Three Views/Origins/Synoptic Gospels [Kindle Edition]

I say scholarly, because most lay-people do not get into the issue of the origin of the Gospels, which is the purpose of this book.

I picked up this book blindly (after seeing no reviews) in hopes it would help me in writing a paper defending traditional authorship of the Gospels. In this book I found three very well placed arguments for Gospel authorship and priority. As is becoming the standard with multiple view books, each author presents their case and the other contributors to the book respond to the main writing. Each writer gets a chance to write their own argument and refute the others' arguments in a short response.

The authors involved are Grant Osborne, Matthew Williams, John Niemela, David Farnell and the editor, Robert Thomas. The last three earning their PhD/ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary with Drs. Osbourne and Williams gaining their PhDs the University of Aberdeen and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Drs. Williams and Osborne begin with the case for Markan Priority (MH), or the belief that evidence shows Mark was written first with Matthew and Luke relying on Mark's Gospel as a source. This argument concentrates on the examples of textual similarity between Matthew and Luke to Mark. His conclusion is that MH does not answer the whole question and that the truth behind this topic may not be answered before the Second Coming.

Dr. Niemela displays the Two Source Hypothesis. He takes an interesting stance by using statistics to show the proposed similarities ssurrounding MH are not as significant as they are proposed to be. He also relies heavily on historical queues pointing to Matthew's initial writing.

Dr. Farnell takes the traditional historical stance in his defense of the Independent Hypothesis. This theory is often not discussed in scholarly circles because it is a foregone conclusion by many that the Gospels used sources and relied upon each other.

Each scholar presents a detailed and thorough argument of their beliefs. MH is by far the foremost theory, with the 2GH making a comeback recently. As stated previously, IH is not a highly regarded theory in scholarly circles despite its longstanding run in church history. It is by far the most prominent belief in Christianity, because it is the belief of lay-Christianity.

The authors do a superb job of covering the topic. Dr. Thomas sums up the evidence in a summary chapter after all the authors have debated. I would highly recommend this book to curious Christians and seminary students to get a superb introduction to the major aspects of Synoptic Gospel origins. This would also serve well as a reference for these arguments including the novel argument using statistics.

A major debate in New Testament studies over the past two hundred years is the "Synoptic Problem." This problem observes the differences between the three Synoptic Gospel (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and seeks to reconcile them. There are three categories where variations often occur: wording, content, and order. "Wording" refers to the specific Greek words chosen by each evangelist. "Content" refers to the thematic "pericopes" (literary units) that each author chose to include or exclude. "Order" refers to the specific sequence that Matthew, Mark, and Luke elected to arrange their Gospels.

Differences in these categories have great significance because they affect our view of Scripture in vital areas such as biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and perspicuity. They determine precisely who Jesus is and what words He spoke. Furthermore, they shape one's entire method of interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels. In short, the Synoptic Problem strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith, reflecting what we believe about God and His Word. "In large part, the answers to who Jesus really was depend upon how one approaches the first three Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - which in turn depends upon how the three books came into being" (13).

So how should these differences be reconciled? In this book, the three most common views are articulated and defended. Grant R. Osborne and Matthew C. Williams join forces to present the "Two-/Four-Source View." John H. Niemelä advocates the "Two Gospel View." And F. David Farnell heralds the "Independence View." Thomas, as editor, presides over the discussion by offering a basic introduction to the subject and concludes with a summary of all arguments and responses. He states that the overarching purpose of the book is to "help individuals sort through issues and controversies that relate to the first three Gospels" with the ultimate goal of "strengthening the body of Christ" (18). In my estimation, Farnell makes the strongest case.

This is a helpful book on a complex subject that really helps untangle the synoptic problem. One unfortunate aspect is that the authors do not have an opportunity to rebut their opponent's responses, leaving some arguments unanswered.

I bought this book for my son when he was in seminary. It gives a good review of the major theories of the origins of the synoptic gospels.