The theory hangs upon what critical scholars label as “Redaction Criticism.” While many believe Mark’s gospel was the complimation of many sermons preached by the apostle Peter, what was Mt. and Lk. source (and Luke tells us he investigated with sources - Lk. 1.1-4). Most redaction critics believe the writers of each gospel acted as editors and used the literary technique of editing in order to arrange the Jesus stories/teachings in such a way as to make a specific coherent theological argument (I agree with this).

Thus Mt. had access to Mark, possibly some of Luke (depending on when you date Matt.), and an unidentified source labeled as “Q” which explain the material in Matthew that is unique to Matthew’s Gospel. Likewise, Luke used Mark’s Gospel as a source, possibly Matthew’s Gospel, and his own “Q” material.

Since John’s Gospel is usually dated fairly late, it does not figure into this discussion much.

There are some scholars who believe the traditional writing order of the Gospels, with Matthew first (the Greisbach (sp?) hypothesis), but most scholars disagree. Of course, some also believe Luke’s Gospel was the earliest written but even fewer hold that posiiton.

When you begin exploring the subject of redaction criticism you will find that outside of Evagelical research, most scholars reject any level of accuracy and divine inspiration upon scripture so it can be frustrating to conservatives. I believe that one can operate with the idea of redaction criticism and still hold to the belief that scripture is inspired of God, true, and authoritative (defending this is for another post) and so do many other Christian scholars in and out of the CoC.

If you do some searching, you can find what is called a Synopsis (which are printed in both Greek and English). This is a book which has each Gospel side by side in colums so a person can see where each Gospel is the same and where each Gospel is different. But as I said earlier, the differences, I believe, are not because of error but because of editorial (redaction) decisions in order to bolster each writer’s theological emphasis. And we should remember, that ancient writers did not hold to the same literary/editorial guidlines as we demand out of writers today, therefore we should not bind them to our standards of writing.

And for good measure — the “Jesus Seminar” people are nausiating and very driven by their theological presuppositions.

Thanks for the great recommendation. Because I probably won’t be picking the book up any time soon (due to time constraints, not lack of interest), do you care to tell me some of the conclusions the book draws on the subject?

Thanks in advance, OOTM

Robert H. Stein, “The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction,” Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987.

As one who grew up hearing all four Gospels harmonized into one comprehensive narrative, these were questions I had too. Fortunately I had to read this book for an undergraduate class with Dr. Paul Pollard at Harding University.

Those who seek to harmonize the gospels into one narrative do so in an effort to try and maintain integrity and accuracy in the Bible. Obviously, I do not believe one needs to harmonize four books together to maintain truth, authority, and integrity in scritpure. I came to view the Gospel not as biographical hisotry (for none of the Gospels tells us about Jesus’ entire life) but as theological history (thus each Gospel writer was writing to a Christian community in order to theologically shape the faith of that community by using various events, teachings, and stories of Jesus’ historical life).

Fundamentalists will disagree with a book like Stein’s, thus it would not be accepted among all CoC’s. But for the most part, the proposal held by Stein is accepted in much of the Evagelical Christian community and is also held by many of the Theology professors who teach at Universities associated with the CoC and Restoration Movement.