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

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.

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.

A close-up analysis of the synoptic gospels of the New Testament--Matthew, Mark, and Luke--explores the varying accounts of Jesus's life and discusses the history of biblical interpretation.

Stein examines in-depth the literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels, the preliterary history of the gospel traditions, and the inscripturation of the gospel traditions.

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.