Eta Linnemann Is There A Synoptic Problem: Rethinking The Literary Dependence of the First Three Gos

Currently retired Professor Eta Linnemann was once an advocate for historical criticism and a student of German biblical critic and distinguished Professor Rudolph Bultmann. After her conversion she adopted an evangelical perspective in which she protests against her previous convictions. There are two prominent works of Linnemann’s post conversion. Her previous work was: Historical Critisicism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?—Reflections of a Bultmannian turned Evengelical. Her second and more recent work is: Is there a Synoptic Problem: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels.
In Linnemann’s Is There a Synoptic Problem: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels we are introduced to her arguments against historical biblical criticism coined as historical critical science. The thesis of historical criticism advocates a literary dependence among the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Linnemann’s main premise is that literary dependence is not the only way to describe the differences and similarities among the composition of the three synoptic gospels but that there is a much more plausible explanation - that the gospel writers where actually key witnesses who have provided first-hand written reports of the historical events of Jesus’ life.
To better understand why Eta Linnemann has drawn such a conclusion against historical biblical criticism we must explain one of the prominent forerunners of biblical criticism she discusses: Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Lessing’s influence, as Linnemann illustrates, was Hermann Samuel Reimarus. Reimarus was a well-known philosopher of the Enlightenment era. Lessing, like Reimarus before him, was highly influenced by the change in values of this time. Lessing was one of the first critics to have developed conclusions on the interdependence of the synoptic gospels. His work led him to the conclusion that the miracles presented in the bible could not be proven as truths. He demonstrates this view in the following quote:
“The problem is that reports of fulfilled prophecies are not fulfilled prophecies; that reports of miracles are not miracles. These, the prophecies fulfilled before my eyes, the miracles that occur before my eyes, are immediate in their effect. But those—the reports of fulfilled prophecies and miracles, have to work through a medium which takes away all their force”

In this quotation Lessing is assigning a distinction to both miracles and history. The truth of such miracles cannot be verified according to Lessing because we as history’s observers remain detached from it. For Linnemann this is an issue. The problem is not just that Lessing attributes two different paradigms to the subjects in question but that this leads to a paradigm shift in the methods that are formed in the study of historical criticism. The paradigm shift favours literary dependence and historical critical analysis as opposed to the literal reading of the synoptic gospels. Since historical criticism is equated with Lessing this becomes the main issue for Linnemann in this piece as she analyzes modern theories within the study.
Linnemann’s arguments can be traced back to her central claim that none of the current or past theories within historical criticism can provide any proof of the assertions they make in regards to literary transmission of the synoptic writers. All the claims generated through historical criticism can be traced back to presupposition of literary dependence. This literary dependence traces back to presuppositions formed by Lessing and his contemporaries. The method of historical/literary critics is demonstrated through the second model below which she provides. As such, the consequences of her thesis are directed towards the liability of modern theories within the study (i.e. the Two Document Hypothesis).
The hypotheses that are generated, in regards to the gospels, follow one of two possible models. The hypotheses are either established through thorough empirical analysis or they are presumed from the outset and not established under good grounds (Linnemann: 45-47). All of the hypotheses that are formulated by historical critical analysis follow this second model, according to Linnemann. They provide no proof and as result the methods of historical criticism are subject to criticism. This is primarily the case because the narrative thread, parallelism among the wording, quantitative synoptic comparison, and verbal agreement are not exact or do not showcase one hundred percent verbatim agreement. As such the differences and similarities among the synoptic writers can also be explained through a literal reading and interpretation of the text. That is, the synoptic gospels were compiled by actual witnesses to the key events of Jesus’ life. It is because of this finding that Linnemann believes that she can disprove the thesis of literary dependence.
Bart D. Ehrman’s Input on the Literary Dependence Thesis
Professor Bart D. Ehrman provides a position that is contrary to Linnemann’s analysis of historical/criticism and its methods. According to Ehrman, the scholarly approach and method to biblical literature is a changing study. As such it is not justifiable to form counter-claims based on past results and methods. For instance, one cannot judge Bart D. Ehrman’s work based on the conclusions and methods drawn by Lessing and his contemporaries. As such, one may conclude that Linnemann errs in making this connection between the two. According to Bart D. Ehrman:
“Only in recent years have accurate methods of documentary analysis and
classification been devised. Since these methods are now becoming firmly
entrenched in the discipline, it may prove helpful to understand their advent in
light of the impasses reached by earlier methods (Ehrman: 1987).
The Problems with Literary Dependence
While this error remains unbeknown to Linnemann she continues and provides an analysis of the inconsistencies within the thesis of literary dependence. This analysis is primarily directed towards the Two Document Hypothesis since it is largely the consensus among scholars. However, the thesis she presents is largely an attack against all theories that advocate a literary dependence among the synoptic gospels. Note that I have chosen three of the arguments she has made to make this report less extensive. Bear in mind that while the arguments she presents take a different form, they present a similar conclusion which is that one hundred percent verbatim agreement is required in order to establish literary dependence among the synoptic gospels.
Narrative Thread
The first argument involves the narrative thread which involves the placement of parables within the synoptic gospels. According to Linnemann, the similarity in narrative choice among the Synoptic gospels does not provide sufficient grounds for establishing literary dependence. For Linnemann there are two possible reasons for common narrative. Those reasons are: (1) transmission through a common literary source; or (2) natural progression of the events described (Linnemann: p. 83). Linnemann makes the point of advocating the second thesis later on in her book. As for this chapter, she provides her reasons as to why the former is not the case.
The main argument that Eta Linnemann espouses here is that the narratives of the
three synoptic gospels do not run in perfect parallel. It is assumed that one expects
this to be exact if literary dependence exists. Instead Linnemann agrees with Hans-Herbert Stoldt: “that it is always partially and temporarily that they run in similar sequence”(Linnemann: p. 84).
Linnemann discounts the narratives of the passion and resurrection arguing that these narratives appear in a logical place within the gospels. It is logical to hold that these five narratives had to be presented in the sequence which they were in (Linnemann: p. 85). As a result our findings look like this:
“Mark consists of 115 separate sections. Of these 115, only fifty eight appear in all three synoptics in the same sequence, or around 50.43 percent. A little over a half. If we discount the narratives aforementioned, that brings us down to 40.66…” (Linnemann: p. 84).
“Likewise if we look at the similarities between Matthew and Mark, Matthew has eighty-seven sections in common with Mark (or 75.65 percent).
However, if we take away the sections aforementioned and add the entire scope of Matthew’s gospel then it drops to 48.88 percent. Likewise for commonalties between Lukan narrative and Markan narrative, this would add up to 43.55 percent” (Linnemann: p. 91-92).
Due to the fact that the commonalities in narrative sequence are not one hundred percent, Linnemann argues this is just as likely to be a historical sequence of events. It is also evident that Matthew, Luke, and Mark have plenty of areas within their narratives that follow a different sequence. As a result, Linnemann believes that commonality hypothesis does not support the thesis of literary dependence.
The Problem of Parallelism
In her next argument, Linnemann attacks the general consensus of the literary critics. The general consensus within historical analysis, according to Linnemann, is that the entirety of Mark’s gospel can be demonstrated in the other two gospels (Linnemann: p. 97). However, Linnemann believes that this is not the case when searching for parallelism among the synoptic gospels. The following evidence suggests this. There are five pericopes in Mark that are not available in the other two (3: 20-21; 4:26-29; 7:33-37; 8:22-26; 13: 33-37) (Linnemann: p. 97). Linnemann also brings to our attention the range of material special to both Luke and Matthew known as the double tradition or Q source theory which is also not available in Mark’s gospel. This information demonstrates that the three synoptic gospels do not run in parallel with one another. As such the hypothesis cannot be proven through the method of parallelism. Mark’s gospel is not fully demonstrable in the other two gospels.

Quantitative Synoptic Comparison
In the third argument against the literary dependence thesis, Eta Linnemann makes the argument that if there is not one hundred percent verbatim agreement in the pericopes then they do not bear the resemblance that the literary dependence theory advocates. As a result, those theories are lacking sufficient data.
The steps in her analytical method are:
1) Analysis of parallel word agreement in gender, case, style etc.
2) Total number of words in Markan pericopes acts as a basis for the percentage of word agreement among the synoptic writers.
3) Analysis of the total of identical words among the pericopes
4) Differences among the Synoptic Gospels (Linnemann: p. 112-115).
In the end, what this analysis demonstrates is that there are numerous disagreements between the synoptic writers in their word choice and word agreement. As such, literary dependence does not necessarily follow from word choice and word agreement among the synoptic gospels.
Eta Linnemann believes this data illustrates that the literal agreement which historical analysis advocates is not furnished through the evidence provided by theories such as the Two- Document Hypothesis and the Griesbach solution. This is because these different solutions cannot be held with absolute certainty as the figures of comparison do not run at one hundred percent verbatim and perfect parallel.
Tony Burke’s Input
There are two arguments against Linnemann in this respect. The first can be generated from an example provided by Professor Tony Burke. He explains that when we are studying the Greek language one can pick up many differences that can demonstrate just how easy it is to present the same subject and context while also reversing the words within a given sentence. The same sentence in Greek can be rearranged 24 times and still present the same meaning (Burke; Lectures). As such, one hundred percent of verbatim agreement or narrative agreement is not required in the text to prove the instance of plagiarism. Through this example one can see an easy access point to plagiarism. Thus, we are discussing high levels of verbatim agreement, not one hundred percent verbatim, which still suggests instances of plagiarism and a literary relationship among the synoptic gospels.
John S. Kloppenborg’s Input
The next argument against Linnemann is provided by Professor John Kloppenborg. He indicates that Linnemann does not analyze how the words are presented within the synoptic gospels. Instead she analyzes them by statistics alone.
“Linnemann’s style of argumentation is what Frans Neirynck has termed ‘too abstract,’ for it does not examine the actual verbal configuration of the texts, with allowance made for nuance, stylistic preference and idiosyncrasies , but instead draws conclusions from raw numbers” (Kloppenborg: 1993).
The assumption Linnemann makes in her arguments is that this happens to be the form in which literary analysis is carried out by these different theories concerning the gospels. However, as Kloppenborg demonstrates, this is not the case.
Kloppenborg also demonstrates that the gaol of these theories (i.e. the Two Document Hypothesis) is to provide us with explanations as to why certain parables and narratives bare the similarities and differences they do. He maintains that they do not furnish proof rather they provide credible stories to the available data within the gospels (Kloppenborg: 1993).
These theories provide very efficient explanations as to why the gospel writers have made the editorial choices that they have, while often using the same material. Kloppenborg states:
“ Two Document Hypothesis proposes that Matthew and Luke have independently used Mark and Q; they have improved Mark’s grammar; they both eliminated potential difficulties in Mark’s account, for example the inference that Mark’s Jesus could not do any miracles in Nazareth (Mark 6:5)” (Kloppenborg: 2008).
This demonstrates that Eta Linnmann is making a rash generalization about the methods used by modern day biblical scholars. While it may be inferred that literary dependence is often a requirement of these different theories it does not follow that the explanations provided by theories are any less efficient.
Eta Linnemann’s Solution
In assuming that the previous data eliminates the possibility of literary dependence, Linnemann motions for the possibility of direct transmission of the historical events of Jesus’ life. In this section of her work, Linnemann tries to dispense with the possibility of oral tradition among the synoptic writers by opting for the direct transmission among the synoptic gospels. Linnemann’s main premise is that no account through words can grasp the fullness and all the complexities of an event that has occurred (Linnemann: p. 160).
The four stages of transmission she presents are:
(1) Tradition
(2) A forgotten factor (i.e. memory)
(3) The transition from memory to manuscript
(4) The ancient testimony of Christians (Lineman: p. 180-187).
In the first stage, Linnemann’s goal is to eliminate the possibility of oral tradition, which largely discounts the possibility of tradition. For Linnemann tradition was not involved, only direct transmission of Jesus’ words occurred. Linnemann believes that there is no basis to the argument of literary dependence of the synoptic gospels. The writers of the gospels were actually credible witnesses to the events. If not, their writing can be traced back to the key witnesses of these events.
In the second stage the omitted factor is memory, which is argued to be the reason for both similarities and differences among the synoptic accounts. Memory may account for the striking similarity among the stories of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and death (Linnemann: p. 183). The activation of memory is understood through the following four sub-stages:
(1) Through the desire to recall specific occasions.
(2) Through the exchange with others.
(3) Through being queried.
(4) Through a willingness to relate memory. (Linnemann: p. 183).
Through these sub-stages it is possible that some events are remembered over others which could account for variations in the synoptic gospels. As aforementioned, it is also possible that the specific events around the end of Jesus’ life were of utmost importance. This may explain why they are remembered and accounted for with striking similarity and sequence. In the stage of memory differences can also apply because our memory cannot account for everything perfectly.
In the third stage of transition: from memory to manuscript, Linnemann allows the possibility that there could have been an instance of oral transmission of the written record through evangelical fathers or from Christian to Christian. However, the main point made by Linnemann is that there was only occasion to pass on this recollection of events orally and not through repetition (Linnemann: p. 183). In contrast, the main focus of transmission is of course through written accounts (Linnemann: p. 183).
In the final stage, Linnemann claims that we have reliable accounts passed down from the apostles; the accounts of the church fathers must be trusted. Linnemann discounts the possibility of bias among the works of the early church fathers.
Kenneth E Bailey’s Input
In contrast to Linnemann, one argument which is given in favour of oral tradition is presented in Bailey’s work: Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels. It is very difficult to see how such knowledge could be passed down without oral tradition. Despite Linnemann’s emphasis on the fact that oral tradition cannot be proven, it is still logical to hold that much of what is presented in the bible would have been passed down through oral tradition. As Bailey states:
“ from Luke and Paul demonstrate that Jesus taught his disciples like other rabbis and that the early church organized a 'college' of the apostles along Jewish lines. Evidence for this is found in the recitation formulas, the frequent references to 'the tradition' and 'the word of the Lord', and the importance of Jerusalem as a source from which the word proceeds” (Bailey: 1995).
As this quote demonstrates, there is evidence in the gospels themselves which present Jesus as a teacher figure among the disciples. The relationship between teachers and disciples among Judeans in ancient Jewish Palestine is similar to that of teacher and pupil. It was common for individuals to practice recitation of knowledge as this was a known feature of Judean culture in this time period (Bailey: 1995). The relationship suggested among Jesus and his disciples points to this possibility.
John S. Kloppenborg’s Input on Tradition
A second argument provided against Linnemann states that oral tradition was a large part of ancient Judean culture. Generally there was not much of a possibility that these stories of Jesus’ life were passed down predominantly through written accounts and sources. Despite the fact that Linnemann does allow for oral tradition she underemphasizes the importance of oral transmission. As Kloppenborg states:
“Scholars have stressed that this was an oral-aural-scribal culture where most communication was based not on reading but on hearing…What this implies is that the majority of the population could access written texts only through their oral performance or recitation” (Kloppenbrog: 2008).
In other words, oral tradition and transmission was a necessary feature of this culture and time period. Eta Linnemann fails to account for this possibility within her solution.
Final Question: Why 4 gospels instead of 1?
The final issue that Linnemann discusses is the problem of four gospels within the biblical cannon. A ‘quick and easy’ solution to the problem of four gospels is provided by Linnemann. Her general point is that four gospels provide more certainty towards the event, as opposed to just one account. In her view, all the gospels actually compliment one another in order to establish the events that they express in their accounts (Linnemann: p. 195). The real question from her perspective is why have only one gospel when you can have four?
Eta Linneman believes that she has obtained the proof required in order to prove her proposal of the direct transmission of the words within the gospels from Jesus. Eta Linnemann’s arguments have largely been dismissed by the consensus as they provide more of a pejorative stance rather than an informative analysis of critical method, according to most scholars. As such, her results are held with suspicion by the vast majority of scholars today.
Eta Linnemann’s Contribution to the Synoptic Problem
Linnemann’s contribution to the synoptic debate is essentially one of a negative stance held in regards to the problem itself. Although she provides similar data and statistical methods in relation to the problem, her results and findings offer an elimination of the synoptic problem itself. As Linnemann concludes, the synoptic problem is nothing but a fairy tale (Linnemann: p. 181). As a result, her thesis does not provide a positive account in relation to the problem nor a credible history in regards to the solutions provided. However, her thesis does provide an alternative to the view of literary dependence, one that advocates the direct transmission of the accounts of Jesus’ life. It is left to her readers to decide whether her thesis is plausible one.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu