If one has ever read a parallel Bible, this is plainly obvious. One goes, page after page, without seeing any verbatim matches. Read through a portion of text that is found in three or all four of the Gospels - start here on page 22 - you can flip the page to read it in landscape for easier reading - and carefully compare exactly what each writer is saying.
You will see the same story, but in a slightly different sequence, with slightly different statements where the author either added or omitted certain details. These details do not change the story, but they do tell us that we are reading four separate, independent accounts by four separate writers who all saw the same events or talked to those who did. Though there may be some evidence of a Q-like source of Jesus’s sayings. That would explain the .062% of the texts verbatim matches in the synoptics. If the writers had copied from each other, it is likely that we would find many more identical verses in all the synoptic Gospels.
Either way, that is not a very compelling case for a literary only dependence.
By simply reading the text of all four Gospels, no "synoptic" theory is necessary. There are verbatim verses words that are easily explained by a Q source. A Q source is likely, since there would be a desire among early Christians to preserve the words of Jesus.
If the writers had copied from each other, it is likely that we would find many, many more verbatim verses/words in all the Gospels.
Here is the list:
There are variations in the ordering of events and the details, which would be unlikely if one gospel writer had simply copied the other. These minor differences in their accounts, are evidence of four independent accounts, who used some of the same sources.
1) We know that there were 3 oral communities - the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jewish.
2) Mark was a disciple and companion to Apostles like Peter and Paul, thus his words would carry some weight.
3) Greek-speaking Christian would most likely want to share Mark's Gospel, as this ties in their oral culture and their Christian faith.
Oral traditions were preserved with a high degree of care and accuracy within their cultural context. And remember, there was only 5-10 years between Mark's Gospel and Luke and Matthew's.
Conclusion
Source of this NET Bible - Synopsis of the Four Gospels. Page 289 - same link as above.
There seems to be some equivocation going on when critics discus this data. Critics will say the verbatim verses as evidence for copying, but then go on to cite "nearly" verbatim verses/words. While I agree that a good argument could be made for a written source is the best explanation for verbatim verses/words, the same is not the case for "nearly" verbatim.
Best explanation for the verbatim verses/words
Best explanation for the verbatim verses/words
There likely was a Q source - a hypothetical, lost written document of Jesus's sayings. that had the words of Jesus. Not only do we have the testimony of Luke where he mentions where he obtained his info for his Gospel [see LK 1:1], but there is the likelihood that the earliest Christians would have recorded words/sayings of Jesus. And it’s likely that Matthew, Luke, and maybe even Mark used Q.
Best explanation for the "near" verbatim verses/words
All the near verbatim matches are likely due to
1) an oral tradition of Mark’s Gospel by Greek-speaking believers.
2) Personal memories - Matthew certainly could have recalled the events, since he was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus and thus an eyewitness to Jesus' life and ministry.
3) Witness accounts - The "we" sections in the book of Acts is evidence that Luke was a companion of Paul and traveled to places like Jerusalem and Rome, where he had the opportunity to interview people like Peter, Mary, Joanna, and others who were eyewitnesses. Plus, Luke said he has "investigated everything carefully" to write an orderly account.
When we examine the four gospels, we see that very often each of the writers have slightly different recollections of the same event. The accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke (and John) are not perfectly matched, for good reason. Genuine independent accounts, that are written by eyewitnesses or those who talked to eyewitnesses, seldom have precisely the same details.
There are variations in the ordering of events and the details, which would be unlikely if one gospel writer had simply copied the other. These minor differences in their accounts, are evidence of four independent accounts, who used some of the same sources.
1) We know that there were 3 oral communities - the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jewish.
2) Mark was a disciple and companion to Apostles like Peter and Paul, thus his words would carry some weight.
3) Greek-speaking Christian would most likely want to share Mark's Gospel, as this ties in their oral culture and their Christian faith.
Conclusion
All four Gospel authors wrote independent accounts. The differences are explained by a simple investigation which reveals that in genuine testimony which is truthful, multiple witnesses write a majority of the same accounts, with additions and omissions separate from the others. These differences are in accordance with individual memory and independent priority - writing for different audiences. The existence of these differences in recollection are precisely what experts look for in order to confirm truthful accounts.
By simply reading the text of all four Gospels, no "synoptic" theory is necessary. There are verbatim verses words that are easily explained by a Q source. A Q source is likely, since there would be a desire among early Christians to preserve the words of Jesus.
The similarities in the Gospels are when the writers are recounting the actual words of Jesus, or an event that a particular Gospel writer thought was significant. Other writers either added their own details, or omitted the details other writers included because they were either not as important as other details for their audience.
If the writers had copied from each other, it is likely that we would find many, many more verbatim verses/words in all the Gospels.
