[testallthings]

“Every book of the Bible is impregnated with the marks of its writer”—W. Nee

Watchman Nee and therefore each expressed the unique characteristics of its (sole) human author. He says,23 “In studying the Bible, we find that every writer has his special characteristics. The Gospel of Matthew is different from the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Mark is different from the Gospel of Luke...Moreover, we can observe that every writer uses idiomatic expressions which are distinctly his own. Luke was a doctor...he freely used medical terms. The other three writers...only described these ailments in general terms...Every Gospel has distinctive terminologies and themes...All these are unique characteristics of the writers. Every book of the Bible is impregnated with the marks of its writer, yet every book remains very much the word of God.” Plus he states,24 “each writer used his own special terminology, and his writing contained his own feelings, thoughts, and human elements.” W. Nee emphasizes the imprint of the unique author’s characteristics, “his own feelings, thoughts, and human elements,” on his writing. Thus, “every book...is impregnated with the marks of its [own] writer.” Clearly W. Nee did not contemplate one author incorporating another’s writing so that one gospel could be “impregnated with the marks” of several writers. In that case (we ask) wouldn’t it also contain the “feelings, thoughts, and human elements” of other writers? Watchman Nee implicitly ruled out this possibility as a viable option.


I strongly disagree on this point with Dr. Nigel Tomes. Quoting from the same section he quotes, but including a little more,
“If one reads the New Testament carefully, it is clear that Paul frequently used words that Peter never used. John used some words that Matthew never used. Some words are found only in Luke's writings, while others are found only in Mark's writings.”

This point is so obvious. Some words were used only by certain writers. How can a writer use all the words that are different from those another one has used?

“In studying the Bible, we find that every writer has his special characteristics. The Gospel of Matthew is different from the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Mark is different from the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of John. Paul's Epistles were written in one style, while Peter's Epistles were written in another style.”

Here W.N. is talking about style, not words. Anyone can see that Matthew's style is different from Luke's style.

“Moreover, we can observe that every writer uses idiomatic expressions which are distinctly his own.”

Idiomatic expressions. Strange words, but let W.N. define what he means.

“ Luke was a doctor. In describing sicknesses, he freely used medical terms. The other three writers of the Gospels only described these ailments in general terms. The book of Acts was written by Luke as well, and we find the same free use of medical terminology. Every Gospel has distinctive terminologies and themes. For example, Mark is unique in its use of the word immediately, Matthew, in the use of the phrase the kingdom of the heavens, and Luke, in the use of the phrase the kingdom of God. All these are unique characteristics of the writers. Every book of the Bible is impregnated with the marks of its writer, yet every book remains very much the word of God.”

(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 53: The Ministry of God's Word, Chapter 2, Section 3)

It is very clear, at least to me, that W.N. did not say that the Gospels were written independently. He just said that their styles were different because the authors, humanly speaking, were different, and so they had some words that is hard to find in other writers. Isn't that true that we can tell if what we are reading sounds like Paul, Mark, Luke or John. We can tell it because of their way of writing.

Let's come to the second quote.

“Plus he states,24 'each writer used his own special terminology, and his writing contained his own feelings, thoughts, and human elements.'”

Just two paragraphs later W.N. affirms,

“The Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. Historically speaking, the book of Job was probably written first. But Moses' Pentateuch is placed at the beginning of the Bible. It is a wonderful thing that all of the writers of the Bible who came after Moses did not write independently; they built upon the writings that were before them. Moses wrote the Pentateuch without reference to the writings of others. But Joshua's writings were based on Moses' Pentateuch. In other words, Joshua's ministry of God's word was not an independent one; his service as a minister was based on his knowledge of the Pentateuch. Following Joshua, other writers, such as the authors of the books of Samuel, also based their writings on Moses' books. This means that other than Moses, who was divinely called in the beginning to write his five books, all subsequent ministers of God's word functioned upon the basis of the preceding words of God. The remaining books of the Old Testament were written with earlier writings as their basis. Although subsequent writers wrote differently, they all based their word on preceding words. All of the ministers of God's word after Moses speak on the basis of the divine word that precedes them. God's Word is one whole entity, and no writer can take his own course. Those who come later always speak on the basis of the word of those who preceded them.” (The emphasis is mine).

(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 53: The Ministry of God's Word, Chapter 6, Section 1)

Watchman Nee, when he spoke this words, was certainly not referring to the Synoptic Problem. I don't think it would have interested him that much. But in any case he did not “implicitly assumed each of the Gospels were written independently”, as any one can conclude by reading a larger section of the words quoted by Dr. Nigel Tomes.