cyrene was a fictitious character since there are other accounts of people helping one another in other parts of the biblical text. However, Doherty provided no evidence in support of this asserted allusion.