Assault fresh luke mark matthew problem redating synoptic
The second part, however, is very understandable and quite fascinating.
In this part Wenham discusses ancient testimony to the authorship and date of the Gospels, and reconstructs a possible scenario for when and where they were written.
Additionally, the relatively detailed comparison (for a popular text) of Greek texts, in the early chapters, while necessary may be a bit off-setting for some non-Greek readers.
The good news is that these textual comparisons can be skimmed with little loss. Robinson's "Redating the New Testament" which takes a similar argument applied to the New Testament in general worth a read.
The first part, chapters 1-4, discusses "synoptic" relationships and is really quite technical.
Although the average layperson might be able to understand the gist of Wenham's arguments in this part, a good knowledge of Greek is essential to follow it completely.
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App.
Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Good book that discusses an alternate theory about the early dating of the Gospels (that places Matthew ahead of Mark) by comparing the Gospels to one another and to the writings and records of the church fathers.Once his compositional argument is complete Wenham works backwards from Acts (early-mid 60s prior to death of Paul) to posit a radically revised synoptic chronology of Luke (55), Mark (45) and Matthew (40).Whether or not his theory is ultimately correct, Wenham does valuable work identifying and challenging many of the assumptions that underlie the current New Testament scholarship and positing a credible counter argument.The advent of modern literary critical techniques in the Twentieth Century contributed to a shift in opinion, and, currently the majority view of New Testaments scholars support what is known as the Two-Document hypothesis, according to which Mark and Q are posited as primary sources for the authors of Luke and Matthew.Combined with other assumptions, this view results in a rough compositional chronology of Mark (70) Matthew and Luke (75-85).