Monday, August 13, 2012

The Intertestamental Period


Introduction
            When reading through the Bible have you noticed the section called the Intertestamental Period? Neither have I, but it is there between the books of Malachi and Matthew. This time is often referred to as the “silent years” because there was no prophetic voice; however this time was anything but quiet.[1] This time would encompass the prophecies of Daniel and the different nations that would come to rule over the people of Israel. Throughout this paper two terms may be used interchangeably, they are Intertestamental period and Second Temple period.
            During this time there is some debate about how the periods should be divided. For the purpose of this paper we will not be looking at the Babylonian Period or the Persian rule. We will be focusing on several periods in particular, they are: the Greek, Ptolemaic, Seleucid or Syrian, Self rule and Roman/Herodian. By better understanding these periods we can have a clearer picture of the religious and political landscape Jesus entered into.
The Greek Period
            This period of history kicks into full gear after the death of Phillip of Macedon. After his death his twenty year old son Alexander III (the Great), took up his mantle to Hellenize the entire world. Most scholars make it a point to mention that Alexander trained under Aristotle and had the finest education a man of his time could have. “Alexander inherited from Phillip an aggressive attitude and a keen military skill: his education provided him with a deep appreciation for Hellenistic ideals, and his military training gave him the courage and skills to conquer the empire before him.”[2]  This empire also consisted of a great number of Jews that spread across the entire kingdom. David Dockery gives a great overview of how Jewish life was impacting the empire that Alexander was taking control of. Dockery says,
At the time of Alexander’s rise to power, the Jews were living under the rule of the Persian Empire. Aramaic had become the common language in Palestine. The dispersion of the Jews had already begun. There were significant populations of Jews not only in Babylon and Egypt but also in the major cities of the Mediterranean world also. The numbers of Jews in these cities increased significantly during the period between the Testaments.[3]
Alexander had a great military mind; he would defeat Asia Minor, Phoenicia, Palestine, Egypt, Babylonia, Tyre and Gaza. With all of his conquest, Alexander would achieve what his major goal was, to Hellenize his entire empire. And with that hellenization “Koine Greek became the common language of the eastern Mediterranean. Koine means common or profane. It was not refined, classical Greek but Greek as learned and spoken by those who were not native Greeks. Koine Greek later became the language of the New Testament.”[4] There is a small discrepancy on whether or not Alexander was 32 or 33 when he actually died. Köstenberger points out that after Alexander had conquered as far as the Indus River he returned to Persia, where he would catch a fever and die at the age of 33, and it only took him 13 years to conquer his empire.[5] Gaebelein points out that after Alexander’s death his “empire was divided into more than twenty satrapies”[6], and would eventually be divided among his generals called the diadochi. The land would be divided with Ptolemy I Soter taking control of Egypt; the Seleucids had Syria; Lysimachus controlled Asia Minor; Cassander ruled Greece. Palestine first came under the jurisdiction of the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy in about 320 BC.[7]
The Ptolemaic Period
            This period is one of the shorter mentioned, but it still has some very important implications for the Jewish people. Dockery informs us of some of the foundations laid in Palestine under the Ptolemies,
 Palestine experienced a century of relatively peaceful development. Political independence, self-sufficiency, prominence, and leadership were the dominant motives for the political conduct of the successors. They sought the greatest measure of economic self-sufficiency as a basis for political independence. They established economic and social patterns that continued into the New Testament period. The parables of Jesus—with their large landowners, tenants, stewards, money lenders, day laborers, tax collectors, grain speculation, and land leasing—must be understood against the background of the economic structures developed by the Ptolemies.[8]
Ptolemy wanted to regain control over Palestine, after losing it to Antigonus in 311 B.C. which gave full control of Asia Minor to him. According to Gaebelien,
