Which scholars, historical figures, or churches have argued that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were all written independently without access to any of the other gospels? What arguments have they used?

This question isn't about particular theories of dependence (Augustinian, Ferrer, Griesbach, two sources, etc.), but rather about people denying literary dependence entirely.

(This question comes from the comments here, but I figured it'd be better to have is as a separate question.)

  • I think that it will be important for you to specify what you mean by literary. Are you literally meaning literary (which would allow for oral tradition interdependence) or are you asking for folks who argue for no interdependence whatsoever? – swasheck Feb 6 '13 at 18:13
  • I would be interested in examples of people who think that they share common oral tradition pre-dating the written gospels, but that none of the authors had read (or heard recited) any of the other gospels. – Noah Feb 6 '13 at 19:03
  • I'm having trouble figuring out how to clarify this rigorously. For example, I would count Matthew having memorized Mark prior to writing his gospel as literary dependence, even if he learned it orally from someone who had read it and memorized it. – Noah Feb 6 '13 at 19:10

I'm not aware of anyone who has argued that none of the synoptic gospels relied on each other. This is primarily because we know Luke used sources (Luke 1:1-3). You may be able to find someone arguing that Matthew and Mark wrote independently from each other, but I doubt it.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Hi jcoat and welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics! Normally, I'd ask for a more detailed answer supported by other sources, but in this case, I can't think what they might be. ;) – Jon Ericson Mar 5 '13 at 23:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.