What do you think?
Rate this book
Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem
This groundbreaking study poses a solution to what one scholar has called one of the most difficult research problems in the history of ideas--the Synoptic problem. The phenomenon and mystery of three similar but different Synoptic Gospels has for centuries challenged some of the best minds of academia and the church. How can we explain the differences and similarities among Matthew, Mark and Luke? Which Gospel was written first? To what extent did the Evangelists depend on oral tradition, written sources or each other? John Wenham courageously opposes the reigning two-document theory-that Mark was the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke independently using Mark and a lost source of sayings of Jesus labeled Q. Through careful argument and analysis, he seeks to defend an alternative theory that satisfactorily accounts for what he argues is some degree of structural dependence but nevertheless a surprising degree of verbal independence among the Synoptics. This brave new revisioning of the writing of the Synoptics redates Matthew, Mark and Luke prior to A.D. 55. Insightful and provocative, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke offers a fresh look at a hard problem as well as an interesting perspective on the inner workings of the early church. It is a book to be reckoned with--and sure to stir up scholarly controversy.
348 pages, Paperback
First published March 21, 1991
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 8, 2014
Wenham gave the Synoptic Problem a much needed shake-up by providing solid evidence not only for the priority of Matthew (rather than Mark), but evidence as well for an early dating of these accounts. Wenham works closely with the Greek text of the gospel accounts to evaluate the level of dependency among the synoptics and to overturn much of the sloppy, house-of-cards arguments common in higher critical studies. A must read for anyone with an interest in gospel account origins.
April 7, 2018
Phenomenal. There's a lot of Greek quotations in the book which would be a drawback so some. Regardless, I call this Wenham's "Magnum Opus".
November 27, 2025
A deep dive into the writing of Matthew, Mark and Luke; excoriating modern critical scholarship and making a decent case for early authorship.
The book begins with a close side by side analysis of the greek text of the gospels to show that a lot of the modern form critical theories are so much bunk. That being done he begins to build a positive case for their actual relation, authorship and approximate dates.
He works with the style and form of the text, contextual clues, and evidence from other early sources.
Wenham argues that (in line with the majority of Christian tradition):
i) Matthew wrote first, probably in Jerusalem, probably around 40AD
ii) Mark was second probably around 45 AD after Peter's first visit to Rome (probably 42-44AD)
iii) Luke was third, but was well known by the mid-50s, Luke is the brother praised in all the churches "for the gospel" 2 Cor 8:18
He reaches these conclusions via numerous cumulative steps, and along the way gives a broad taste of very early church history and touches on a wide range of related issues: Luke and Acts have the same author but are they 2 volumes of one work? Wenham argues no. Was Matthew originally in Hebrew or Aramaic then translated? Wenham argues yes (I'm not so sure). How big was the church in Rome before Romans was written (and thus long before Paul arrives at the end of Acts)?
This book is obviously totally against the modern consensus. Wenham endeavours to show that much critical scholarship little more than a house of straw. Is Wenham correct on every detail? I'm not sure BUT there's certainly a lot here to persuade you that his overall conclusions are reasonable.
This book is dense and hard work but stimulating and should help you to gain confidence that the gospels were written as real historical accounts with apostolic sanction.
The book begins with a close side by side analysis of the greek text of the gospels to show that a lot of the modern form critical theories are so much bunk. That being done he begins to build a positive case for their actual relation, authorship and approximate dates.
He works with the style and form of the text, contextual clues, and evidence from other early sources.
Wenham argues that (in line with the majority of Christian tradition):
i) Matthew wrote first, probably in Jerusalem, probably around 40AD
ii) Mark was second probably around 45 AD after Peter's first visit to Rome (probably 42-44AD)
iii) Luke was third, but was well known by the mid-50s, Luke is the brother praised in all the churches "for the gospel" 2 Cor 8:18
He reaches these conclusions via numerous cumulative steps, and along the way gives a broad taste of very early church history and touches on a wide range of related issues: Luke and Acts have the same author but are they 2 volumes of one work? Wenham argues no. Was Matthew originally in Hebrew or Aramaic then translated? Wenham argues yes (I'm not so sure). How big was the church in Rome before Romans was written (and thus long before Paul arrives at the end of Acts)?
This book is obviously totally against the modern consensus. Wenham endeavours to show that much critical scholarship little more than a house of straw. Is Wenham correct on every detail? I'm not sure BUT there's certainly a lot here to persuade you that his overall conclusions are reasonable.
This book is dense and hard work but stimulating and should help you to gain confidence that the gospels were written as real historical accounts with apostolic sanction.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews