A lively, readable and up-to-date guide to the Synoptic Problem, ideal for undergraduate students, and the general reader.

Leading Scholars Debate a Key New Testament Topic The relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is one of the most contested topics in Gospel studies. How do we account for the close similarities--and differences--in the Synoptic Gospels? In the last few decades, the standard answers to the typical questions regarding the Synoptic Problem have come under fire, while new approaches have surfaced. This up-to-date introduction articulates and debates the four major views. Following an overview of the issues, leading proponents of each view set forth their positions and respond to each of the other views. A concluding chapter summarizes the discussion and charts a direction for further study.

When Stewart Petrie wrote in 1959 that 'the whole Synoptic question should be thrown back into the melting-pot', he was responding to what he saw as the fanciful and mutually contradictory attempts to solve a problem that had occupied New Testament scholars from the earliest days of biblical criticism. The 'Q' solution obscured more than it clarified, since there was no scholarly agreement on its extent, even on the assumption of its erstwhile existence. By means of its 'snap-shot' articles from the generation following Petrie's whimsical comments, this collection makes it possible to follow the course of the discussion in the subsequent forty years. Now, after a generation of study by many of the best scholarly minds, a consensus of sorts is beginning to emerge. Nonetheless, as Sharon Mattila's recent article shows, the question is 'A Problem Still Cloude', and the debate very much alive.

The problematic literary relationship among the Synoptic Gospels has given rise to numerous theories of authorship and priority. The primary objective of Rethinking the Synoptic Problem is to familiarize students with the main positions held by New Testament scholars in this much-debated area of research. The contributors to this volume, all leading biblical scholars, highlight current academic trends within New Testament scholarship and updates evangelical understandings of the Synoptic Problem.

This book makes a major contribution to the ongoing debate about the synoptic problem, especially concerning the question of which gospel was written first. The scholarly consensus, developed over two hundred years of discussion, has favoured Markan priority and the dependence of both Matthew and Luke upon Mark. In an ongoing contemporary revival of the Griesbach hypothesis, some scholars have advocated the view that Mark used, conflated and abbreviated Matthew and Luke. The author explores the role played by arguments connected with christological development in support of both these views. Deploying a comparative redaction-critical approach to the problem, Dr Head argues that the critical basis of the standard christological argument for Markan priority is insecure and based on anachronistic scholarly concerns. Nevertheless, in a through-going comparative reappraisal of the christological outlooks of Matthew and Mark the author finds decisive support for the hypothesis of Markan priority, arguing that Matthew was a developer rather than a corrector of Mark.

See How to Use Statistics for New Testament InterpretationThe Synoptic Problem and Statistics lays the foundations for a new area of interdisciplinary research that uses statistical techniques to investigate the synoptic problem in New Testament studies, which concerns the relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There are pote

This volume addresses the Synoptic Problem and how it emerged in a historical context closely connected with challenges to the historical reliability of the gospels; questions the ability of scholarship arriving at a compelling reconstruction of the historical Jesus; the limits of the canon; and an examination of the relationship between the historical reliability of gospel material and ecclesial dogma that was presumed to flow from the gospels. The contributors, all experts in the Synoptic Problem, probe various sites and issues in the 19th and 20th century to elaborate how the Synoptic Problem and scholarship on the synoptic gospels was seen to complement, undergird, or complicate theological views. By exploring topics ranging from the Q hypothesis to the Markan priority and the Two Document hypothesis, this volume supplies extensive theological context to the beginnings of synoptic scholarship from an entirely new perspective.

Noted evangelical scholars present the best contemporary insights into the three dominant views on the origins of the Synoptic Gospels.

This study critically examines the current state of Synoptic Gospel studies, particularly many scholars' reliance on the Literary Dependence Hypothesis, and endeavors to advance a more balanced approach. The author attempts to deduce the Synoptic Gospels' construction process by meticulously examining the Eucharist and its co-text within these Gospels, by employing a model of Mode Register Analysis based on Systemic Functional Linguistics. This study uncovers the probability that each designated text in the Synoptic Gospels was constructed based on oral Gospel tradition(s) under the influence of each constructor’s identity.