Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem tackles the question of literary relationship between the New Testament synoptic gospels by way of rhetorical theory and criticism. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are portrayed as competing rhetorical narratives about the life of Jesus, with the Farrier-Goulder hypothesis the best working solution.

Only recently have studies of the synoptic problem begun to ground their assessments of literary dependence in ancient literary conventions. In an effort to appreciate more fully the evangelists' modus operandi, this study examines their appeal to Greco-Roman rhetoric, the "science of speaking well". Focusing on a rhetorical form called the chreia, the book examines rhetorical techniques and reasons for chreia adaptation, particularly reasons why authors changed this form, both in theory and in the practice of the Hellenistic authors Plutarch and Josephus. With these reasons in mind, the study assesses literary dependence among the synoptic gospels, examining in detail a Triple Tradition and Double Tradition _chreia_. In the end, this work illustrates that hypotheses of Markan priority, like the Farrer Hypothesis and Two-Document Hypothesis, are more rhetorically plausible than hypotheses of Matthean priority. While Matthew and Luke's adaptations of Mark tend to reflect the rhetorical reasoning that we should expect, Mark's reasoning is often problematic, for Mark repeatedly works against the fundamental rhetorical principles of clarity and propriety.

Only recently have studies of the synoptic problem begun to ground their assessments of literary dependence in ancient conventions. In an effort to appreciate more fully the evangelists' modus operandi, our study examines their appeal to Greco-Roman rhetoric, the "science of speaking well." Focusing on a rhetorical form called the chreia ( cr3i&d12; a ), we examine rhetorical techniques and reasons for chreia adaptation, particularly reasons why authors changed this form in theory and in the practice of the Hellenistic authors Plutarch and Josephus. With these reasons in mind, we assess literary dependence among the synoptic gospels, focusing on one chreia in the Triple Tradition (Matt. 9:14--17/Mark 2:18--22/Luke 5:33--39) and another in the Double Tradition (Matt. 12:22--37/Mark 3:20--35/Luke 11:14--36). Our study illustrates that hypotheses of Markan priority, like the Farrer Hypothesis and Two-Document Hypothesis, are more rhetorically plausible than hypotheses of Matthean priority. While Matthew and Luke's adaptations of Mark reflect the rhetorical reasoning that we should expect, Mark's reasoning is often problematic, for Mark repeatedly works against the fundamental rhetorical principles of clarity and propriety.

This thesis compares the relative plausibility of three contemporary Synoptic Gospel source critical hypotheses: the Two-Gospel Hypothesis (2GH), the Two-Document Hypothesis (2DH), and the Farrer Hypothesis (FH). The plausibility of each hypothesis is evaluated by the extent to which the implied redaction of miracle tradition is consistent with: (a) the evangelist's synchronically detected apologetic aims; (b) the generic conventions of ancient biography; and (c) first century narrative rhetorical conventions based on the elements and virtues of narrative in Theon's Progymnasmata. The method is first demonstrated for two authors approximately contemporary with the Gospel writers, namely Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews) and Plutarch (Lives). Their narrative re-presentation of known source material at both a macro-level (order and selection) and micro-level (adaptation of specific narratives) is shown to be influenced by their apologetic aims, generic conventions, and the elements and virtues of narrative. Subsequent macro-analysis (order and selection) of Gospel miracle traditions indicates that implied changes are more plausibly explained by Markan priority (2DH and FH) than Markan posteriority (2GH). While the 2DH and FH display similar degrees of plausibility, the lack of evidence for Luke's direct use of Matthew slightly favors the 2DH. The situation is similar for a micro-analysis of three pericopes, namely the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5:1-20; Matt 8:28-9:1; Luke 8:26-39), Jairus' daughter and the hemorrhaging woman (Mark 5:21-43; Matt 9:18-26; Luke 8:40-56), and the Centurion's servant (Matt 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10). While the evidence is mixed, it cumulatively indicates that Markan priority (2DH and FH) more plausibly explains the implied redaction than does Markan posteriority (2GH). Micro-analysis yields insufficient evidence to suggest significantly greater or lesser plausibility of the 2DH or FH in relation to one another. In essence this study reinforces the methodological value of utilizing ancient literary and rhetorical conventions in evaluating the relative plausibility of the implied redaction associated with specific Synoptic source hypotheses. More specifically the cumulative evidence from the present analysis of Gospel miracle traditions suggests the greater plausibility of Markan priority (2DH and FH) than Markan posteriority (2GH).

Young and Strickland analyze the four largest discourses of Jesus in Mark in the context of Greco-Roman rhetoric in an attempt to hear them as a first-century audience would have heard them. The authors demonstrate that, contrary to what some historical critics have suggested, first-century audiences of Mark would have found the discourses of Jesus unified, well-integrated, and persuasive. They also show how these speeches of the Markan Jesus contribute to Mark‘s overall narrative accomplishments.

Leading Scholars Debate a Key New Testament Topic The relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is one of the most contested topics in Gospel studies. How do we account for the close similarities--and differences--in the Synoptic Gospels? In the last few decades, the standard answers to the typical questions regarding the Synoptic Problem have come under fire, while new approaches have surfaced. This up-to-date introduction articulates and debates the four major views. Following an overview of the issues, leading proponents of each view set forth their positions and respond to each of the other views. A concluding chapter summarizes the discussion and charts a direction for further study.