An introduction to basic issues of interpretation for students of the Synoptic Gospels....
|Title||:||Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation|
|Number of Pages||:||304 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation Reviews
The first part of Studying the Synoptic Gospels is an interesting, informative look at the similarities and differences between the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and the implications that follow from that. Robert Stein presents a persuasive case for Mark having been written first. He then presents a case for Luke and Matthew having expanded on Mark by adding in information from other written sources which source critics have called Q. I found this second argument less persuasive.The second half of the book (the end of part one and parts two and three) considers the recent history of New Testament textual studies (19th century to present). It is obvious that Stein loves and values his subject, but it seems to me that little has been gained from these pursuits except that the more recent scholars have managed to dig themselves out of the hole the earlier thinkers dug for them. This section reads easily, but it isn't as interesting or useful as the first part of the book.
This book is easy to read and understand, making it accessible for beginning students. It's strength is in Stein's ability to layout the interlocking patterns of the synoptic gospels which aids in understanding the foundational issues and theories revolving around the synoptic solution. Unfortunately, Stein's bias toward Markan Priority hinders this book from being a quality systematic approach to the synoptic problem.
Extremely valuable and well-informed work on the synoptic issue. Stein argues persuasively for Markan priority and the value and limitations of form and redaction criticism. This is a must have for any serious New Testament library as well as that of anyone at the intermediate to advanced apologetics level.
To be lazy and quote from my paper for class:"Though Stein’s work is indeed useful among many tools to familiarize students with the various issues and approaches to study of the Synoptic Gospels, its effectiveness as a systematic introduction is at times undermined by its richly opinionated tone, while its effectiveness as an apology is often undermined by its summary structure."And if you're not asleep yet, here's some more:"Through neglecting some obvious questions raised by the discussion, inadequately replying to others, and openly dismissing several without explaining the rationale behind their dismissal, Stein tends to veer from evenhanded dealing with scholarly perspectives."One hopes that open-mindedness and creativity are achievable in this topic as in others based largely on the analysis of ambiguous evidence. Subsequently, one also suspects that a better introduction would be one allowing readers to come to their own conclusions, informed sufficiently by all legitimate theories."***SPOILER ALERT***No scholar actually knows the solution to the Synoptic problem.
Kind of dry at times, but I really enjoyed the sections on the historical figure of Jesus.