Reviewed Book: Orchard, Bernard. The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?. Macon, Ga: Mercer Univ Press, 1987

Granskou, David M.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 14Issue 2 Issues and Concerns in Ethics Article 1411-1-1988The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three SynopticGospels?David M. GranskouFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationGranskou, David M. (1988) "The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?," Consensus: Vol. 14 : Iss. 2 , Article 14.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol14/iss2/14Book Reviews 109prophets. Technical language is kept to a minimum and scholarly debatesare clearly explained.John H.C. NeebWaterloo Lutheran SeminaryThe Order of the SynopticsBernard Orchard and Harold RileyMacon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1987294 pp. U.S. $38.95Bernard Orchard is a Benedictine monk of the Earling Abbey, Lon-don, England, and co-chairman of the International Institute for Renewalof Gospel Studies. Harold Riley is an Anglican priest, now retired fromadministrative posts in the Church of England. The publisher Mercer Uni-versity Press in the state of Georgia represents a conservative Protestantpress in the United States. I mention this because it is the issue of thepriority of the Gospel of Matthew which has brought this group together.Other than that, London and Macon are a long ways apart geographically,culturally and theologically.While there was a debate about the priority of Matthew in the firsttwo decades of this century, the priority of Mark has been more or lessaccepted in the synoptic gospel research. However, there has always beensome debate about the synoptic problem—William Farmer is one personwho had written on the issue—and here again is a book on that subject.One can clearly find statements in the tradition of the early churchwhich stress the Gospel of Matthew as the oldest of the four gospels,but those sources are not working with the literary issues in the synop-tic gospels. In the early church the concern was to harmonize the gospelsfor the purpose of church unity and doctrine. The modern study of thesynoptic problem stresses more literary and historical issues. In The Orderof the Synoptics it is difficult to see how these historical and literary issuesare handled.The point which is being made is that Matthew wrote his gospel first.Then Luke wrote his next and made some changes, then Mark came alongwith his gospel as a bridge between Matthew and Luke. Matthew repre-sented the conservative stand of Peter and the primitive Jewish church.Luke represented Paul and the gentile church. In this argument, Mark wasthe person who tried to keep the two parties together by editing his gospelas a compromise. This was to keep both Matthew and Luke in the canonwith Mark in the middle.This is an interesting thesis, but it uses a theory of Hegel from thenineteenth century to solve an issue in the first century. Hegel’s theory110 Consensusof historical development through thesis, antithesis and synthesis is finallymentioned right on the last page of the book. This theory hcLS been used byF.C. Baur and in Marxism, but it is funny to see it used in this argumentto defend a conservative thesis about the priority of Matthew.The authors’ thesis raises several questions. Matthew had one birthstory, Luke another. How is it that Mark edited these two by not havingany birth story? Matthew had the Sermon on the Mount, Luke has theSermon on the Plain. How is it that Mark edited these two by not havingany sermon at all?We now have editions of the three synoptic gospels which are line byline set up in parallel with each other. These parallels of the synopticgospels show us literally hundreds of slight differences and similarities inthe sentences and words in the gospels. Most books on the synoptic problemstudy literally hundreds of little variations. It seems odd to see a study ofthis issue which does not use this type of work. Did the authors go throughsuch a parallel study? It is just such a study which suggests that Markwas first and that Matthew and Luke were doing independent changes.If the authors wish to debate this issue, they should go through literallyhundreds of verses, but they have totally avoided this issue. Thus for areader who has done even some work on the parallels in the gospels, thisbook is frustrating to read; at lecist it is frustrating for me. So the bookis even hard to review. It is good to read the church fathers, but it is alsogood to read the gospels.David M. GranskouWilfrid Laurier UniversityLet Each Gospel Speak for ItselfR. Rhys WilliamsMystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 1987Williams is a retired Episcopal priest with forty years of pastoral expe-rience, a Professor Emeritus of Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York,where he taught for seventeen years. He now lives in Nova Scotia.The title of the book adequately describes its content and purpose.This is “not another explanation of the meaning of the gospels, but anintroduction to a different method of studying the gospels.” Williams iscommitted to the redaction-critical approach which focuses more on thedifferences than on the similarities between the various gospel accounts.The approach is one which “takes the creative function of the gospel writerseriously.” The author acknowledges that “such an approach is not new.”He contends, however, that “this approach has not had much impact onthe average, serious student of the New Testament or on the parish clergy.”This situation William wishes to remedy.

The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 14
Issue 2 Issues and Concerns in Ethics Article 14
11-1-1988
The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic
Gospels?
David M. Granskou
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by an
authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Granskou, David M. (1988) "The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?," Consensus: Vol. 14 : Iss. 2 , Article 14.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol14/iss2/14
Book Reviews 109
prophets. Technical language is kept to a minimum and scholarly debates
are clearly explained.
John H.C. Neeb
Waterloo Lutheran Seminary
The Order of the Synoptics
Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley
Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1987
294 pp. U.S. $38.95
Bernard Orchard is a Benedictine monk of the Earling Abbey, Lon-
don, England, and co-chairman of the International Institute for Renewal
of Gospel Studies. Harold Riley is an Anglican priest, now retired from
administrative posts in the Church of England. The publisher Mercer Uni-
versity Press in the state of Georgia represents a conservative Protestant
press in the United States. I mention this because it is the issue of the
priority of the Gospel of Matthew which has brought this group together.
Other than that, London and Macon are a long ways apart geographically,
culturally and theologically.
While there was a debate about the priority of Matthew in the first
two decades of this century, the priority of Mark has been more or less
accepted in the synoptic gospel research. However, there has always been
some debate about the synoptic problem—William Farmer is one person
who had written on the issue—and here again is a book on that subject.
One can clearly find statements in the tradition of the early church
which stress the Gospel of Matthew as the oldest of the four gospels,
but those sources are not working with the literary issues in the synop-
tic gospels. In the early church the concern was to harmonize the gospels
for the purpose of church unity and doctrine. The modern study of the
synoptic problem stresses more literary and historical issues. In The Order
of the Synoptics it is difficult to see how these historical and literary issues
are handled.
The point which is being made is that Matthew wrote his gospel first.
Then Luke wrote his next and made some changes, then Mark came along
with his gospel as a bridge between Matthew and Luke. Matthew repre-
sented the conservative stand of Peter and the primitive Jewish church.
Luke represented Paul and the gentile church. In this argument, Mark was
the person who tried to keep the two parties together by editing his gospel
as a compromise. This was to keep both Matthew and Luke in the canon
with Mark in the middle.
This is an interesting thesis, but it uses a theory of Hegel from the
nineteenth century to solve an issue in the first century. Hegel’s theory
110 Consensus
of historical development through thesis, antithesis and synthesis is finally
mentioned right on the last page of the book. This theory hcLS been used by
F.C. Baur and in Marxism, but it is funny to see it used in this argument
to defend a conservative thesis about the priority of Matthew.
The authors’ thesis raises several questions. Matthew had one birth
story, Luke another. How is it that Mark edited these two by not having
any birth story? Matthew had the Sermon on the Mount, Luke has the
Sermon on the Plain. How is it that Mark edited these two by not having
any sermon at all?
We now have editions of the three synoptic gospels which are line by
line set up in parallel with each other. These parallels of the synoptic
gospels show us literally hundreds of slight differences and similarities in
the sentences and words in the gospels. Most books on the synoptic problem
study literally hundreds of little variations. It seems odd to see a study of
this issue which does not use this type of work. Did the authors go through
such a parallel study? It is just such a study which suggests that Mark
was first and that Matthew and Luke were doing independent changes.
If the authors wish to debate this issue, they should go through literally
hundreds of verses, but they have totally avoided this issue. Thus for a
reader who has done even some work on the parallels in the gospels, this
book is frustrating to read; at lecist it is frustrating for me. So the book
is even hard to review. It is good to read the church fathers, but it is also
good to read the gospels.
David M. Granskou
Wilfrid Laurier University
Let Each Gospel Speak for Itself
R. Rhys Williams
Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 1987
Williams is a retired Episcopal priest with forty years of pastoral expe-
rience, a Professor Emeritus of Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York,
where he taught for seventeen years. He now lives in Nova Scotia.
The title of the book adequately describes its content and purpose.
This is “not another explanation of the meaning of the gospels, but an
introduction to a different method of studying the gospels.” Williams is
committed to the redaction-critical approach which focuses more on the
differences than on the similarities between the various gospel accounts.
The approach is one which “takes the creative function of the gospel writer
seriously.” The author acknowledges that “such an approach is not new.”
He contends, however, that “this approach has not had much impact on
the average, serious student of the New Testament or on the parish clergy.”
This situation William wishes to remedy.


https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2041&amp;context=consensus

The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons