|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Three views on the origins of the Synoptic GospelsSickness exposedTHREE VIEWS ON THE ORIGINS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS The well-tried format of evangelicals who differ stating their views and being offered the opportunity to critique others is here helpfully applied to the increasingly debated question of synoptic origins. Three major contemporary views are engaged: those which recognise literary dependence and either prioritise Mark or Matthew and the view that affirms the three gospels were produced independently of one another. Discussion is prefaced and concluded by some reflections by the editor: the concluding remarks being a particularly helpful summary of the critical issues raised in the body of the work. The reader is well-equipped by this point to grasp the issues. While the authors generally strive for clarity, the discussion can become arcane: especially in the lengthy statistical analysis offered in support of Matthean priority. An interest in the subject is probably necessary to stay the course... The authors do not always seem alert to methodological questions, but critical to the discussion (and often affecting or even creating the differences of opinion) are issues relating to presuppositions. Both the literary dependence views, for example, privilege different elements of internal evidence; the independence view majors on the external witness of the church Fathers. The Markan priority view tends to (largely) assume that contemporary scholarly methodologies are value-free tools: a view robustly challenged by the independence view that argues that theological presuppositions are a critical element in the establishing of a world-view and methodology. Thus the discussion becomes a window on wider contemporary debates within evangelicalism and raises issues of vital relevance to the ongoing health of the movement. Just where do we start in developing a coherent methodology for the study of Scripture and to what extent, and in what way, are we to determine and weigh the 'evidence' and establish appropriate critical 'tools' for study? Dr. Stephen Dray,
|
|
