The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels

The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels provides up to date studies of the New Testament Gospels’ Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in thirty articles written by first-class scholars and edited by Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll. The bibliographies accompanying each chapter provide valuable secondary sources. There are treatments of “the synoptic problem” and essays on significant subfields in synoptics studies.

The anthology is divided into two major sections. The first covers “The Problem and Nature of Synoptics,” including the gospels’ literary relationships, possible sources from oral or written tradition, and problems inherent in reconstructing these relationships (synoptic problem). This section also covers topics such as dating, apocryphal narratives and the Gospel of Thomas, the influence of ancient rhetoric, possible Pauline influence, oral performance, and narrative design of these writings. The book’s second section, “Particular Features in Comparison”, compares features of the three gospels from a broad range of topics. Traditional topics include the gospel, Gentile-Jewish relations, Israel’s Scriptures, resurrection and afterlife, Jewish sectarianism, apocalypticism, kingdom and authority, and history. Other, sometimes less typical subjects include suffering and sacrifice, violence, healing and exorcism, food, sacred space, travel, women, gender, and body.

Selecting some highlights related to the synoptic problem: John S. Kloppenborg, though favoring the Two-Source Hypothesis with Mark a source with Q (hypothetical source) for Matthew and Luke, thinks that adequate understanding of the specific interrelationships and compositional history of Matthew, Mark, and Luke remain unsolved, and unlikely to be solved without new discoveries. Kloppenborg still thinks it remains a fruitful area of engagement for scholars studying the source history and relationships among the three gospels (21-22). Paul Foster writing on The Minor Sources and Their Role in the Synoptic Problem, notes that there has been a recent trend away from focusing on the minor sources of the synoptics, such as a hypothetical Q source (common material between Matthew and Luke not in Mark), and unique material in Matthew (M) and Luke (L) (25-43).  

James W. Barker argues that Gospel studies have shifted more focus to ancient writing practices. Yet, the synoptic problem cannot be solved by arguments about compositional conventions as all the leading compositional hypotheses have attested means of material production (59). Similarly, Alexander Damm thinks using ancient rhetorical practices to evaluate source dependency does not resolve the difficulty. What appears to be a rhetorical improvement of Mark by Matthew could equally be a rhetorical improvement of Matthew by Mark (77-78). Regarding textual criticism, Matthew Larsen shifts focus away from seeking an original text of the New Testament gospels for lack of older manuscripts, to emphasizing the material culture and the process of textual revision over time (197). Of Pauline influence in the synoptics, Cameron Evan Ferguson thinks that “Pauline theological, Christological, and ecclesiological ideas are seeded into the Gospel of Mark” and that Mark and Paul mutually inform one another (95). All three gospels are influenced by Pauline theology (assuming Markan priority) (95).

The second section of the anthology compares Matthew, Mark, and Luke across specific features. Some highlights include Candida Moss on the topic of “Suffering and Sacrifice”. She points out that for all synoptics gospels the cross (of Christ) became “the scaffolding upon which a host of interrelated concepts—theodicy, martyrdom, discipleship, and eschatology—would hang” (245). Sarah E. Rollens explores other “expressions of violent language in the Synoptic Gospels, focusing particularly on violence aimed at envoys of God in the narratives, violence presupposed in the world of the parables, and also entailed in apocalyptic expectations” (274). Regarding apocalyptic eschatology, Robyn J. Whitaker points out that the Synoptic Gospels, are not apocalypses, yet they contain considerable apocalyptic theology, including “mini apocalypses” with apocalyptic language and ideas (e.g. Mark 13). (412-414). Concepts of the kingdom of God, various dualisms (God/Satan, present/future ages, righteous/wicked), coming judgment and reward, messianic expectation and the Son of Man and are also evidence of apocalypticism in the synoptic gospels (424-426).

Regarding resurrection and afterlife, Alexey Somov indicates Second Temple Judaism held various beliefs of afterlife including bodily return to existence, angelic like existence, platonic like existence, and no existence (Sadducees) (432). Regarding Jesus, he notes that “there is a general scholarly consensus that Jesus’s resurrection, which happens on the third day after his death on the cross and burial, is clearly a bodily one” (437-439). Of the gospel, Joshua D. Garroway argues for the hypothesis that Paul coined the term “gospel”, not Jesus, to demonstrate his insight of availability of salvation through Christ apart from the Law. This was redacted by Mark making Jesus the originator of the “gospel”, recast further by Matthew who made it about the God’s kingdom. Then Luke makes Peter, not Paul, the originator of the “gospel” (458-465).

The handbook is a work of first-rate scholarship on these and other topics. While some essays are more descriptive, others bring their theoretical perspective to bear on their topics. As one might expect, the two-source hypothesis of the synoptic problem is assumed in some essays affecting the overall argument and conclusions. There are recent trends reflected in others. For example, one finds argued that Paul, not Jesus, was the originator of the gospel, and the term “gospel” was supplied by redactors in the 3 Gospels. Here, there appears a tendency for a later dating of the three gospels than conventionally thought. With areas up for debate, the handbook provides significant insight and should generate further discussion for this generation of readers and perhaps even the next.

John Mauger is a doctoral candidate in religion at Claremont Graduate University.

John Mauger

Date Of Review:

March 28, 2024