"The four Gospels are independent, corroborating accounts"

A common apologetic argument holds that the four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are four independent eyewitness accounts that corroborate each other, thereby establishing the reliability of the New Testament narrative. The logic is straightforward: if four separate witnesses independently report the same events, their agreement provides strong evidence that those events occurred. However, this argument fundamentally misunderstands what mainstream biblical scholarship has established about the relationships among the Gospels. The first three Gospels share so much material, often in identical Greek wording, precisely because they are not independent: they copied from one another.^{1, 2} The fourth Gospel is genuinely different, but its differences raise as many problems as they solve. The claim of four independent, corroborating accounts does not survive scrutiny of the textual evidence.^{3, 4}

The Synoptic problem

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the "Synoptic Gospels" because they share so much material that they can be "seen together" (Greek: synoptikos) and compared passage by passage. When scholars place these three texts in parallel columns, the similarities are striking—not just in content and sequence, but often in precise Greek wording. The question of how to explain these similarities and the differences among them is known as the Synoptic Problem, and it has been a central concern of New Testament scholarship since the eighteenth century.^{1, 5}

The extent of the verbal agreement between the Synoptics is remarkable. Of Mark's approximately 661 verses, about 600 appear in Matthew (often with very close wording) and about 350 appear in Luke. In many pericopes (individual narrative units), the agreement is nearly word-for-word. For example, the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1–12, Matthew 9:1–8, Luke 5:17–26), the Beelzebul controversy (Mark 3:22–30, Matthew 12:22–32, Luke 11:14–23), and the parable of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30–32, Matthew 13:31–32, Luke 13:18–19) all show extensive verbatim agreement in Greek.^{1, 6} This level of verbal correspondence cannot be explained by independent witnesses recalling the same events. When four people independently describe the same scene, they use different words, emphasize different details, and structure their accounts differently. They do not reproduce each other's Greek syntax and vocabulary.^{2, 7}

The verbal agreement is so extensive and precise that the only plausible explanation is literary dependence: one or more of these authors was copying from another's written text. As E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies put it in their standard textbook on the Synoptic Gospels, "the degree of verbal agreement among the Synoptics is so high that literary dependence is virtually certain."⁶ Raymond Brown, the eminent Catholic New Testament scholar, reached the same conclusion: the Synoptic Gospels "are interrelated on a literary level," meaning that "the evangelists had written sources that they edited."⁴

Markan priority

The dominant scholarly explanation for the Synoptic relationships is known as Markan priority: the hypothesis that Mark was the first Gospel written and that both Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as a primary source. This view is held by the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars, though a minority have defended alternative theories.^{1, 5, 8}

Multiple lines of evidence support Markan priority. First, Mark's Greek is rougher and less polished than that of Matthew and Luke. Where Mark uses grammatical constructions or vocabulary that would have seemed awkward or colloquial, Matthew and Luke consistently smooth and improve the language. This pattern makes sense if Matthew and Luke were editing Mark, but not if Mark were abbreviating Matthew (as some older theories proposed)—why would an abbreviator make the text worse?^{1, 5}

Second, Mark's Christology (understanding of who Jesus is) appears more "primitive" than that of the later Gospels. In Mark, Jesus displays human emotions like anger and distress more openly (Mark 1:41, 3:5, 14:33–34), expresses limitations in knowledge (Mark 13:32), and sometimes fails to perform miracles due to the unbelief of those around him (Mark 6:5–6). Matthew and Luke consistently soften or eliminate these passages when they incorporate Markan material, suggesting they found them theologically uncomfortable and edited them accordingly.^{1, 9}

Third, the pattern of agreement among the three Synoptics is revealing. Matthew and Luke frequently agree with Mark when all three cover the same material. When Matthew or Luke departs from Mark, the other usually sticks with Mark—Matthew and Luke rarely agree with each other against Mark in the triple tradition (material found in all three). This is precisely the pattern predicted by the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark: they would each sometimes modify Mark differently, but they would not coordinate their changes.^{5, 6}

Percentage of Mark reproduced in Matthew and Luke^{1, 6}

The implications for the independence claim are decisive. If the author of Matthew copied approximately 90 percent of Mark's content, then Matthew is not an independent witness to the events described in that shared material—Matthew is simply reproducing Mark's account. The same applies to Luke. Where the Synoptics agree, they agree because they are drawing from a common written source, not because multiple eyewitnesses independently reported the same events in the same words.^{2, 3}

The two-source hypothesis

The most widely accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem is the two-source hypothesis. According to this model, Mark was written first, and both Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as a source. In addition, Matthew and Luke share approximately 235 verses of material—mostly sayings of Jesus—that does not appear in Mark. To explain this "double tradition," scholars hypothesize a second source, designated "Q" (from the German Quelle, meaning "source"), which both Matthew and Luke independently used alongside Mark. Finally, Matthew and Luke each have unique material found only in their respective Gospels, designated "M" and "L."^{1, 5, 10}

The Q hypothesis is supported by several observations. First, the double-tradition material (sayings found in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark) shows the same kind of high verbal agreement that characterizes the triple tradition—suggesting a common written source. Second, when Matthew and Luke differ in their versions of Q material, the differences are explicable as independent editorial changes to a common source. Third, the Q material has a distinctive character: it consists almost entirely of sayings, with little narrative framework, and reflects particular theological concerns that differ from Mark's.^{5, 10}

Not all scholars accept Q. The Farrer hypothesis, advocated by scholars like Mark Goodacre, proposes that Luke used both Mark and Matthew directly, eliminating the need for Q.¹¹ The Augustinian hypothesis, favored by some conservative scholars, maintains the traditional view that Matthew was written first, then Mark abbreviated Matthew, and Luke used both. However, both alternatives still posit literary dependence among the Synoptics; they disagree only about the direction and nature of that dependence.^{5, 11} For the question of Gospel independence, the specific solution matters less than the underlying observation: the Synoptic Gospels are related by direct literary copying, not by independent recollection of shared events.⁶

Alternative hypotheses and scholarly consensus

The Two-Source Hypothesis is not the only proposed solution. The Farrer Hypothesis (also called the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis) proposes that Luke used both Mark and Matthew directly, eliminating the need for Q: the double-tradition material derives from Luke's direct use of Matthew rather than from a hypothetical lost source.²⁹ The Griesbach Hypothesis (or Two-Gospel Hypothesis) proposes that Matthew was written first, Luke used Matthew, and Mark then conflated both—reversing the direction of dependence entirely.³⁰ A 2011 survey of 174 New Testament scholars found that 68% accepted the Two-Source Hypothesis, 7% accepted the Farrer Hypothesis, 2% accepted the Griesbach Hypothesis, and the remainder held other views or were undecided.³¹ For the question of Gospel independence, the specific solution matters less than the underlying finding on which all these hypotheses agree: the Synoptic Gospels are literarily dependent, not independent witnesses to the same events.

Verbatim copying

The case for literary dependence becomes vivid when one examines specific passages in parallel. Consider the healing of the leper in Mark 1:40–45, Matthew 8:1–4, and Luke 5:12–16. In Greek, Matthew and Luke reproduce Mark's wording nearly verbatim, including unusual vocabulary choices and grammatical constructions. The phrase "if you are willing, you can make me clean" (ean thelēs dynasai me katharisai) appears in identical Greek in all three.^{1, 12}

Consider also the description of John the Baptist's preaching (Mark 1:2–6, Matthew 3:1–6, Luke 3:1–6). The quotation from Isaiah appears in all three in nearly identical Greek, with only minor variations. The description of John's clothing ("a leather belt around his waist") and diet ("locusts and wild honey") is reproduced word for word in Matthew from Mark.^{12, 13}

The passion narratives provide particularly striking examples. The account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:55–64, Matthew 26:59–66) shows Matthew following Mark's Greek closely, even in the phrasing of the high priest's accusation and Jesus's response. The mocking of Jesus (Mark 15:16–20, Matthew 27:27–31) is reproduced with only minor editorial adjustments. These are not the kind of similarities that arise from independent recollection; they are the product of one author copying another's text with a manuscript open before him.^{3, 12}

If two modern journalists filed stories with 90 percent identical wording, we would immediately recognize that one had copied from the other or that both had copied from a common source. The same logic applies to the Synoptic Gospels. The verbal agreement is simply too extensive and too precise to be explained by independent eyewitness testimony.^{2, 7}

The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John presents a different picture. John is genuinely different from the Synoptic Gospels in vocabulary, style, theological emphasis, and narrative content. Where the Synoptics feature short, pithy sayings and parables, John presents long discourses and extended theological arguments. Where the Synoptics depict Jesus exorcising demons, John contains no exorcisms. Where the Synoptics portray Jesus speaking primarily about the coming "kingdom of God," John's Jesus speaks about himself and his relationship to the Father. The verbal overlap between John and the Synoptics is minimal, suggesting that John did not use the Synoptic Gospels as sources in the same way that Matthew and Luke used Mark.^{4, 14}

Some defenders of the corroboration argument point to John's distinctiveness as evidence for an independent fourth witness. If John wrote independently and yet agrees with the Synoptics on basic facts—Jesus was baptized, gathered disciples, performed miracles, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was believed to have risen—does this not provide corroboration?¹⁵

The problem is that John's independence creates as many difficulties as it solves. When John differs from the Synoptics, the differences are often contradictions that cannot be harmonized without considerable interpretive gymnastics. Rather than corroborating the Synoptic account, John frequently contradicts it on matters of sequence, chronology, and detail.^{3, 14}

Contradictions between the Gospels

The claim that four independent witnesses corroborate each other assumes that those witnesses substantially agree. But the Gospels contain numerous contradictions—not just minor discrepancies of the sort one might expect from independent recollection, but fundamental disagreements about the sequence and nature of events.^{3, 16}

The temple cleansing is a striking example. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus cleanses the temple during the final week of his life, after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:15–19, Matthew 21:12–17, Luke 19:45–48). This event serves as a catalyst for the authorities' decision to arrest him. In John's Gospel, however, the temple cleansing occurs at the very beginning of Jesus's ministry, during his first Passover in Jerusalem (John 2:13–22). This is not a minor discrepancy; it places the same event at opposite ends of a multi-year ministry. Apologists have proposed that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, but this ad hoc harmonization has no support in the texts themselves and strains credulity.^{3, 14}

The date of the crucifixion presents another irreconcilable difference. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus eats a Passover meal with his disciples on the evening that begins the first day of Passover (the 15th of Nisan by Jewish reckoning), and is crucified the following afternoon (Mark 14:12–17, Matthew 26:17–20, Luke 22:7–14). In John, Jesus is crucified on the "day of Preparation" for the Passover (John 19:14, 31), meaning he dies at the same time the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the temple—a symbolically rich detail that serves John's theological portrayal of Jesus as "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29, 36), but one that places the crucifixion a full day earlier than in the Synoptics.^{3, 17}

Selected contradictions between the Gospels^{3, 16, 17}

The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke provide another case study. Matthew has Jesus's family living in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod's massacre, and later settling in Nazareth for the first time after their return (Matthew 2:1–23). Luke has Jesus's family living in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem for a census, and returning to Nazareth without any flight to Egypt (Luke 2:1–39). These accounts are not easily reconciled; they presuppose different starting locations, different reasons for the Bethlehem connection, and different post-birth itineraries.^{3, 16}

The resurrection narratives present perhaps the most dramatic disagreements. Who went to the tomb? Mark says Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1). Matthew says Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" (Matthew 28:1). Luke says Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, "and the other women" (Luke 24:10). John says Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1). What did they find there? Mark says a young man in a white robe. Matthew says an angel whose appearance was like lightning. Luke says two men in dazzling clothes. John says two angels in white. Where did the risen Jesus first appear to the disciples? Matthew and Mark point to Galilee; Luke explicitly states the disciples stayed in Jerusalem; John includes appearances in both locations.^{3, 18}

These are not the kinds of differences one expects from independent witnesses corroborating a shared experience. They are contradictions that suggest different authors, writing for different communities, with different sources and different theological agendas.¹⁶

What corroboration actually requires

In historical methodology, "corroboration" has a specific meaning. When historians say that two sources corroborate each other, they mean that two genuinely independent sources—sources that did not copy from each other or from a common ancestor—report the same information. Corroboration provides evidential weight because it is improbable that two independent sources would invent the same details; their agreement suggests a common historical reality behind both reports.^{19, 20}

But when sources are not independent—when one copied from another, or both drew from a common source—their agreement provides no additional evidential weight. If Matthew copied from Mark, then Matthew and Mark agreeing is not two witnesses confirming the same event; it is one witness (Mark) whose testimony has been reproduced by a later author. No matter how many times Mark's account is copied, it remains one piece of testimony, not multiple independent confirmations.^{19, 20}

This principle is well established in historical and legal contexts. If three newspapers all publish the same story, but investigation reveals that two of them simply reprinted wire service copy from the third, no historian would count this as three independent sources confirming the event. The agreement proves only that the copying was accurate, not that the original report was true.²⁰

Applied to the Gospels, this means that the agreement among the Synoptics cannot count as independent corroboration. Matthew and Mark agreeing on the details of a healing story tells us that Matthew accurately copied Mark; it does not tell us that the healing occurred. Luke and Mark agreeing on Jesus's words in a controversy story tells us that Luke reproduced Mark's text; it does not multiply the witnesses to those words. The Synoptic Gospels, for all their similarities, trace back to a single line of tradition—ultimately to Mark and Q (or to Mark and Matthew, on the Farrer hypothesis)—not to multiple independent eyewitnesses.^{2, 7}

Gospel authorship and anonymity

The corroboration argument often assumes that the Gospels were written by the individuals whose names they bear: the apostle Matthew, John Mark the companion of Peter, Luke the physician and companion of Paul, and the apostle John. If this were true, one might argue that even literary dependence could preserve eyewitness testimony—Matthew drawing on Mark's record of Peter's memories, for instance. However, mainstream New Testament scholarship has concluded that the traditional authorship attributions are almost certainly incorrect.^{4, 21}

The Gospels are formally anonymous: none of them names its author within the text. The titles "According to Matthew," "According to Mark," etc., were added by later copyists and reflect church tradition, not authorial self-identification. The earliest surviving attribution of all four names together comes from Irenaeus of Lyon around 180 CE—approximately a century after the Gospels were written and perhaps 150 years after the events they describe.^{4, 21}

Internal evidence works against the traditional attributions. Luke's prologue explicitly states that the author is not an eyewitness but a later investigator compiling traditions "handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses" (Luke 1:1–4). If the apostle Matthew had been an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry, it would be extraordinary for him to copy 90 percent of his Gospel from Mark, who was not an eyewitness. The Gospel of John distinguishes between "the beloved disciple" and the author who writes about him (John 21:24), suggesting the actual author is not the beloved disciple himself.^{4, 22}

The Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic, and display a level of literary sophistication that would have been unusual for Galilean peasants and fishermen. William V. Harris's study of ancient literacy found that even in urban centers of the Roman Empire, literacy rarely exceeded 10–15 percent of the population, and was far lower in rural areas. Catherine Hezser's study of Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine found that in some villages, literacy rates may have been below 1 percent.^{23, 24}

Raymond Brown, summarizing the scholarly consensus, concluded that "in no instance" are the traditional attributions "the most probable identification" of the actual Gospel authors.⁴ The Gospels were written by educated, Greek-speaking Christians, probably in the diaspora, who were not themselves eyewitnesses to the events they describe.^{21, 22}

Dating the Gospels

The scholarly consensus on Gospel dating places their composition decades after the events described. Most scholars date Mark to approximately 65–75 CE, Matthew and Luke to approximately 80–90 CE, and John to approximately 90–100 CE. Jesus was crucified around 30 CE, meaning the earliest Gospel was written 35–45 years later, and the last was written 60–70 years later.^{4, 25}

Gap between events and Gospel composition^{4, 25}

These dates are established through multiple converging lines of evidence. Mark shows awareness of or anticipation of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE (Mark 13). Matthew and Luke show even clearer awareness of the temple's destruction and appear to be responding to concerns of the post-70 Christian community. John reflects a developed Christology and a clear break with the synagogue that suggests a later compositional setting. The literary relationships among the Synoptics (Mark before Matthew and Luke) provide relative dating that scholars correlate with absolute dates based on historical markers.^{4, 25}

The gap between events and composition matters for the corroboration question because it means the Gospels are not contemporaneous eyewitness reports. Even if some eyewitness traditions underlie the Gospel accounts, those traditions passed through decades of oral transmission before being written down, shaped by the theological concerns of the communities that transmitted them.²⁶

The Gospels as theological literature

A final consideration is the nature of the Gospels themselves. The Gospels were not written as neutral historical reports intended to provide objective documentation of events. They were theological literature, composed by believing Christians for the purpose of proclaiming faith in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. Each Gospel has a distinct theological perspective, a particular audience in view, and a specific pastoral or polemical purpose.^{4, 27}

Mark, the earliest Gospel, emphasizes the secrecy of Jesus's identity and the failure of the disciples to understand him. Matthew presents Jesus as a new Moses, giving a new law from a mountain, and emphasizes continuity with Jewish scripture. Luke stresses Jesus's compassion for the marginalized—women, the poor, Samaritans, Gentiles—and his role as a universal savior. John develops a high Christology in which Jesus is the pre-existent Word made flesh, one with the Father from before creation.^{4, 27}

These theological differences explain many of the variations among the Gospels. When Matthew changes Mark's story of the rich young man, having Jesus say "Why do you ask me about what is good?" instead of Mark's "Why do you call me good?" (compare Matthew 19:17 with Mark 10:18), Matthew is making a theological correction—removing a saying that might imply Jesus is not fully divine. When Luke omits Mark's statement that Jesus "could do no mighty work" in Nazareth (Mark 6:5), replacing it with "he did not do many mighty works there" (cf. Luke 4:16–30), Luke is protecting Jesus's power from apparent limitation.^{4, 9}

Richard Burridge's influential study demonstrated that the Gospels belong to the genre of ancient Greco-Roman biography (bios), which operated under literary conventions quite different from modern historical writing. Authors of ancient biographies routinely rearranged events thematically rather than chronologically, composed speeches that conveyed a figure's ideas rather than their exact words, and shaped their narratives to serve moral and philosophical purposes.²⁸ Recognizing the Gospels as theological literature in a particular ancient genre helps explain both their similarities (shared traditions about Jesus) and their differences (distinct theological emphases and editorial choices).^{27, 28}

Conclusion

The claim that the four Gospels are independent, corroborating accounts does not withstand scrutiny. The Synoptic Gospels are demonstrably interdependent: Matthew copies approximately 90 percent of Mark, Luke copies about 50 percent, and the verbal agreement is often word-for-word in the original Greek. This is literary dependence, not independent testimony.^{1, 6} The Gospel of John is genuinely independent of the Synoptics, but its independence produces contradictions rather than corroboration—disagreements about when Jesus cleansed the temple, when he was crucified, how long his ministry lasted, and numerous other details.^{3, 14}

In historical methodology, corroboration requires genuinely independent sources. When sources copy from each other, their agreement adds no evidential weight; it simply confirms that the copying was accurate. The Synoptic Gospels, whatever their historical value, do not constitute three independent witnesses. They constitute one witness—Mark, or Mark plus Q—whose testimony was reproduced and edited by later authors.^{2, 19}

This does not mean the Gospels have no historical value. Mainstream scholars affirm that the Gospels contain authentic traditions about Jesus's ministry, teaching, and death, even while recognizing that those traditions were mediated through decades of oral transmission and shaped by the theological interests of early Christian communities.^{4, 25} The issue is not whether the Gospels preserve historical material—they almost certainly do—but whether the apologetic claim of four independent corroborating accounts is accurate. The evidence of the Synoptic Problem, the contradictions between the Gospels, and the established facts about Gospel dating and authorship all point in the same direction: the claim of independent corroboration is not supported by the textual evidence.^{2, 7, 21}