Robert H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001). 302 pp. ISBN: 0-8010-2258-4. Paperback. $30.00

Studying the Synoptic Gospels is an introduction to the study of source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism of the Gospels. It is not intended to be a primer on exegesis or general hermeneutics of the Gospels, but to address the composition of the Synoptics and their respective theologies.

Robert Stein is a senior professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has written extensively on the Gospels and hermeneutics, including A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), Gospels and Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), and commentaries on Luke (NAC; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993) and Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).

Overview

Stein’s book—written “as an introduction and a work manual” (13)—is comprised of three major divisions: (1) The Literary Relationship of the Synoptic Gospels, (2) The Preliterary History of the Gospel Traditions, and (3) The Inscripturation of the Gospel Traditions. The first section is nearly half of the book’s length and deals with literary or source criticism; it seeks to answer the questions posed by the Synoptic Problem. What is the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Which Gospel was written first? Which Gospels are dependent upon other Gospels? Et cetera. Ultimately, he argues that there is interdependence within the gospel tradition (chapter 1), that Mark was written first (chapter 2), and that Matthew and Luke independently used Q (chapter 3). Stein acknowledges some problems with this paradigm (chapter 4), but settles on the two-source theory as being the best the solution to the Synoptic Problem (chapter 5). In the sixth chapter, he discusses the value of source criticism and its relation to historical criticism, redaction criticism, and hermeneutics in general.

The second major division primarily deals with form criticism. Stein first addresses the rise and presuppositions of form criticism (chapter 7); then he tackles the general reliability of the transmission of oral traditions (chapter 8), before looking at the value of form criticism.

The third and final section covers redaction criticism. Here the author elaborates on the rise of redaction criticism (chapter 10), its method and practice (chapter 11), and its value (chapter 13).

Stein addresses the order in which one should perform source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism, but notes that this order is not rigidly defined because they all interrelate at different points (243-244).

Format

There are a number of factors that make Stein’s work very helpful for the student. The back of the book contains a glossary with over forty frequently used terms such as ipsissima verba, pericope and Urevangelium. But the glossary plays only a minor role. There are also many figures and charts. The charts put the synoptic parallels in a helpful line-by-line juxtaposition, which makes it easier to compare the texts. Not only do the charts exist for visual aid, but they are intended to be used as an exercise for the students to do hands-on work with the parallel passages following Stein’s color-coded methodology (29-30). The table of contents is also neatly formatted, outlining both major and minor sections for reference. Additionally, at the end of nearly every chapter is a conclusion or summary of the discussion designed to solidify the material.

Assessment

One aspect of this book that can be viewed both positively and negatively is that it is based on an English translation and not the Greek text of the Gospels. The obvious advantage is that is accessible to a larger audience, and so students untrained in Greek can utilize this as a textbook. The parallel passages are fairly easy to compare in English, since Stein uses the Revised Standard Version. It was a smart move on Stein’s part to retain the RSV instead of opting for popular updated versions such as the NIV and NRSV, which are less literal and thus less appropriate for synoptic comparisons. Yet how useful is such a book like this to people who have not studied Greek? Obviously one cannot truly engage in something like redaction criticism without a good grasp of the Greek text, even though Stein does refer to Greek words here or there when he deems it necessary. Nevertheless, I think that the English text is appropriate because Stein is not seeking to train redaction critics, but to get students’ feet wet in these critical disciplines. Ultimately, the English text helps the reader to move through the book quickly so that he or she sees the big picture. After one reads Stein’s book and is interested in the various disciplines of Gospel study they can find more advanced books elsewhere. After all, this book is merely an introduction.

There are several Synoptic Problem theories that the author does not address. Of course, since Stein did not intend to write a thorough history of the Synoptic Problem, references to the countless solutions would have only bogged down the reader. He does give a detailed analysis of the Griesbach hypothesis and the two-source hypothesis (to which he subscribes). However, more interaction with the Farrer theory would have been welcomed. Stein also writes in a non-technical manner and includes a healthy dose of redundancy, both of which contribute to accessibility of the work.

Stein approaches Studying the Synoptic Gospels pragmatically. He does not get tangled up with theory so much that he loses touch with real-world matters. Along this vein, he also questions the limits to which some have taken Q: “In light of the hypothetical nature of the Q source, the wisdom of various attempts to do redaction-critical work on the theology of the Q document or on the Q community must be questioned” (121). He acknowledges that it is “impossible to know what was going through the mind of Luke when he wrote and why he might have omitted this or that account from his Gospel” (112). He similarly states: “We can never reconstruct with certainty the mental activity of the Evangelist when he wrote his Gospel” (147). This is an important point since so much of source criticism is based on the intentions of the Gospel writers, especially Matthew and Luke.

In the end, the book stands out as a fine introduction to such matters. It is organized in a way that makes it easier on the student to follow the argument despite there being some difficult concepts to grasp. Stein encourages the students and reminds them of the importance of such pursuits with quotes like the following: “Thus for many scholars, especially in the nineteenth century, the solution to the Synoptic Problem was a prerequisite for a proper study of the life of Jesus” (154). So, for those looking at a basic introduction to the Synoptics, this work is one of the best options available.

So who was the first redaction critic? Normally, I would have pointed to Günther Bornkamm, Hans Conzelmann, or Willi Marxsen who are generally credited as the founders of redaction criticism. However, Norman Perrin argues that R. H. Lightfoot was really the first to use the tools of redaction some twenty years before the Germans. This came as a little bit of a surprise, but then again, I haven’t read much of R. H. Lightfoot except for his commentary on John. The actual term redaction criticism (German: Redaktionsgeschichte) was coined by Marxsen, but according to Perrin the methodology described by Lightfoot was redaction criticism.

Lightfoot stands all by himself as a pioneering scholar who understood what form criticism had to offer and took it and used it; in so doing he actually reached a new frontier beyond that reached by Dibelius and Bultmann. Although he does not use the term, Lightfoot was actually the first redaction critic…. (Perrin, 21-22)

In the first two Bampton Lectures Lightfoot reviews critical work on the synoptic Gospels, with special reference to Wrede and Wellhausen, and, relying mainly on Dibelius, presents the main tenets of Formgeschichte (Lightfoot does not use “form criticism” but retains the German term) as they would apply to the Gospel of Mark. It is the third lecture that is most interesting in our particular context because here Lightfoot attempts “to examine the doctrine set forth in this gospel (Mark)” in light of the discipline of form criticism and finds “interpretation continually present in a book most of us were taught to regard as almost exclusively historical.”³⁴ To all intents and purposes, this lecture is an exercise in redaction criticism. For example, Lightfoot argues that the introduction to the Gospel (1:1-13) reveals the evangelist’s theological purposes and that the presentation of John the Baptist—designed as it is by the evangelist to explain who Jesus is—has a christological purpose. This latter point was to be a major emphasis in the work of Marxsen twenty years later!

But the fourth lecture also exhibits the kind of concerns that are prevalent today because in it Lightfoot explains “the content and structure of the gospel of St. Mark”; however, he does this “in the light of its main purpose,” which purpose is clearly to be recognized as theological: “We have found reason to believe that, rightly regarded it [Mark's Gospel] may be called the book of the (secret) Messiahship of Jesus.”³⁵ Over and over again narrative features of the Gospel, or aspects of the arrangement of the material, or evident selection of transitional material is explained in terms of the evangelist’s theological purpose just as they would be by a redaction critic today. All in all, History and Interpretation in the Gospels can be read with as much profit today as it could have been at the time of its first publication; indeed, it can be read with more profit now because the discussion has at last caught up with Lightfoot, and is concerned with the same problems and issues that concerned him twenty years ago, and is using the same methodology to approach them! (Perrin, 23-24)

³⁴Lightfoot, History and Interpretation, p. 57.

³⁴Ibid., p. 98.

• Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969).

As I mentioned before, I haven’t read much of R. H. Lightfoot, so I hope to at least look at his History and Interpretation. Scholars after Perrin have reevaluated Lightfoot’s contribution in History and Interpretation, although I wasn’t able to access online any of the essays listed in ATLA. At least I found the abstract to the following essay by Powley very interesting since it disagrees with Perrin’s analysis:

Brian G. Powley, “The place of R H Lightfoot in British New Testament scholarship,” Expository Times 93.3 (1981): 72-75.

The article disputes Perrin’s assessment of R H Lightfoot as a strikingly original writer, a redaction critic before his time. In fact, History and Interpretation in the Gospel borrows heavily from Dibelius. Lightfoot’s true importance is that, alone among British scholars of his generation, he understood that the gospels are “presentations of a revelation”. They are narratives into which a theological interpretation has been absorbed. But as late as the 1950s it was still the prevailing view in Britain that the gospels are primarily historical documents. Only in the 1960s was Lightfoot vindicated, not least in the work of some of his own pupils.

Samuel Byrskog has written a helpful survey of how the term Sitz im Leben is used in gospel studies, but he also offers his own definition of the term in relation to the Jesus tradition:

Is there a future for the Sitz im Leben? Is it possible to maintain a feasible minimum definition of what it stands for and use it as a heuristic label for the study of tradition and the formation of early Christian groups and their identities? This is difficult to say. In conclusion, I propose we think of it as that recurrent type of mnemonic occasion within the life of early Christian communities when certain people cared about the Jesus tradition in a special way and performed and narrated it orally and in writing. This is, to be sure, a tentative definition in need of further reflection and testing. It seeks to synthesize the various tendencies of earlier research, while at the same time avoiding the impasses of its previous use. (20; italics original)

He unpacks the definition a little more in the last seven pages or so of his article, which I recommend to anyone interested in the term.

• Byrskog, Samuel. “A Century with the Sitz im Leben: From Form-Critical Setting to Gospel Community and Beyond.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 98.1 (2007): 1-27.