Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1139261 in Books
• Published on: 1992-04
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 219 pages

Language Notes
Text: English (translation)
Original Language: German

Customer Reviews

Daring and Overwhelming
This book gets 5 stars simply for daring to do what few have ever thought possible. Linnemann was a respected NT scholar in the tradition of Bultmann before the Holy Spirit radically saved her. Now she teaches the Bible in Indonesia, presumably in a missionary capacity. This book represents her effort to prove the literary independence of the Synoptic Gospels. While it may not reach the level of "proof" (whatever that word means in our postmodern times), it does demonstrate that one can hold to independence and still be a rigorous scholar.

The book has 4 main sections. First, Linnemann excoriates contemporary historical-critical scholarship for its circular reasoning, fanciful speculation, utter disregard for Occam's razor, and total disrespect for church tradition and the gospel writers. It's always good to be reminded of how little evidence many NT scholars have for their claim. The second section is the key part. Linnemann provides a statistical analysis of the Synoptics and the extent of their agreements and disagreements. The chapter on vocabulary is especially convincing. As a whole this section makes it clear that the similarities between the Gospels have been vastly overestimated. Part 3 discusses the possible explanations for the writing of the Synoptics apart from literary dependence. Especially striking is the support that Linnemann gathers from early church tradition for literary independence. Part 4 concludes with some thoughts on hermeneutics in light of literary independence.

While this book will undoubtedly be ignored by the establishment, it should receive a hearing, especially in those sections of evangelicalism which have felt compelled to cater to the liberal-critical scholarship that controls NT studies.

terrific argument against liberal biblical scholars
The title says it all. Linnemann dares to ask the unthinkable: is there a synoptic problem?

In this short book Linnemann argues that there is no synoptic problem. For some 3-400 years of liberal criticism of the bible, the main battering ram they have used to dismantle orthodox belief has been the assumption that there is a synoptic problem. That is, that Mathew, Mark and Luke share similarities and differences that need to be explained.

"Improbable as it sounds, historical critical theology has never produced an impartial investigation of whether a literary dependence exists" or whether the three gospels are simply all original reports.

The author comes up with thorough technical studies and charts and tables that pick apart today's historical, form, and redaction critical hypotheses.

Anyone reading this should also pick up The Hebrew Christ by Claude Tresmontant.

Synoptic Problem?
Following up her assault on historical-critical theology in Historical Criticism and the Bible, Eta Linnemann published a more technical study which helps one understand the scholarly integrity of her earlier manifesto. It's entitled Is There A Synoptic Problem: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, c. 1992).
As most of you know, the "synoptic problem" deals with the question of whether Matthew and Luke used sections of Mark in writing their gospels--and whether there was yet another unknown source, "Q," underlying all of them. But that's not all that's involved, Linnemann argues. What really underlies the historical-critical approach to the Synoptics is an unproven, largely philosophical assumption that the gospels do not in fact record eyewitness accounts and accurate recollections of Jesus' words. It assumes the NT contains "made-up words of Jesus and made-up stores about his actions. That the Gospel writers, independent of one another, made up the same stories and sayings two or even three times is quite improbable; ... So under this presupposition, literary dependence is indispensable, for it permits one to understand the second, third, or even fourth version of given material as dependent on one original document" (p. 158).
In an interview which serves as an introduction, Linnemann says: "The solution to the Synoptic problem is the cornerstone of New Testament criticism. Remove it, and form criticism and redaction criticism also collapse. I am shocked when I look at the books of my former colleagues, which I used to hold in highest esteem, and examine the justification for their position. Instead of proof I find only assertions. Instead of arguments there is merely circular reasoning" (p. 10).
More strongly, she contends: "As improbable as it sounds, to this very day, historical-critical theology has never produced an impartial investigation of whether a literary dependence exists, be it direct or indirect, among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke--or whether these three Gospels are three equally original reports" (p. 11).
After a chapter recounting and evaluating two centuries of historical-critical scholarship, dominated by thinkers determined to deny any supernatural dimensions to scripture, Linnemann discusses some of the major modern figures in biblical studies. What she finds in their works is a series of assertions largely devoid of concrete evidence. Indeed: "The 'history of the Synoptic tradition' is a fairy tale of criticism" (p. 181).
She sums up the subject of her book, "Should it turn out that there is no literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels, then the rug is pulled out from under about 40 percent of New Testament research as it is carried on within historical-critical circles" (p. 69). So she tests the theory. Since two independent witnesses would tell the same basic story, anyone finding the same sequence of events in two gospels ought not assume it means any literary dependence. What would prove literary dependence would be demonstrating that the same words (including grammatical tenses) are used within relevant pericopes (narrative sections) to describe the same events.
But that you do not find in the Gospels! With meticulous care, Linnemann compares words. (Many pages in this book are simply lists, tables, charts, illustrating her precise research.) First you eliminate simple, common words like "and,"--people using the same language cannot avoid using lots of the same words. Then you bracket Jesus' words. As seems reasonable to most of us, quotations attributed to Jesus should be basically identical in the three Synoptics, for the Master's words would, one imagines, have been carefully repeated (and probably written down) by those who actually heard them. At this point you compare individual passages (pericopes) and check words, and the argument for literary dependence appears thin.
In fact, she insists: "Investigation of the extent of parallelism between Matthew, Mark, and Luke shows clearly that the data in the gospels yield no evidence for the literary dependence among the three Synoptics" (p. 106). Indeed, "Precisely in view of the measurable similarities in content, sequence, and form, every divergence of Matthew and Luke from Mark speaks against literary dependence" (p. 131).
What Linnemann concludes is this: the traditional view of the Church was correct. The gospels were written by four different men, who based their books upon eyewitness (their own or others') accounts, faithfully recording what Jesus said and did. "Behind what the Gospels report stand the words and deeds of Jesus." Elementary as that seems, "That is the source of similarities in content and sequence of the pericopes. The Gospels all have the same foundation: What Jesus said, did, and suffered; that led inevitably to similarities in content" (p. 159).
In our day such ideologies as Freudianism and Marxism are fast falling by the wayside, looking more and more like curious dinosaurs, monuments to a by-gone era which collapsed of their own inner flaws. Significant challenges to Darwinism in the past decade allow one to wonder if it too will dissolve into the mists of deservedly forgotten historical theories. So one wonders if works such as Linnemann's announce the beginnings of sig¬nificant desertions from that nineteenth century ideology which most impacted the Church's attitude and approach to scripture.