LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

A THEOLOGICAL SOLUTION TO THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. LARRY STEVEN MCDONALD

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE NBST 521

LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

JEFFREY DONALD COLE

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

Sunday, June 28, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary Overview Of The Synoptic Problem ……………..…………………. 1

Research Overview Of The Relationship Between The Gospels ……………… 2

Popular Solutions To The Synoptic Problem ………………..………………… 3

A Biblical Defense Of The Gospels …………………………………….……... 10

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………... 13

Bibliography …………………………………………………………………… 14 - 15

List Of Illustrations …………………………………………………………….. 16

ii

SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

Christianity claims the miraculous, the impossible, and the supernatural. Christianity,

and the Scriptures, claim that God intervened in human history, became a man in the person of

Jesus Christ to redeem mankind, and conquered death by being raised from the dead to new life

on the third day. The account of the incarnation and resurrection has been recorded for all time

in the four gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The miraculous account of the life of Christ has generated unparalleled faith followers

who have believed the recorded accounts in the Holy Scriptures. Likewise, they equally

generated unparalleled number of skeptics who mocked and derided the accounts in the gospels

as ridiculous and internally contradictory.

Since the birth of the church, countless skeptics have focused their attacks on the four

gospel accounts in an effort to discredit the foundations of the Christian faith. Marcion was one

of the early skeptics who, by the “help of demons”1, worked successfully to raise serious doubts

about the credibility of the gospel accounts. Marcion (140 A.D.) led an anti-Jewish “ethnic

cleansing”2 reform movement, the aim of which was to remove all Jewish books from the

Scriptures, including the Old Testament, the gospel accounts (except the Gentile authored Luke).

Later, Porphyry, a contemporary of Eusebius, wrote a criticism of the gospel accounts claiming

that the accounts were so ridiculously filled with contradiction and error that no Christian

doctrine could be trusted. Porphyry made it a common practice to publicly read seemingly

contradictory portions of the synoptic gospels to mock and ridicule the Christian faith.

1 Dungan, David L., A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, The Text, The Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (London: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 49. A quote of Justin Martyr, his contemporary, in describing the impact of Marcion’s discrediting efforts on the early church doctrine.2 Ibid, p. 4.

1

The synoptic problem became a problem of credibility for the Christian faith very early in

the life of the church. The arguments arising throughout church history refined the defense of

the gospel and restored credibility to the Holy Scriptures.

RESEARCH OVERVIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOSPELS

The term synoptic originates from the Greek term sunoptikos, meaning, literally, together

to see, or to see together. When the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are viewed

comparatively, they have striking similarities and equally striking dissimilarities.

Space does not permit a complete comparison of these, however, an overview illustration

has been included to provide a summary overview of the problem (see Illustration 1).

However, the similarities and dissimilarities can be categorized according to

arrangement, structure, and content.

Longstaff provides detailed examples of striking similarities between Matthew and Luke

against Mark in the Greek text.3 The account of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law in Mark

1:29-31 against the parallel passages of Matthew 8:14 – 15 and Luke 4:40 – 41 is just a sample

of many. Mark 1:29 provides the nearest similarity in content and structure against Matthew and

Luke. The explanation of the mother in laws’ illness in Mark 1:30 is very similar to Matthew but

very different from Luke. Matthew and Mark are very similar in style against Luke’s account,

where the style is strikingly different. Mark 1:31, however, provides striking similarities

between Mark and Luke against Matthew in style and content.

3 Longstaff, Thomas Richmond Willis, Evidence Of Conflation In Mark? : A Study In The Synoptic Problem, (Missoula: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literacy, 1977), p. 129 – 131.

2

This is a minor example when extrapolated to the entire texts of the synoptic gospel

accounts. Together in all, these create questions on the origin of such similarities and

dissimilarities - questions that have plagued the church from time of Origin to today.

POPULAR SOLUTIONS TO THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

The Two-Gospel theory was the product of German Lutheran J.J. Greishbach and English

clergyman Henry Owen4, arguing, first, for a Matthean priority consistent with the Augustine

theory. Second, Luke authored his gospel referring to Matthew and perhaps other unknown

sources. Third, Mark created a composite gospel5 sourced from both Matthew and Luke.6 The

position gained formal recognition when Greishbach authored and published Demonstration that

the Whole Gospel of Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke in 1794.

