What do you think?
Rate this book
Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation
A substantial introduction to basic issues of interpretation for students of the Synoptic Gospels.
302 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 10, 2018
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.
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.
August 8, 2023
At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am a layman, an engineer who has never been to seminary or bible college. So, if you want a theologian’s perspective, my review is not for you.
With that out of the way, I was impressed by Dr. Stein’s presentation of the issues, as well as his conclusions. The book is divided into three sections, dedicated to source (literary) criticism, form criticism and redaction criticism of the Gospels. In the past, each of these methodologies has been used by skeptical scholars to discredit the historicity and authority of the scriptures, and Dr. Stein acknowledges this. He also points out that each one is a tool that can be used for good or for evil, depending on the presuppositions of the user, and includes chapters discussing the value of each method. Let’s face it, the ax with which Rodion Raskolnikov murdered Alyona Ivanova in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment could just as easily be used to split firewood for heating and cooking. In like manner, presuppositions, which I will discuss later in the review, can and do dictate conclusions before the Bible is even cracked open.
Given the similarities of the synoptic Gospels, it is impossible not to consider some combination of common sources, whether oral or written, or even the use of one of the Gospels as a source by a Gospel writer. For example, some scholars, including Dr. Stein, believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and I found the discussion of this issue to be completely fascinating, with the source materials classified as:
• The use of Mark by Matthew and Luke. The material common to all three synoptic Gospels is known as the triple tradition. Dr. Stein includes a number of side-by-side comparisons of passages in which there is significant agreement. While his comparisons are in English, Michael Bird’s The Gospel of the Lord includes such comparisons in both English and Greek, and it is truly impressive to see verbal agreement in Greek. This clearly indicates the use of a common written source or the use of Mark as a source by Matthew and Luke unless there had been some harmonization by scribes by the time of the oldest extant copies of the Gospels.
• The use of a common source by Matthew and Luke. The material common to Matthew and Luke is known as the double tradition, and the hypothetical source is often referred to as Q. I tend to agree with Dr. Stein that it is useless to try to reconstruct Q given that it could be a mix of oral and written tradition.
• Material unique to Matthew, referred to by Dr. Stein as M.
• Material unique to Luke, referred to by Dr. Stein as L.
While my review thus far has presumed Markan priority (Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke), there are scholars who disagree, arguing that Matthew was the common source for Mark and Luke, consistent with church tradition that Matthew was written first. Dr. Stein disagrees for a number of reasons, including:
• Mark’s inferior style and grammar. It makes more sense that Matthew and Luke would have cleaned that up rather than Mark intentionally choosing worse grammar and style.
• Mark’s use of Aramaisms. It makes sense that Matthew and Luke would have removed them given their Greek-speaking audiences.
• The use of wordier redundant expressions in Mark.
• Mark’s use of harder reasons that “appear contrary to the generally accepted portrait of Jesus held by the early church,” including apparent limitations on Jesus’ power, such as Mk. 6:5-6. In the realm of textual criticism, when a variant appears to be the harder reading, it is presumed to be more primitive or authentic because of scribal tendencies to make harder readings less difficult. Why wouldn’t this rule apply in the evaluation of Gospel sources?
• Less favorable portrayals of the disciples by Mark. Given that the church tended to canonize the disciples and minimize their failures, it makes more sense that Matthew and Luke might choose to soften such portrayals than for Mark to strengthen them.
• When Matthew, Mark and Luke share pericopes, they tend to be wordier in Mark. Dr. Stein sees this as evidence that Matthew and Luke shortened their Markan source to make room for common material (Q) and their special material (M and L) while remaining within the limits of their scrolls.
Personally, I find Dr. Stein’s case to be a well-built and fairly convincing inductive argument that Matthew and Luke used Mark or a proto-Mark as a source.
Aside from better insights into the kind of sources used by the Gospel writers, Dr. Stein sees benefits for exegesis and hermeneutics. For example, when comparing the synoptic Gospels side by side, it is evident that the order of events is sometimes different. Yes, there are some exegetically significant chronological markers (For example, Dr. Stein sees a chronological connection between Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ to the events of the transfiguration.), but in other cases, there may be topical arrangement or some other basis for the sequence. So, he advises caution when trying to make chronology a key element of an interpretation.
Form criticism classifies the Gospel traditions according to their form and is used to establish the history of the Gospel traditions, study the “situation in life” (Sitz im Leben) of the early church and make historical judgments concerning the Gospels. So, it differs from source criticism, which seeks to reverse engineer the source materials of the Gospels, it seeks to investigate the circumstances behind the actual writing of the Gospels.
Dr. Stein identifies eight stated and unstated presuppositions historically associated with form critical scholarship and critiques them:
1. “Before the Gospels were written, there was a period of oral tradition.”
2. “During the oral period, the narratives and sayings, with the exception of the passion narrative, circulated mainly as single and self-contained detached units, each complete in itself.”
3. “The materials in the Gospels can be classified according to their form.”
4. “The vital factors which gave rise to and preserved these forms are to be found in the practical interests of the Christian community.”
5. “The material of the tradition has no biographical or chronological or geographical value.”
6. “The original form of the tradition may be recovered and its history traced before being written down, by discovering the laws of the tradition.”
7. “The eyewitnesses played no significant role in the process of oral transmission.”
8. “The evangelists played no significant role in their recording of the gospel traditions.”
In my review, I don’t have the time or space to discuss all of these presuppositions or Dr. Stein’s assessments of them; so, I will focus on (4), (7) and (8) because I suspect they may be closely related.
Presupposition (4) doesn’t just imply that the early church preserved traditions about Jesus for their religious value; if so, Dr. Stein would have no issue with it. However, it also implies that the church invented new traditions de novo to meet its needs as they came up, and that is the problem. As a counterargument, Dr. Stein points out that the New Testament documents church conflicts not addressed by the Gospels. Consider the controversy of circumcision (Acts 15, just about all of Galatians). Given how much heat it generated, it would have been really convenient for the church leaders to organize a Ministry of Truth to concoct some new saying of Jesus out of whole cloth (my choice of words) for Jewish Christians committed to circumcision to just accept uncritically? But that’s not what the church leaders did. They drew conclusions from past experience with the Holy Spirit interacting with uncircumcised gentiles. Paul, for his part, made arguments from the Old Testament to counter the Judaizers.
Dr. Stein attributes presupposition (7) to an a priori commitment to antisupernaturalism. The Gospels include accounts of miracles. If miracles are impossible, any accounts of miracles are necessarily false and cannot reflect eyewitness testimony because there were no eyewitnesses to something that never happened. Yet, the New Testament repeatedly refers to eyewitnesses. So, neglect of eyewitnesses reflects not scholarly expertise, but a prior commitment to a foregone conclusion that would make David Hume proud.
Regarding presupposition (8), scholars often refer to a Markan community, a Lukan community, etc., as if each Gospel reflects the consensus of a Christian subgroup. Dr. Stein counters by facetiously asking if a Galatian community Galatians or if a Corinthian community produced the Corinthian epistles. What bible scholar doesn’t recognize that those letters were attempts to change the theology and practice of the recipients? In other words, the content of a Gospel or epistle provides us with a clear picture of the writer’s theology but not necessarily that of the target audience.
As noted above, I suspect a connection between presuppositions (4), (7) and (8). Long before form criticism was conceived, earlier critical scholarship had utilized Hegelian presuppositions (Petrine thesis, Pauline antithesis and Johanine synthesis) to conclude that the New Testament writings weren’t nailed down until the third or fourth century. Efforts by the likes of Constantin von Tischendorf to find early texts of the New Testament writings ultimately undermined those presuppositions, but I can’t help but wonder if they lived on. For example, if it took two or three centuries to develop a final form for the Gospels, the eyewitnesses would have been long dead, and the church would have been free to invent sayings or deeds of Jesus without challenge from someone who had actually been there.
Redaction criticism focuses on the unique theological emphases of each Gospel writer and what that can reveal about his purpose in writing a Gospel as well as his Sitz im Leben. Dr. Stein considers identification of the Sitz im Leben of the Gospel writers to be problematic but considers the other goals of the methodology to attainable and profitable provided one avoids some of the pitfalls of its practitioners. For example, don’t let the writers’ minor theological differences overshadow their overwhelming unity. The early church had no issue with the diversity of the Gospels, and neither should we.
One benefit of redaction criticism is a better understanding of how different Gospel writer dealt with a particular saying or deed of Jesus. Each writer had a different target audience with its unique religious needs, and we can learn from them as we apply those same sayings and deeds to the needs of the church today.
As extensive as my review is, it barely scratches the surface of Dr. Stein’s book. I really enjoyed it and believe that other Christian laymen can benefit from it. It can enhance our understanding of scripture and provide us with a defense against some attacks on the authority of the scriptures.
With that out of the way, I was impressed by Dr. Stein’s presentation of the issues, as well as his conclusions. The book is divided into three sections, dedicated to source (literary) criticism, form criticism and redaction criticism of the Gospels. In the past, each of these methodologies has been used by skeptical scholars to discredit the historicity and authority of the scriptures, and Dr. Stein acknowledges this. He also points out that each one is a tool that can be used for good or for evil, depending on the presuppositions of the user, and includes chapters discussing the value of each method. Let’s face it, the ax with which Rodion Raskolnikov murdered Alyona Ivanova in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment could just as easily be used to split firewood for heating and cooking. In like manner, presuppositions, which I will discuss later in the review, can and do dictate conclusions before the Bible is even cracked open.
Given the similarities of the synoptic Gospels, it is impossible not to consider some combination of common sources, whether oral or written, or even the use of one of the Gospels as a source by a Gospel writer. For example, some scholars, including Dr. Stein, believe that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and I found the discussion of this issue to be completely fascinating, with the source materials classified as:
• The use of Mark by Matthew and Luke. The material common to all three synoptic Gospels is known as the triple tradition. Dr. Stein includes a number of side-by-side comparisons of passages in which there is significant agreement. While his comparisons are in English, Michael Bird’s The Gospel of the Lord includes such comparisons in both English and Greek, and it is truly impressive to see verbal agreement in Greek. This clearly indicates the use of a common written source or the use of Mark as a source by Matthew and Luke unless there had been some harmonization by scribes by the time of the oldest extant copies of the Gospels.
• The use of a common source by Matthew and Luke. The material common to Matthew and Luke is known as the double tradition, and the hypothetical source is often referred to as Q. I tend to agree with Dr. Stein that it is useless to try to reconstruct Q given that it could be a mix of oral and written tradition.
• Material unique to Matthew, referred to by Dr. Stein as M.
• Material unique to Luke, referred to by Dr. Stein as L.
While my review thus far has presumed Markan priority (Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke), there are scholars who disagree, arguing that Matthew was the common source for Mark and Luke, consistent with church tradition that Matthew was written first. Dr. Stein disagrees for a number of reasons, including:
• Mark’s inferior style and grammar. It makes more sense that Matthew and Luke would have cleaned that up rather than Mark intentionally choosing worse grammar and style.
• Mark’s use of Aramaisms. It makes sense that Matthew and Luke would have removed them given their Greek-speaking audiences.
• The use of wordier redundant expressions in Mark.
• Mark’s use of harder reasons that “appear contrary to the generally accepted portrait of Jesus held by the early church,” including apparent limitations on Jesus’ power, such as Mk. 6:5-6. In the realm of textual criticism, when a variant appears to be the harder reading, it is presumed to be more primitive or authentic because of scribal tendencies to make harder readings less difficult. Why wouldn’t this rule apply in the evaluation of Gospel sources?
• Less favorable portrayals of the disciples by Mark. Given that the church tended to canonize the disciples and minimize their failures, it makes more sense that Matthew and Luke might choose to soften such portrayals than for Mark to strengthen them.
• When Matthew, Mark and Luke share pericopes, they tend to be wordier in Mark. Dr. Stein sees this as evidence that Matthew and Luke shortened their Markan source to make room for common material (Q) and their special material (M and L) while remaining within the limits of their scrolls.
Personally, I find Dr. Stein’s case to be a well-built and fairly convincing inductive argument that Matthew and Luke used Mark or a proto-Mark as a source.
Aside from better insights into the kind of sources used by the Gospel writers, Dr. Stein sees benefits for exegesis and hermeneutics. For example, when comparing the synoptic Gospels side by side, it is evident that the order of events is sometimes different. Yes, there are some exegetically significant chronological markers (For example, Dr. Stein sees a chronological connection between Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ to the events of the transfiguration.), but in other cases, there may be topical arrangement or some other basis for the sequence. So, he advises caution when trying to make chronology a key element of an interpretation.
Form criticism classifies the Gospel traditions according to their form and is used to establish the history of the Gospel traditions, study the “situation in life” (Sitz im Leben) of the early church and make historical judgments concerning the Gospels. So, it differs from source criticism, which seeks to reverse engineer the source materials of the Gospels, it seeks to investigate the circumstances behind the actual writing of the Gospels.
Dr. Stein identifies eight stated and unstated presuppositions historically associated with form critical scholarship and critiques them:
1. “Before the Gospels were written, there was a period of oral tradition.”
2. “During the oral period, the narratives and sayings, with the exception of the passion narrative, circulated mainly as single and self-contained detached units, each complete in itself.”
3. “The materials in the Gospels can be classified according to their form.”
4. “The vital factors which gave rise to and preserved these forms are to be found in the practical interests of the Christian community.”
5. “The material of the tradition has no biographical or chronological or geographical value.”
6. “The original form of the tradition may be recovered and its history traced before being written down, by discovering the laws of the tradition.”
7. “The eyewitnesses played no significant role in the process of oral transmission.”
8. “The evangelists played no significant role in their recording of the gospel traditions.”
In my review, I don’t have the time or space to discuss all of these presuppositions or Dr. Stein’s assessments of them; so, I will focus on (4), (7) and (8) because I suspect they may be closely related.
Presupposition (4) doesn’t just imply that the early church preserved traditions about Jesus for their religious value; if so, Dr. Stein would have no issue with it. However, it also implies that the church invented new traditions de novo to meet its needs as they came up, and that is the problem. As a counterargument, Dr. Stein points out that the New Testament documents church conflicts not addressed by the Gospels. Consider the controversy of circumcision (Acts 15, just about all of Galatians). Given how much heat it generated, it would have been really convenient for the church leaders to organize a Ministry of Truth to concoct some new saying of Jesus out of whole cloth (my choice of words) for Jewish Christians committed to circumcision to just accept uncritically? But that’s not what the church leaders did. They drew conclusions from past experience with the Holy Spirit interacting with uncircumcised gentiles. Paul, for his part, made arguments from the Old Testament to counter the Judaizers.
Dr. Stein attributes presupposition (7) to an a priori commitment to antisupernaturalism. The Gospels include accounts of miracles. If miracles are impossible, any accounts of miracles are necessarily false and cannot reflect eyewitness testimony because there were no eyewitnesses to something that never happened. Yet, the New Testament repeatedly refers to eyewitnesses. So, neglect of eyewitnesses reflects not scholarly expertise, but a prior commitment to a foregone conclusion that would make David Hume proud.
Regarding presupposition (8), scholars often refer to a Markan community, a Lukan community, etc., as if each Gospel reflects the consensus of a Christian subgroup. Dr. Stein counters by facetiously asking if a Galatian community Galatians or if a Corinthian community produced the Corinthian epistles. What bible scholar doesn’t recognize that those letters were attempts to change the theology and practice of the recipients? In other words, the content of a Gospel or epistle provides us with a clear picture of the writer’s theology but not necessarily that of the target audience.
As noted above, I suspect a connection between presuppositions (4), (7) and (8). Long before form criticism was conceived, earlier critical scholarship had utilized Hegelian presuppositions (Petrine thesis, Pauline antithesis and Johanine synthesis) to conclude that the New Testament writings weren’t nailed down until the third or fourth century. Efforts by the likes of Constantin von Tischendorf to find early texts of the New Testament writings ultimately undermined those presuppositions, but I can’t help but wonder if they lived on. For example, if it took two or three centuries to develop a final form for the Gospels, the eyewitnesses would have been long dead, and the church would have been free to invent sayings or deeds of Jesus without challenge from someone who had actually been there.
Redaction criticism focuses on the unique theological emphases of each Gospel writer and what that can reveal about his purpose in writing a Gospel as well as his Sitz im Leben. Dr. Stein considers identification of the Sitz im Leben of the Gospel writers to be problematic but considers the other goals of the methodology to attainable and profitable provided one avoids some of the pitfalls of its practitioners. For example, don’t let the writers’ minor theological differences overshadow their overwhelming unity. The early church had no issue with the diversity of the Gospels, and neither should we.
One benefit of redaction criticism is a better understanding of how different Gospel writer dealt with a particular saying or deed of Jesus. Each writer had a different target audience with its unique religious needs, and we can learn from them as we apply those same sayings and deeds to the needs of the church today.
As extensive as my review is, it barely scratches the surface of Dr. Stein’s book. I really enjoyed it and believe that other Christian laymen can benefit from it. It can enhance our understanding of scripture and provide us with a defense against some attacks on the authority of the scriptures.
June 1, 2023
Dr. Stein's book,
Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation
, has taught me quite a bit about the field of exegesis. Using Source, Historical, and Redaction Criticisms sheds light on the original authors' purposes, audiences, styles, and potential sources. We can see where and how they differ by using the parallel accounts from the three synoptic Gospels. We can figure out their theological theme and reason for writing by seeing how and why they differ.
August 1, 2017
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.
February 6, 2018
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.
February 3, 2023
dated but solid
This is a great introduction to gospel criticism. Stein does a wonderful job of introducing the methods of criticism, drawing together the history of the discipline and highlighting challenges and practical use of critical models.
This is a great introduction to gospel criticism. Stein does a wonderful job of introducing the methods of criticism, drawing together the history of the discipline and highlighting challenges and practical use of critical models.
December 15, 2019
Stein explores the synoptic gospels and the issues that are typically studied therein. Very accessible and well written. Nothing really new here, but helpful nonetheless.
May 17, 2025
Technical and fair-handed approach to the Synoptic problem.
February 6, 2008
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.
"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.
September 8, 2011
Kind of dry at times, but I really enjoyed the sections on the historical figure of Jesus.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews