Read more
Why are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke so similar, yet different? Modern scholars have developed four main approaches to the synoptic problem: That the evangelists tapped into testimonies about Jesus, or drew from many written fragments, or used a common exemplar, or modified each other's work. The first three approaches find solid support in antiquity, yet ironically, the fourth approach dominates gospel scholarship, without producing any consensus. In this study, Paul A. Rainbow reclaims the discarded proto-gospel hypothesis of the earliest modern critics, based on a fresh reading of traditions recorded by Papias in the early second century CE. He challenges the Utilization hypotheses - that the synoptists adapted the work of each other, in various theoretical configurations - by offering an historically nuanced hypothesis of a proto-gospel, which the three evangelists independently translated into Greek from Hebrew and enriched with oral testimonies and written fragments available to them.
About the author
Paul A. Rainbow is Professor of New Testament at Sioux Falls Seminary in South Dakota. He studied theology at Oxford University, Harvard University, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Rainbow is the author of The Way of Salvation (2005) and of a number of articles in journals and anthologies.
Summary
Why are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke so similar, yet different? Paul A. Rainbow challenges theories that the evangelists modified each other's work, offering a nuanced hypothesis of a proto-gospel, which the three evangelists independently translated into Greek from Hebrew and enriched with oral testimonies and written fragments.