The argument was refined through the late eighteenth century by a number of

independent thinking scholars who rejected a Markean priority. Fellow German Heinreich

Ewald provided arguments used by Greishbach in his complicated nine document hypothesis that

4 Ibid, p. 1. Longstaff notes that Owen first proposed a Two-Gospel theory in his 1764 work Observations on the Four Gospels. Yet it was Griesbach who took the idea and vaulted it on the world stage as a credible solution to the synoptic problem. 5 Ibid, p. 9. Longstaff elaborates on the term “conflation” that is commonly used by the Two-Gospel theory. With regard to textual criticism, it refers to the “process or result of bringing together and combining readings from two or more texts in order to produce a single, composite text.” (p. 9). This is idea of conflation is a thread running throughout the Two-Gospel theory. For Mark’s gospel was a composite work combining Mark’s interpretation of Peter’s account with the accounts of Matthew and Luke.6 Orchard, Bernard and Longstaff, Thomas. J. J. Griesbach, Synoptic And Text Critical Studies, 1776-1976 (New York: Cambridge, 1976), p. xi - xii. There was an evolution of thought in the mind of Griesbach as he published his refined solution to the synoptic problem over his professional life. When Griesbach produced his earlier work, Synopsis in 1774, he echoed the view of Augustinian Hypothesis, that is a Matthean priority, with Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke followed third borrowing from both previous gospels. However nine years later in a series of essays, Griesbach expressed a likelihood that Mark’s account of the resurrection was dependent upon both Matthew and Luke. His views had evolved even further in 1789 with his published work Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Mtthaei et Lucae commentaries decerptum esse monstratur in which it was his opinion that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke not only in the resurrection account but throughout the gospel of Mark. The eventual form of his theory took shape as the Two-Gospel theory. For further treatment of the life and work of Johann Jakob Griesbach refer to the excellent work by Orchard and Longstaff, J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text – critical studies 1776 – 1976.

3

created a distinction between the writings of Matthew and Luke independent of one another apart

from Mark.

Additional reasoning for the positioned focused on the minor agreements between

Matthew and Luke against Mark. Whether these were coincidental, or a valid basis for argument

is unclear. One agreement that is cited is the occasion after Jesus’ arrest before the high priest.

Matthew 26:67-68 reads, “They spat in His face and beat Him with their firsts; and others

slapped Him, and said, ‘Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?’”. Luke

provides a variation compared to Matthew, writing, “and they blindfolded Him and were asking

Him, saying, ‘Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?’” (Luke 26:64). The proponents of the

two-gospel theory would argue that Mark created a composite account from both Matthew and

Luke, noting that Mark’s account contains details from both Matthew and Luke. Mark’s account

reads, “Some began to spit at Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him with their fists, and to

say to Him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the officers received Him with slaps in the face.” (Mark 14:65).

This view has seen resurgence in the last thirty years through the work of William

Farmer7, David Dungan, and other contemporary proponents.8

The Augustinian theory is based on the defense authored by Augustine in On Harmony of

the Evangelists, a four-volume work defending many aspects of the Christian faith under attack

in his day. Books two through four articulated Augustine’s defense specifically against proposed

inconsistencies and contradictions among the gospels. His defense was organized along two

areas of publicized weaknesses: variations in the ordered events, and variations in the

descriptions of the same event. Augustine’s defense was a series of logical, comprehensive, and

7For an exhaustive defense of the Two-Gospel theory, see William Farmer’s treatment of the subject in Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Canon, and Scripture. In this work, Farmer provides an aggressive refutation of the priority of Mark and a historical view of the gospels to support his argument.8 For more information on contemporary proponents and resources for the Two-Gospel theory, visit http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh.

4

sophisticated arguments based on the presupposition that the Gospel authors were incapable of

authoring contradictory and false statements because God inspired the writers through the

ministry of Holy Spirit.9 His response ended the debate and became the definitive word on the

issue for the next 1,000 years10. The Augustine theory resulted from this defense, and viewed the

origin of the gospels in the following order: Matthew authored first, then Mark borrowed from

Matthew, and Luke borrowed from both Matthew and Mark. The presumption was that Mark

had access to Matthew’s writing, and Luke had access to Matthew and Mark as sources for his

writing. The Catholic Church adopted this position as its official position regarding the origin of

the gospels.

This theory was not original to Augustine. Nearly 150 years earlier11, Origin was the first

Christian thinker to raise questions and propose answers in a logical and systematic manner to

address the perceived inconsistencies in the gospel accounts. Origin proposed Matthean priority

sequence that Augustine later adopted, with Mark and Luke following respectively. Origin,

however, attributed the contradictions either to scribal error during transmission, or God’s intent

for the writing to be interpreted literally where harmony existed between the synoptic gospels, or

symbolically where unresolved contradictions existed. It was Origin’s mystical interpretation of

the gospel accounts that planted the seed for the form criticism ideas of German Lutheran liberal

theologian Rudolph Bultmann to gain credibility in the twentieth century.12 Bultmann resolved

9 Ibid, p. 123.10Dungan, p. 177 – 182. The Augustine theory was unchallenged for this time, and was the position adopted by Martin Luther. However, John Calvin departed from the Augustine theory, rejecting many elements of the traditional view, including Mark as interpreter of Peter, and Mark borrowing from Matthew. Instead, Calvin argued that each gospel was a direct dictation from God. This explains the apparent contradictions. If, as Augustine argued, the authors borrowed from a Matthewian priority, there would be virtually no apparent contradictions, for they possessed the borrowed source.11 Ibid, p. 66, 113. Origin composed the bulk of his writings between 203 – 231 A. D., some 150 years earlier than the time of Augustine primary writings, from 400 – 416 A.D. 12 Thomas, Robert L. "The hermeneutics of evangelical redaction criticism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 4 (December 1986): 447-459. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 14, 2009), p. 452 – 453. Robert L. Thomas addresses the developing mystical interpretation by evangelicals to resolve the synoptic problem. Thomas states that an allegorization is unacceptable for an evangelical holding to an

5

the synoptic problem by arguing that many of accounts were factually incredible (as Origin

argued), but were fabricated by the authors to defend a pre-existent theology.

Austin Farrer proposed a theory (the Farrer theory) in reaction to the apparent agreement

between Matthew and Luke and the glaring inadequacies of the Two-Source theory. If Markean

priority with a “Q” source is a valid position, so he argued, why then do Matthew and Luke have

such parallel accounts when they were independently copying from Mark as their source? The

Two-Source theory, according to the Farrer theory, requires no sharing of material between

Matthew and Luke, however the content and structure demonstrate just the opposite. William

Farmer, when explaining Farrer’s rationale, noted that this inconsistency in the Two-Source

theory caused Farrer to abandon the “Q” source theory and argue Luke’s extensive use of both

Matthew and Luke as source documents for his writing.13

Farrer’s solution was Markean priority with no “Q” source14, with Matthew writing his

gospel account using a Mark source. Luke then had both Mark and Matthew available as source

documents to write his gospel account. The strength of this theory is its elimination of a

hypothetical source, Q, as well as its simplicity.

The commonly accepted and dominant solution to the synoptic problem is the Two-

Source theory. This view emerged during the late twentieth century without serious rival,

emerging as the master solution to the synoptic problem by the majority of scholars in Europe,

Africa, the America’s, Australia, and the Pacific Rim.15This theory originally postulated

independently by both Karl Lachmann and C.G. Wilke in the 1830’s, argues Markean priority

evangelical redaction criticism. Thomas describes this approach as “radical” and unacceptable.13 Farmer, William R. Jesus and the Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press (1982), p. 5.14 For Austin Farrer’s complete rationale for eliminating a hypothetical Q source, see his book devoted exclusively to that subject entitled On Dispensing With Q.15 Dungan, David, p. 303.

6

with a second hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke in writing their gospel accounts.

H.J. Holtzmann formalized it in 1863.

From this point the Two-Source theory takes a variety of minor variations, but all holding

to Markean priority and a second source beyond Mark.

Friedrich Schleiermacher in 1832, developing the term by abbreviating the German word

“Quelle”, meaning source, to simply Q, first suggested a “Q” source. He theorized the idea by

reading the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis believing that he referred to an unknown

source that the gospel writers used to write their accounts. What is the “Q” source? No one

knows because it refers to a hypothetic document for which not even a fragment has ever been

found.

The nature of the Q source is open to speculation. Since no fragment or document exists,

the exact nature of the Q source is a matter of on going debate. There are strong arguments that

it existed in written form as the agreements are considered.16 Others argue equally persuasive

that it must have been an oral tradition.17 Others, finding both equally persuasive, conclude that

it was not one definable homogenous source; rather Q is a symbol for a body of tradition. A

reconstruction of Q at this point is impossible, but it is clear that it likely was both oral and

written tradition composed of an assortment of miscellaneous accounts.

16 Thomas, Robert L. "Investigation of the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19, no. 2 (Spr 1976): 103-112. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 14, 2009), p. 108 – 109. Robert Thomas documents three arguments proving Q source was written. (1) the extensive of the wording agreements common to Matthew and Mark (2) the similarity of sequence in the framework of inserted portions of the discourse in Matthew and Luke against Mark (3) the doublets and double traditions in Matthew and Luke and the extensive common sequence of the parts not found in Mark prove that Matthew’s and Luke’s second source was written.17 Ibid, p. 108 – 109. Robert Thomas documents W.G. Kummell’s four proofs that Q source was oral. (1) a supposed written source can be imagined only arbitrarily and cannot be reconstructed, (2) the verbal agreements in the Jesus sayings are less than in the text which has been taken over from Mark (3) a saying source without a passion narrative is inconceivable (4) the catchword connections point to oral tradition. R.P. Martin adds an additional argument that if such a valuable (written) document as Q did exist, how was it allowed to disappear?

7

The triple tradition variation observes the content and structure of Mark that is also

present in Matthew (94%), and that is also present in and shared by Luke (79%). Furthermore, it

observes that rarely do Matthew and Luke agree against Mark. Therefore, the conclusion is

drawn that Mark served as an intermediary source between Matthew and Luke, but Matthew and

Luke did not share among each other. A source, such as Q18, provided details beyond what was

obtained from Mark. Even among the triple tradition view, form criticism proponents argue

Matthew, Mark and Lukean priorities.

The double tradition variation observes that nearly 230 occurrences19 appear in both

Matthew and Luke, at times identically, yet do not appear in Mark. The question then arises,

from where did this content common to both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, originate?

Three possible explanations are postulated. One, a Q source provided the content.20 Two,

Matthew copied the content from Luke’s gospel. Or three, Luke copied the content from

Matthew’s gospel.

The four-source theory was postulated by B.H. Streeter in 1924 and formalized in his

book The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. According to Streeter, a hypothetical source was a

logical explanation for material unique to Matthew (20%) and Luke (35%) against Mark and

each other. However, the problem of material unique to Matthew, Luke, Mark, still exists. The

logical resolution according to Streeter was a hypothetical source unique to each synoptic gospel.

He named each hypothetical source after each respective synoptic gospel. Source M for

Matthew; source L for Luke, and source Q for Mark. Therefore, there existed four total sources

18 Ibid, p. 112. The thesis of Robert Thomas’ article is that “enough evidence exists to conclude that Matthew and Luke worked from a common source other than Mark in sections containing a triple tradition from all three synoptics.”19Ibid, p. 104.20 Ibid, p. 108.It is the opinion of Robert Thomas that the best explanation for even minor agreements in the double and triple tradition is a non-Markan source, such as the “phantom-like Q”.

8

for the synoptic gospel accounts, source Q for Mark, Mark served as a source for Matthew and

Luke, and source L and source M served as a source for Luke and Matthew respectively.

The final popular solution to the synoptic problem is the portrait theory of the gospels.

Most recognize the problem posed by a synoptic view of the gospels, particularly with the

publication Griesbach’s synoptic perspective published in 1776. However, those emphasizing

the portrait nature of the gospels resolve the apparent contradictions by arguing that the intent of

the gospels is not harmonization but to provide supplementary and complementary perspectives

of the same Lord and Savior. This view prioritizes redaction criticism over the form and source

criticisms.21

The portrait theorists state that the gospel writers make no effort to provide a

biographically historical or chronological account of the life of Christ. Rather, God created a

whole new genre of writing with the advent of the gospels22, a genre prioritizing thematic intent

over form, to accomplish the intent for which they were written.

The thematic intent is to provide a portrait perspective of Jesus Christ with each gospel

account: Matthew, as king; Mark, as servant; Luke, as man; and John, as God. Each gospel

account includes details specific to their portrait purpose, excluding detail accounts not specific

to their purpose. With the elevation of purpose and intent over harmonization, apparent

contradictions and exclusions are explained through the portrait purpose of the author.

Therefore, the straw man argument of contradictions is resolved.23

21 For a complete overview of the portrait nature of the gospels, I recommend Portraits Of Christ:An Overview of the Gospels by Daniel Hayden, available at http://www.solagroup.org. 22 Hayden, Daniel. Portraits of Christ: An Overview of the Gospels. Orlando: Sola Scriptura, 2001. A.F.J. Klijn as quoted by Daniel Hayden in Portraits of Christ. Klijn makes the point that “they (the Gospels) cannot be compared to any literary genre of the Hellenistic world”. Many would argue the gospels as biographical in nature. However, biographies are exhaustive in their treatment of their subjects, providing a complete account of the background and life of its subject. This is not the case with the gospels, for Luke and John exclude any account of the Jesus’ childhood. Dan Hayden quotes D. Edmond Hiebert as writing, “Obviously the gospels cannot be classified as biographies in the modern sense of the term.”23Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 2000), p. 24. Dwight Pentecost makes the statement, “It is to be noted that the writers of the Gospels make no attempt to develop the life

9

A BIBLICAL DEFENSE OF THE GOSPELS

A defense of the integrity of the gospels has continued since the beginning of the early

church. Since the works of Origin, scholars and laypersons have defended their resolution of the

synoptic problem. The historical defenses are many because any argument has been

inconclusive to answer the two thousand year problem. Ultimately each person needs to be

satisfied in their own mind and conscience with the solution they will defend to the unbelieving

skeptic.

In my judgment, the portrait theory provides the best solution to the synoptic problem. I

confess that part of my conclusion is based on a priority of theological (redactive) considerations

over source and form criticisms. Yet, even Augustine recognize the portrait nature the gospels.24

The theological basis for this conclusion is based on passages in Ezekiel, Revelation, and

the gospels.

In Ezekiel chapter one, God provides a picture of his nature (v. 1) and glory (v. 28) for

the prophet Ezekiel. God used the image of a man, lion, oxen, and eagle (v. 10) to help Ezekiel

understand His nature and glory. Each picture was intentionally chosen by God to communicate

certain aspects of His nature and glory.

In Revelation chapter four, God provides John a glimpse into the glory of His heavenly

throne (v. 2). God reveals to John the same descriptive picture given to Ezekiel, describing four

living creatures: that of a lion, calf, man, and eagle.

Theologically, God intentionally provides four pictures to both Ezekiel and John. He did

not provide three, or five. He did not accidentally provide the same four in both accounts. God

of Christ historically or chronologically. They make no attempt to provide us with a biography of Christ. The writers using the same extant material, select and arrange according to their individual emphasis and interpretations that which presents the particular portrait of Christ they desire to convey. The gospels present the life of Christ thematically and thus are to be viewed as complementary and supplementary rather than contradictory.” (p. 24).24 Dungan, p. 137.

10

purposefully chose to reveal His unchanging nature and glory in four distinct and purposeful

images.

Likewise, God purposefully and intentionally provided four gospel accounts – not three,

not five. The gospel provides four pictures of God’s ultimate and fullest expression of Himself

to man through the person of Jesus Christ, God incarnate. Each gospel account is related to the

descriptions given to Ezekiel and John. .

Matthew purposefully and intentionally displays the portrait of Christ as king (lion).25

Matthew begins his gospel by tracing the lineage of Christ to David, King of Israel, to

substantiate the right of Christ to reign and rule as king by birthright (Matt 1:1). Matthew’s

account is the only account describing the kings of the east visiting and worshipping the new

king (Matt. 2:11).

Mark purposefully and intentionally displays the portrait of Christ as servant (oxen)26.

An ox is a beast of burden. Mark portrays Christ as a beast of burden-servant throughout his

gospel account. There is no genealogy or birth account recorded in Mark, for no one cares about

the lineage of a servant or slave. It is the shortest gospel portrait yet provides the greatest detail

about the works of Christ. Mark 11:45 describes the portrait nature of the gospel when it says,

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and give His life as a ransom

for many”.

Luke purposefully and intentionally displays the portrait nature of Christ as man (man)27.

Luke traces the genealogy of Christ back to the first man, Adam, substantiating the human nature

25 Proverbs 30:30 in its context relates the imagery of a king to a lion, “The lion which is mighty among bests and does not retreat before any …”. The lion is universally considered “King of the Jungle”. Movies have even been made relating the imagery of a king to a lion. It is a universally understood image.26 1 Timothy 5:18 in its context relates the imagery of an ox to labor and work. “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while he is threshing,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’” This is an image that would have been understood by the reader.27 Psalm 8:4 in its context the image of God is related to man. “What is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You take care of him?”.

11

of Christ. The gospel account is written by a physician, one immensely qualified to describe the

human qualities of Christ. The portrait of Luke displays the human emotion and feelings of

Christ more than any other gospel portrait.

John purposefully and intentionally displays the portrait nature of Christ as God (eagle)28.

John begins his gospel proving the divine nature of Christ in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the

Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” There is no genealogy of Christ in

John for no one is the father of the infinite God. The only birth account is in John 1:14,

emphasizing the divine nature of Christ, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and

we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John

purposefully includes only seven miracles in his gospel portrait, each intentionally displaying the

deity of Christ. Many more could have been included, however, John explains his intention for

only including the seven in John 20:30-31, “Therefore many other signs Jesus performed in the

presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that

you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His

name”.

The synoptic problem is resolved when the gospels are viewed from an intentional

theological perspective purposefully displaying four unique portraits of Christ, each portrait

displaying a perspective of God’s nature and glory.

CONCLUSION

The synoptic problem has been the target of scorn by skeptics since the beginning of the

Christian church. The layperson and scholar does not need to fear the claim of unresolved

contradictions in the gospel record. Rather he can be confident in the reasoned solutions

28 Isaiah 40:31 in its context the image of an eagle is related to the attributes of God. “Yet those who wait for the Lord will gain strength ; They will mount up with wings like eagles, They will run and not get tired, They will walk and not become weary”. The eagle is universally understood as majestic and glorious.

12

articulated by scholars throughout the history of the church. And there are many. But the

Christian needs to be convinced to the validity in their own heart and mind, defending the gospel

record from personal conviction.

13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crook, Zeba A. "The Synoptic Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven : A Test-Case for the Two-Document, Two-Gospel, and Farrer-Goulder Hypotheses." Journal for the Study of the New Testament (June 2000): 23-48. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 14, 2009)

Dungan, David L., A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, The Text, The Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (London: Yale University Press, 2009).

Farmer, William Reuben, The Synoptic Problem : A Critical Analysis. (Dillsoboro, Western North Carolina Press, 1976).

Goodacre and Perrin, Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique, (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2004).

Gerhardsson, Birger. "The secret of the transmission of the unwritten Jesus tradition." New Testament Studies 51, no. 1 (January 2005): 1-18. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 14, 2009).

Ingolfsland, Dennis. "Jesus remembered: James Dunn and the synoptic problem." Trinity Journal 27, no. 2 (Aut 2006): 187-197. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 14, 2009).

Klinghardt, Matthias. "The Marcionite gospel and the synoptic problem: a new suggestion." Novum testamentum 50, no. 1 (2008): 1-27. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 14, 2009).

Longstaff, Thomas Richmond Willis, Evidence Of Conflation In Mark? : A Study In The Synoptic Problem, (Missoula: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literacy, 1977).

Orchard, Bernard and Longstaff, Thomas. J. J. Griesbach, Synoptic And Text Critical Studies, 1776-1976 (New York: Cambridge, 1976).

Osborne, Grant R. “History and theology in the synoptic gospels.” Trinity Journal, Spring 2003. (Accessed June 26, 2009 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_200304/ai_n9221301/).

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 2000).

Pherigo, Lindsey P. “Trends in ‘Life and Teachings of Jesus Courses.’” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 1957 XXV(3):196-198; doi:10.1093/jaarel/XXV.3.196 1957 by American Academy of Religion. (Accessed June 27, 2009 from http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/XXV/3/196).

14

Thomas, Robert L. "Investigation of the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19, no. 2 (Spr 1976): 103-112. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 14, 2009).

Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007).

Thomas, Robert L. "The hermeneutics of evangelical redaction criticism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 4 (December 1986): 447-459. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 14, 2009)

15

ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustration 1: Wikipedia contributors, 'Synoptic problem', Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 16 June 2009, 14:37 UTC, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synoptic_problem&oldid=296763356> [accessed 16 June 2009]

16