This groundbreaking study poses a solution to what one scholar has called "one of the most difficult research problems in the history of ideas"—the Synoptic problem. The phenomenon and mystery of three similar but different Synoptic Gospels has for centuries challenged some of the best minds of academia and the church. How can we explain the differences and similarities among Matthew, Mark and Luke? Which Gospel was written first? To what extent did the Evangelists depend on oral tradition, written sources or each other? John Wenham courageously opposes the reigning two-document theory-that Mark was the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke independently using Mark and a lost source of sayings of Jesus labeled Q. Through careful argument and analysis, he seeks to defend an alternative theory that satisfactorily accounts for what he argues is some degree of structural dependence but nevertheless a surprising degree of verbal independence among the Synoptics. This brave new revisioning of the writing of the Synoptics redates Matthew, Mark and Luke prior to A.D. 55. Insightful and provocative, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke offers a fresh look at a hard problem as well as an interesting perspective on the inner workings of the early church. It is a book to be reckoned with—and sure to stir up scholarly controversy.

This groundbreaking study poses a solution to what one scholar has called "one of the most difficult research problems in the history of ideas"—the Synoptic problem. The phenomenon and mystery of three similar but different Synoptic Gospels has for centuries challenged some of the best minds of academia and the church. How can we explain the differences and similarities among Matthew, Mark and Luke? Which Gospel was written first? To what extent did the Evangelists depend on oral tradition, written sources or each other? John Wenham courageously opposes the reigning two-document theory-that Mark was the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke independently using Mark and a lost source of sayings of Jesus labeled Q. Through careful argument and analysis, he seeks to defend an alternative theory that satisfactorily accounts for what he argues is some degree of structural dependence but nevertheless a surprising degree of verbal independence among the Synoptics. This brave new revisioning of the writing of the Synoptics redates Matthew, Mark and Luke prior to A.D. 55. Insightful and provocative, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke offers a fresh look at a hard problem as well as an interesting perspective on the inner workings of the early church. It is a book to be reckoned with—and sure to stir up scholarly controversy.

On the basis that the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the New Testament writings as a past fact, Dr. Robinson defends that the books of the New Testament were written before A.D. 70....contradicting, of course, the consensus of generations of Bible scholars.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul takes you on a journey through the Synoptic Gospels and the Epistles providing a new solution to a literary puzzle that has vexed biblical scholars for over two-hundred years--The Synoptic Problem. When the Synoptic evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke sat down to write their gospels did they have copies of some of the epistles? This book examines the Synoptic Gospels, Hebrews, and Paul's Epistles finding many intriguing similarities, suggesting that the Synoptic evangelists used extensive parts of the epistles to weave into their stories of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. David Oliver Smith then compares these epistle-based passages to the theoretical lost gospel Q and finds that a large portion of what many New Testament scholars consider to be contained in Q may have its inspiration in the Epistles.

Offers a fresh reading of the much-debated Synoptic Problem.