We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
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.
Loading metrics...
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed.