<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Will make you doubt current biblical scholarship
Review: Terrific book. Wenham clashes with modern theories about the bible, mostly by exploring early texts and studying verbal independence among the synoptic gospels. His arguments are impressive. In particular, he insists that the synoptics were all written before 70 AD. He points out, for example, that Luke tells us of the fullfilment of Agabus' prophecy of worldwide fame (Acts 11:28). Yet Luke fails to mention the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, which so clearly fullfilled Jesus' prophecy about the temple.
Rating:
Summary: Cheers for Wenham
Review: Wenham has done a remarkable job of examining the external evidence (the words of the fathers) and the internal evidence (the Gospels themselves) to demonstrate not only the plausability, but the probability of:1. An early date for the Gospels.
2. The traditional order of Mt, Mk, Lk.
3. The involvement of not only written but oral tradition in Gospel formation. Critics charge Wenham with relying too heavily on patristic sources. But such charge thus if one relies on the patristics at all in this matter. The critics of the Augustinian order have never satisfactorily explained the origin of the traditional order if a different order is true. In any case, Wenham does solid work in establishing the essential trustworthiness of the patristic sources. He is perhaps even stronger is his examination of the interrelations between the synoptics as he works through the various synoptic theories and how they fare in terms of how they used or allegedly used each other in their mutual formation. Wenham believes strongly that oral tradition played a key role in determining the form and the content of each of the Gospels. Despite this, he eschews the idea that they were written in ignorance of each other. He argues dispassionately but forcefully that each successively impacted the ones that followed. Those who hold variant opinions of the origins of the Gospels do not hold them well until they have positively worked through Wenham's arguments. I further recommend the writings of B.C. Butler on this topic.
Rating: 
Summary: A Vigorous Assault on Conventional Scholarship
Review: Wenham sets out to prove that the Synoptic Gospels were written in the early to mid 40's A.D., a good 20-25 years before the earliest generally-accepted date for Mark. His analysis is thoroughgoing, well-researched, and heavily documented. Unfortunately, his defense of evidence for the early dating lacks the cogency and forcefulness of his attack on the evidence for later dating. While Wenham is vociferously dismissive of evidence contrary to his viewpoint, he uncritically accepts evidence supporting his viewpoint. He bedrocks his early dating on a two pronged analysis: 1. Dismissal of the documentary solutions to the Synoptic Problem, and 2. Heavy reliance on the Patristic evidence of authorship. Firstly, the documentary explanations of the Synoptic Problem must be dismissed because if the Gospels were based on earlier documents, they must perforce be later documents. Secondly, from acceptance of the Patristic evidence of authorship, Wenham can infer a very early date for each of the Synoptics. The book makes interesting reading, but it fails to carry the day in establishing such an early date for the Synoptic Gospels. One caveat: If you can't read Greek, the first half of the book will be rough sailing, as it analyzes many gospel pericopes in Greek. With a little patience you can, however, muddle your way through it.
Rating:
Summary: A Vigorous Assault on Conventional Scholarship
Review: Wenham sets out to prove that the Synoptic Gospels were written in the early to mid 40's A.D., a good 20-25 years before the earliest generally-accepted date for Mark. His analysis is thoroughgoing, well-researched, and heavily documented. Unfortunately, his defense of evidence for the early dating lacks the cogency and forcefulness of his attack on the evidence for later dating. While Wenham is vociferously dismissive of evidence contrary to his viewpoint, he uncritically accepts evidence supporting his viewpoint. He bedrocks his early dating on a two pronged analysis: 1. Dismissal of the documentary solutions to the Synoptic Problem, and 2. Heavy reliance on the Patristic evidence of authorship. Firstly, the documentary explanations of the Synoptic Problem must be dismissed because if the Gospels were based on earlier documents, they must perforce be later documents. Secondly, from acceptance of the Patristic evidence of authorship, Wenham can infer a very early date for each of the Synoptics. The book makes interesting reading, but it fails to carry the day in establishing such an early date for the Synoptic Gospels. One caveat: If you can't read Greek, the first half of the book will be rough sailing, as it analyzes many gospel pericopes in Greek. With a little patience you can, however, muddle your way through it.
Rating: 
Summary: A good alternative to the "Q" hypothesis.
Review: Wenham's work is, as noted above, thoroughly documented, researched and conducted. And I would go further than the earlier review. If you don't have a working knowledge of Greek, this will probably be too painful for you. However, I would say it rewards careful reading of the one willing to examine the issue without buying into the current dogmas of NT scholarship. I did not find him uncritically assuming his own evidence true, rather in several places I recall him saying he would not dogmatically assert either way. The point is to him much of the evidence can be used to support whatever theory one wishes to contrive. "Q" can be made to look reasonable to many, as can Markan priority, if we don't examine the facts behind WHY these works were written. As to counting Patristic evidence, one could say NT scholarship today dogmatically REJECTS Patristic evidence whenever it doesn't fit their hypothesis. Who's to say that scholars sitting in their offices 2000 years removed automatically have a better concept of the events than 2nd & 3rd century scholars? Am I attacking all NT scholarship? No. But I think it is fair to give the author a reasonable hearing. And I think, after a reasonable hearing, it is not unreasonable to see at least Matthew and Mark written before AD55, and see some measure of MUTUAL dependance between the Gospels. Neither of these would be fashionable in many NT circles today. But that doesn't mean they are not real possiblities.
<< 1 >>
| 