In 301 B.C., however, Antigonus was was killed in a decisive battle as Ipsus in Phrygia….Ptolemy had not taken part in the battle; so it was decided to give it to Seleucus, but Ptolemy forestalled Seleucus and took possession of Lower Syria, Palestine, and Phoenicia south of the River Eleutherus. This caused a lasting contention between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic houses.[9]
To show the complete hatred the Seleucids and Ptolmies had for one another comes from the fact that they had no less than four major wars against each other. The Seleucids would finally gain control over Palestine in 198 until 63 B.C. when the Romans gained control.[10] One other very interesting point about the Ptolemies, is that every ruler in Egypt up until around 30 AD used the name “Ptolemy” regardless of their actual descent.[11] While the Jews may have experienced some peace under the Ptolemaic rule all that would change when the Seleucids take control of the region.
The Seleucid or Syrian Period
It would be during this time period that one of the most notorious rulers would emerge Antiochus IV. Long before he would assume control of the Syrian kingdom, he would be sent to Rome as a hostage, as part of a treaty. While he was being held hostage “Antiochus III was succeeded by his second son Seleucus IV Philopator in 187 B.C. He attempted unsuccessfully to rob the temple via his chief minister Heliodorus (2 Macc 3:7; cf also Dan 11:20).”[12] Not long after the murder of his brother Antiochus IV was released by the Romans and he went to seek help from the Pergamon king killed Helidorus and assumed control of the Syrian kingdom.
“Antiochus was marked by his exile. In Rome he had recognized the power of Roman authority. He never opposed Rome. In Athens he had drunk deeply of the spirit of Hellenism. He supported the Greek cults and games and became a proponent of Hellenistic culture. He was also unpredictable, however, and had little knowledge of or respect for Jewish beliefs.”[13] He became so enamoured with Greek culture that he encouraged people to worship him as the bodily form of the God Zeus; he would even give himself the name Epiphanes, meaning, “the manifest god”, his enemies would start to call him “Epimanes” or “madman”.[14] Antiochus had set his sights on ruling Egypt, expecting little fight from the Ptolemies, but that is not what he got. According to Brand, “He was proclaimed king of Egypt, but when he returned the following year to take control of the land, the Romans confronted him and told him to leave Egypt. Knowing the power of Rome, he returned home.” [15] 
You may be asking yourself what made this man so horrible, according to the Jews, a lot of things. He started by instituting a ban on possessing the Torah, allowing circumcision, the festivals, and even offerings to Yahweh. That is not all however he would go even farther by erecting a statue of Zeus in the temple and then sacrificing a pig on the altar.[16]  He would commit further atrocities by crucifying mothers with their newly circumcised children hanging around their necks.[17] The last straw came in 166 B.C. when Antiochus ordered that each village was to erect a heathen altar and demanded that heathen sacrifices be made.[18]
The Period of Self-Rule
After the demands were made that heathen sacrifices were to be made one priest could take no more and refused to follow orders. This old priest was a man named Mattathias, he refused to do the sacrifice and when another Jew offered to do it he murdered him and the man who gave the order. This would be the first strike in what would become known as the Maccabean  Revolt.  Mattathias tore down the altar and fled with his five sons (John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Johnathan. These men would find great support from a group of extremely pious Jews known as the Hasidim. “The Hasidim made up the major part of his army. These men were devoutly committed to religious freedom. They were dedicated to obedience to the law and to the worship of God.[19] While everything may have started with Mattathias, it would be his middle son Judas (often called Maccabeus meaning “hammerlike”)[20]that would take the forefront and lead his people from guerilla warfare to well planned battles.[21] In just under three years Judas’ military might lead him to recapture Jerusalem. Gabelein says that,
Judas had regained the entire country. He marched on Jerusalem an occupied all of it accept the Acra. He restored the temple, selected priest who had remained faithful, destroyed the altar of the Olympian Zeus, and built a new one. Exactly three years after its desecration (on Chislev 25), the temple with its altar was rededicated and the daily sacrifices began (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8). This marked the beginning of the Jewish Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hebrew Hanukkah).[22]

With the confidence Judas had gained from previous victories he sought to have more land and power. At the onset he did not face much opposition because Antiochus IV had already died. After Lysias learned that Philip was on his way to try and take the kingdom he eagerly made peace with Judas, and this marked the beginning of the Jews gaining their freedom. “In 161 B.C. Judas led his dwindling forces against a vastly superior Syrian army and was killed in battle.” [23]
After the death of Judas, his younger brother Jonathan took control of the nation. According to Evans, “Jonathan achieved more by diplomacy than by warfare, cooperating with Alexander Balas and fostering alliances with Rome and allegedly even with Sparta.”[24] While a casual reading of that statement may not mean much Dockery opens it up even more with this explanation,
In 152 B.C. Alexander Balas, who was contending with Demetrius I for the Syrian throne, appointed Jonathan as high priest. This appointment of one of the Maccabee brothers, who were from a priestly family but were not descendants of Zadok, to the office of high priest by one of the descendants of Antiochus Epiphanes is surely one of the ironies of history. It shows, however, how the high priesthood had been increasingly politicized in the intervening years. By this means Jonathan became the political, religious, and military leader of the Jews and an appointee of the Seleucid Empire.[25]
Jonathan would eventually be killed by Tryphon out of fear of his success in the nation. After the murder of Jonathan, Simon would be the last of Judas’ brothers who would assume control of the nation as high priest. According to some he is known as the first Hasmonean ruler while for others his son John Hyrcanus I is the first. During his rule Simon would align himself with Demetrius II with the condition that Judea was completely free. “Since Demetrius no longer controlled the southern parts of the Syrian empire, he gave Simon complete exemption from past and future taxation (142 B.C.). The yoke of the Gentiles over Israel had been removed for the first time since the Babylonian captivity….”[26] While Simon was the one who finally brought freedom to the nation of Israel he would face as similar fate as the rest of his brothers; he would die a violent death; except his was at the hands of his son-in-law.[27]
After the death of Simon his son John Hyrcanus I assumed his role as high priest and chief civil leader. Not long after he assumed control the Syrian empire exerted control over Judea, and Hyrcanus would work out a treaty that would allow Jerusalem to be left without a garrison within its limits.[28] Once Hyrcanus was settled he began to expand his borders, he conquered Medeba in Transjordan, then Shechem and Mt Gerizim, he would destroy the Samaritan temple.[29]
Following Hyrcanus’ rule things became more volatile even amongst family members to the point that they were murdering and mutilating one another to get the position that they wanted.
The Roman and Herodian Period
Once Pompey came in and lead Aristobulus away this was the mark that the seventy-nine years of self rule had come to an end; and the Romans were now in charge. Even though Hyrcanus II had been reinstated as high priest he had become nothing more than a puppet king, controlled by Antipater. “Shortly before he was poisoned to death in 43 B.C., Antipater appointed his sons as governors: Phasel, governor of Judea; and Herod, governor of Galilee.”[30]
Herod was a very feared man and for good reason, he would kill anyone he felt would try and betray him. He was so psychotic that he had his own family murdered. In knowing this it makes it much easier to see how he could have issued a decree that all newborn males under the age of two be murdered. One thing that may be found surprising is that, “Herod proved himself an efficient administrator on behalf of Rome. He kept the peace among a people who were hard to rule. To be sure, he was a cruel and merciless man. Yet he was generous, using his own funds to feed the people during a time of famine. He never got over the execution of Mariamne, the wife he loved above all others. His grief led to mental and emotional problems.[31]  Herod  was also a master architect, “about 24 B.C. Herod built a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and Gentile temples, including the rebuilding of Straton’s Tower, renamed Caesarea. His greatest building was the temple in Jerusalem, begun c. 20 B.C….”[32] It should also be noted that the temple was finished in 64 AD before its final destruction in 70AD when Rome destroyed the city.
Conclusion
As you can see while this period of time may have had no prophets to speak for the Lord there was a group of men who would sit down quietly and allow their God to be made a mockery of. This period is full of political and religious turmoil that lead up to and even continued through the times of Jesus Christ himself. So while it may not be found in Scripture expressly, this period of history plays a very important role in the beginning of Christianity. Because had none of these things happened Israel may have never been awaiting their messiah so anxiously as they were. We have seen what greed and jealousy can do to a nation and to individual men. We have also seen what a small group of men who stick to their convictions is capable of accomplishing. It is my hope that this essay has blessed you and allowed you to better understand the religious and political climate of Palestine some 2,000 years ago.



Bibliography

Dockery, David S., Trent C. Butler, Christopher L. Church et al. Holman Bible Handbook. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992.
Evans, Craig A., and Stanley E. Porter. Dictionary of the New Testament Background. Downers Grove: IVP, 200.
Gaebelien, Frank E., ed. The Expositor's Bible Commentary-General OT & NT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
 Ironside, H. A. The Four Hundred Silent Years (from Malachi to Matthew). New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1914.
Kostenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles. The Craddle, The Cross, and the Crown. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009.


[1] Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles. (The Craddle, The Cross, and the Crown. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009) 59.

[2] Ibid., 65-66.
[3] David S. Dockery, Trent C. Butler, Christopher L. Church et al., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 505.
[4] Ibid., 505.
[5] Köstenberger, The Cradle, 66.
[6] Frank E.Gaebelien ed., (The Expositor's Bible Commentary-General OT & NT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979)181.
[7] Kostenberger, The Cradle, 67..
[8] David, Holman Bible, 506.
[9] Gaebelein, Expositors, 181.
[10] Ibid., 183.
[11] Kostenberger, The Cradle, 67.
[12] Gaeblein, Expositor’s, 183.
[13] Dockery, Holman), 507.
[14] Gaeblein, Expositor’s, 183.
[15] Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 830.
[16] Kostenberger, The Cradle, 69.
[17] Ibid., 70.
[18] Gabelein, Expositor’s, 184.
[19] Holman Brand, 830-31.
[20] Craig A.Evans, and Stanley E. Porter. (Dictionary of the New Testament Background. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000) 439.
[21] Gabelein, Expositor’s, 185.
[22] Ibid., 185.
[23] Dockery, Holman, 508.
[24] Evans, Dictionary,440.
[25] Dockery, Holman, 508.
[26] Gabelein, Expositor’s, 186.
[27] Evans, Dictionary, 440.
[28] Ibid., 440.
[29] Gabelein, Expositor’s, 187.
[30] Dockery, Holman, 513.
[31] Holman,Brand, 833.
[32] Gabelein, Expositor’s,191.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Reformation Soteriology


After reading Enns' section on "Reformation Soteriology," critique and evaluate his assessment of Calvinism (Reformed) and Arminianism on the select topics of atonement and faith and works (Enns, ch. 30).  Would your church denomination be in agreement with the Reformed or Arminian or some modified position?

            I have been a follower of Christ for ten years and for the last eight I have been a member of a PCA church which is a Reformed denomination. So this topic is very intriguing to me. So this would have me lean a bit more towards the reformed side of each of these topics. There is much truth to be understood when Enns says, “The Reformers taught Christ died to satisfy the justice of God. This work of Christ can be appropriated only by faith, which unites the believer to Christ; the believer thereby has Christ righteousness imputed to him.” (Enns 2008, 477) There is one area that has been a struggle for me, and it has to do due with election and predestination. Since Calvin taught that Christ died only for the elect what do we do with the verses that speak of Christ dying for all (1 Cor. 15:22) and others along those lines?
            It looks as though the Arminian view believes that Christ did not take on the punishment of the world due to sinners but God still forgives sinners because of Christ death. (Enns 2008, 478) So if by Christ being God did not take on the punishment of men in order to be reconciled then why does Paul tell us the punishment for sin is death (Rom. 6:23)? This view also denies that Christ is a full substitute for our penalty. This is outrageous to me, when again in 1 Corinthians Paul draws the parallels between the price Adam paid and the price Christ paid.
            For me the reformed view on faith and works is dear to my heart. Once it is understood that no matter what we do outside of Christ is of no good, meaning it cannot earn our salvation. It frees us up to live lives glorifying to God once we are inside of Christ. Our works do not save us but instead show the love of Christ and the process of our sanctification working itself out in our lives. We are unable to deny the call of God on our lives. However, the Arminian view believes that we can resist the work of the Spirit calling us to God, and eventually losing our salvation. (Enns 2008, 480) Doesn’t this contradict when Christ says that those the father have given to me shall not be plucked from his hand (Jn 10:29). 


Bibliography
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008.

Monday, July 16, 2012

The Synoptic Problem an Overview


Introduction
            So how long have you been a Christian? Depending on how you answer that question will determine how you might answer the next set of questions. How much have you read your Bible?  When reading through the New Testament did you struggle with reading the first three gospel accounts of Jesus’ life? If so it’s okay, and you are not alone. The first three gospels are commonly referred to as the Synoptic Gospels. Now I know your staring at me going “synoptic, what in the world does that mean?” “The term synoptic comes from the Greek word sunoptikos, “to see things together,” and characterizes the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are studied together because their view of the life of Christ is considered sufficiently similar.”[1]  
Similarities between the Gospels
            Once we acknowledge that these gospels contain a generous amount of similarities we have to ask ourselves, “Did these authors know of each others work? And if so who borrowed from whom?” This is generally referred to as the synoptic problem. Joel Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall in their work, The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, list four common areas that these gospels are generally in agreement. Those areas are similarity in wording, similarity in order, similarity in parenthetical material, and similarity in biblical quotations.[2] When looking at the different categories of similarities, scholars generally prefer to reference the original Greek material as a way to perform a baseline comparison. I would like to take a moment to quickly discuss each group of similarities, starting with the similarities in wording. Green points out that you can easily see the similarities when you compare a group of selected verses found on page 784.  Köstenberger points out, “The similarity in wording is sufficiently close to suggest the possibility of a literary relationship, that is, that one or more of the Gospel writers was familiar with one or more of the other Gospels.”[3]
            In looking at the similarities in order Köstenberger, explains it in this manner,
The Gospels contain numerous periscopes, self-contained units of narrative such as the account of Jesus’ healing of the leper in Mark 1:40-45. Although these periscopes could be arranged in a number of different ways in the individual Gospels—topically, chronologically, or geographically (based on the locations in which they occurred)—the Gospels share a remarkable similarity in the order of the periscopes.[4]

            When we move into the area of similarity in parenthetical material or explanatory material as some call it, we notice that there becomes more of what people may call coincidence. That being said the Greek words being used could have been translated multiple ways. Köstenberger argues for some sort of literary dependence between the authors because, “… Jesus’ original Aramaic words could have been translated into Greek in a number of different ways and thus not yielded the frequent verbatim agreements that exist between the Gospels.”[5]
            The last area of recognized similarity is in biblical quotations. When you take the time to examine the Greek manuscripts for each of the gospels and compare them side by side you will notice that their quotations are almost exact. The problem with that is they are not verbatim quotes from the text! Green points out that,
At times we find the exact same form of an OT quotation (see Old Testament in the Gospels). This would not be unusual if that form was identical either with the Hebrew OT or the Greek translation of the OT known as the Septuagint, but when we find an identical quotation of the OT which is different from the Hebrew OT and the Greek OT, this similarity requires some sort of explanation (cf. Mk 1:2 par. Mt 3:3 and Lk 3:4, Mk 7:7 par. Mt 15:9).[6]

While there are numerous amounts of similarities between these gospels as we have noted there are also several differences. When you read the genealogies found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 you may ask yourself, “what is wrong here, is the Bible contradicting itself?” The answer to that question is no it is generally believed that one genealogy follows the line of Joseph and the other Mary.
Proposed Solutions to the Synoptic Problem
            Paul Enns in The Moody Handbook of Theology lays out a short list of six different approaches to the synoptic problem. The first being the oral tradition theory, which believed that the preaching about Jesus was fixed and there were no written forms behind the Synoptic Gospels. The interdependence theory was credited to Griesbach in 1789. In this theory, it is believed the first author had oral tradition and each subsequent writer could use those that came before. The primitive gospel theory was introduced in 1778 by Lessing and it taught that the gospel writers used a primitive source called the Urevangellim, which no longer exists. In 1817 Schleiermacher composed a theory known as the fragmentary theory in which the gospel writers composed their gospels from numerous fragmentary writings about the life of Jesus. Then we have the two-document theory which holds to a Markan priority view (meaning Mark wrote his gospel first and the others copied from him). And along with this view a hypothetical document referred to as “Q” was used to supplement Matthew and Luke’s writings. An even more recent development has been the four-document theory and this theory builds on the two-document theory suggesting that there is special material for Matthew called (M) and special material for Luke called (L).[7]
Two Favored Solutions
            Of all of the theories mentioned above, two are highly favored now in scholastic circles; the Griesbach hypothesis also known as the two-gospel hypothesis or the interdependence theory and the two-document theory. “This hypothesis, which argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written, that Luke used Matthew and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke, was first proposed by H. Owen in 1764.”[8]  This view is not the most popular view in our current society; most scholars within the last hundred years have begun arguing more for the two-document position.
            The problem that arises in my mind is that if Mark were the first one to write his gospel, and the others used him and “Q”, why do we still have Mark’s gospel and no evidence of  “Q”? While Darrel Bock in his article tries to articulate a good argument for “Q” in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, it just did not do a well enough job to convince my logical mind that it was the best option. In dealing with either of these stances, we are dealing with hypothetical situations; however, I tend to think that the two-gospel hypothesis is best suited for me.
Defending the Two-Gospel (Griesbach) Hypothesis
            It is not to say that all things in history are correct or do not need to be changed, but I believe that the early church had a better handle on the gospels than modern scholars wish to give them credit for. According to Green, “…the priority of Mark was unknown in the early church, the priority of Matthew was assumed.”[9] There is argument made that the early church fathers are unreliable in all of their facts. Köstenberger points out, “…early church testimony insists that Mark wrote his Gospel independently of the other Gospels based on the memoirs of Peter (as stated by Papias) and the Luke’s Gospel was the last Gospel to be written, not the second (as stated by Origen, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Augustine).[10]
            However, David A. Black in his work Why Four Gospels?, lays a great ground work for Matthean priority. Even though he argues from what he calls the Four Gospel stance, it is along the same lines of the two-gospel hypothesis; and he argued logically enough for me to think he was closest to right. Black declares “Clement also connects this Gospel of Mark with the two other Synoptic Gospels when he states that it was subsequent to those ‘containing the genealogies.”[11] When arguing on behalf of a particular point we must look at it from all angles, and the proponents of the Markan view often believe that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels independently of the other. How do they explain the agreements against Mark that Matthew and Luke make? The two-gospel hypothesis “…can easily explain the Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark, whereas the two-document hypothesis struggles with how Matthew and Luke can agree independently against their Markan source when they did not know each other, that is did not use the other.”[12] 
            One argument that is often brought up against the two-gospel hypothesis is how do we deal with the Markan redundancies? Most scholars are in agreement that there are around 213 redundancies in the Gospel of Mark. While Köstenberger believes the redundancies are a part of Mark’s writing style[13] Green claims that, “the Griesbach hypothesis suggest that this can be best explained by understanding that Mark tended to act with respect to his sources in the same way as the early scribes and copyists of the NT. When they found two different readings in their sources, they tended to harmonize them by including both.”[14]
            Another common argument that is brought against this view is why would Mark have written his Gospel in such a way as to leave out so much material that is covered by the other Gospel writers?  Black responds to that question decisively by asserting that,
The fundamental flaw in this argument is precisely the baseless assumption that Mark (or Peter) intended to write a Gospel like the other two. Mark is quite a different kind of document. The Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis, in fact, asserts that Mark’s account of the life of Jesus was never intended to be a rival Gospel. Mark is not a book in the sense in which the ancient Greeks and Romans understood the term; it is simply the spoken word directly captured and set down on paper exactly as it was originally uttered.

            Farmer in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem helps to answer the question about our need to have a hypothetical source, when he says, “Only after the investigator has been unable to understand the relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke without appealing to unknown sources is there justification in hypothecating the existence of such sources, in order to explain phenomena otherwise inexplicable.”[15]  Since many modern scholars believe that Mark was the first to write his Gospel, would it have been impossible for Peter to reference works of other Gospel writers?  Since Black like many other Matthean prioritist believe that Mark was merely a scribe of the words of Peter, there is the chance that Peter read from the works of the other Gospel writers while giving his presentations. While it is arguable that a scroll was used Black’s statements do allow you to get a different view than the one that demands a hypothetical source. He states:
It would seem that the Gospel Book hat Luke brought with him to Rome must have been in the normal format of that era, namely, the scroll. Matthew, slightly shorter than Luke, must also originally have been in a scroll format. Peter’s plan was to take the scroll of Luke and compare it with the scroll of Matthew in light of his own eyewitness recollections of the ministry of Jesus….Our Gospel of Mark is therefore the result of the combined effort of Peter and his disciple Mark, who was at Peter’s side as he delivered his lectures and was the person responsible for seeing that a true record was kept of what Peter said. We can also infer that Peter switched between the two scrolls by Matthew and Luke and that he naturally tended to follow the order of whichever scroll he had in his hand.[16]

Conclusion
            While no stance on this topic is perfect and they all have some flaws be willing to take a stance until the proof can cause you to change it. We must also remember that just because someone else may hold to a different view for the solution to the synoptic problem that does not make them a heretic. When dealing with this material we have no room for dogmatism because none of truly has the answer. We are all dealing off of speculation and trying to formulate the best solution possible with the materials we have available. It is my hope that this material has informed you, challenged you and most of all drawn you to look closer to the Word.

Bibliography
Black, David Alan. Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels. Gonzalez: Energion Publications, 2010.
Black, David Alan, David R. Beck, eds. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008.
Gaebelien, Frank E., ed. The Expositor's Bible Commentary-General OT & NT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A., 1992.
Halley, Henry H. Halley's Bible Handbook. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2007.
Kostenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles. The Craddle, The Cross, and the Crown. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009.


[1] Paul Enns, (The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008)81.
[2] Joel B Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A., 1992)784-85.

[3]Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles. (The Craddle, The Cross, and the Crown. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009)160.
[4] Ibid., 161. Also this page contains a great graph showing some of the similarities between the periscopes.
[5] Ibid. 162
[6] Green, Dictionary of Jesus, 785.
[7] Enns, Moody Handbook, 82.
[8] Green, Dictionary of Jesus, 786.
[9] Ibid, 786.
[10] Kostenberger, The Cradle, 166.
[11]David Alan Black, (Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels. Gonzalez: Energion Publications, 2010)31.
[12] Green, Dictionary of Jesus, 786,
[13] Kostenberger, The Cradle, 167.
[14] Green, Dictionary of Jesus, 786.
[15] David Alan Black, David R. Beck, eds. (Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001)109.

[16] Black, Why Four Gospels, 61.