Friday, February 26, 2010

Prayer Request: Warren Family

Tears flowed freely earlier today when I learned that the Lord called home one of his saints serving in Afghanistan.  Lance Warren was a beloved husband and father who loved Jesus Christ.  I will miss his warm smile and gentle spirit.  My family and I are praying for Susan, their children, and their families.  I give praise that my brother in the faith is now in the presence of our Savior!  You will be missed Lance...

Thursday, February 25, 2010

REVIEW: An Old Testament Pattern For Expository Preaching

David C. Deuel. "An Old Testament Pattern For Expository Preaching." The Master's Seminary Journal, Fall 1991: 125-140, http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj2f.pdf (accessed March 28, 2009)

Like his essay in the Spring 1991 edition of The Master’s Seminary Journal, this essay has a target audience of pastors who regularly prepare sermons.  Deuel uses the example set forth by Ezra as the basis for his model of expository preaching.  It is not just Ezra but his example Deuel points to as a model for expositors of all ages.  It is Ezra’s commitment as an expositor that Deuel highlights in this two-part essay.  The first part is THE EXPOSITOR’S COMMITMENT while the second is THE EXPOSITOR’S TASK.
In the first part of his essay, Deuel describes Ezra has having been prepared and commissioned to be the law restorer for the second exodus much like Moses was the law giver of the first exodus.  Ezra was selected by God, in Deuel’s view, because of the commitment to study, practice and teach the law rather than for his administrative skills.  It is this continued focus on the ministry of the Word that earned Ezra such selection rather than his impressive genealogy. 
Ezra was qualified for his mission because of his deep desire to exposit God’s Torah.  We do not have any Biblical record of Ezra’s long hours of study of scripture though it must have begun at an early age.  In addition to constant study, Ezra also lived out the Word daily.  Part of living out the Word was to teach others to do the same.  This is a task that Ezra also had a zeal for.  Deuel argues convincingly that this model, study of the Word, living out the Word, and teaching the Word will prevent many expositional shortcomings.  Deuel also alludes to the fact that the Biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah were once a single volume and should be studied together. 
In the second part of his essay, THE EXPOSITOR’S TASK, Deuel points out the two elements of expository preaching: read the book and exposit the book.  Here the author underlines a problem in many churches to this day which is that many preachers read the scripture as if it is secondary to the sermon that are about to deliver.  Ezra and his assistants worked very hard to make sure the text was understood by the people who had gathered to hear it.  Deuel goes on to argue that Biblical exposition assist the reading process whether the written Word is read individually or corporately as was the case in the Ezra and Nehemiah.  Further, Ezra used citations from the Pentateuch but did not quote the verbatim which Deuel argues is evidence that Ezra reapplied the law to new situations.
We know that Ezra taught large groups but we also see Ezra, much as Jesus did, gathering smaller groups of leaders together and preparing them to assist in the ministry.  The teaching and studying of God’s Word did not stop.  Deuel argues that this is a pattern for us to this day.
It is obvious that Deuel is a strong proponent of expository preaching.  What is also clear is that Deuel is also a strong proponent of being prepared for the ministry and part of that preparation is the study of God’s Word.  Deuel succeeds in making clear that the pattern that men of God should use is one of studying the Word, living the Word, and teaching the Word.  Each builds upon the next and in the reviewer opinion best represented as a circle.
Deuel’s target audience is primarily those called to preach.  As before, his style is academic in nature and the material likely requires more than “Sunday School” knowledge of OT scripture though his choice of language is easily understood by those with an interest in the subject.  Again, as with his earlier work, one must keep in mind that the article was published in a scholarly theological journal whose audience is theologians and students of theology.  It is interesting that this was written at the beginning of the Emerging Church movement which emphasizes a style of preaching that is essentially the opposite of expository.  One can’t help but wonder if that played a role in Deuel’s decision to write such an essay.

Friday, February 19, 2010

The Synoptic Problem: Part 5 Conclusion

Conclusion
While skepticism is necessary I have found most form criticism passes beyond skepticism and borders on a lack of belief in the inspiration of Scripture.  I fail to see the point in proclaiming a Gospel that has no historical validity as it would seem to offer no hope to those who have heard and accepted the free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ.  In fact, it appears that any single critical method alone lends itself to a myopic view of the development of the canonical Gospels and tries to “put God in a box” if you will. 
A number of solutions have come in and out of fashion over the centuries.  Many have been repackaged while different ways of approaching Biblical criticism have developed offering new insights.  Of course, once cannot understate the importance of new discoveries.  The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of Thomas has done much to advance this and other academic discussions about the Bible, Christianity, and God.  I believe those discussions have value and should continue though perhaps with more clarity around what is fact and what is merely hypothesis.
To choose a single solution to the Synoptic Problem almost seems like an academic exercise better left to scholars who have devoted careers to such studies.  Perhaps in time during my studies I will become comfortable with the fact that, in some small way, I am striving to join the ranks of those scholars.  Given that fact, I find that I am most in agreement with the Two Source Hypothesis.  Given the research I have completed, the undeniable relationships of the Synoptic Gospels, and the fact that Luke states he used sources when writing his Gospel, I believe there is a literary dependence present and that the priority of Mark simply makes the most sense.  I do not believe that the Two Source Hypothesis answers all of the questions about the Synoptic Gospels but it is increasingly clear that none of the proposed solutions I have reviewed are without flaws. I also remain unconvinced as to the existence of Q and as a new student am rather surprised that something that has never been seen is held in such high regard.
Perhaps the story of Jesus healing the blind man in John’s Gospel (9:1-41) can put the Synoptic Problem into context.  The blind man didn’t have to understand how Jesus gave him sight for him to know he could see.  It is not always necessary for us to understand everything for us to believe in something.  With the guidance of the Holy Spirit though, I do believe I will continue to study this problem.  It is fascinating!


Monday, February 15, 2010

The Synoptic Problem: Part 4 Solutions to the Synoptic Problem

Solutions to the Synoptic Problem
            There are many solutions offered for the Synoptic Problem.  As stated previously, the parameters of this project do not allow for a fuller treatment of these solutions.  I will review the four most common solutions offered.  I will also discuss the so-called source “Q” that has been proposed to have existed as a source used by the Gospel writers.  In addition, I will also briefly discuss the evidence in support of Markan priority.
Common Dependence on One Original Gospel
            In 1771 G. E. Lessing, a German writer and literary critic, argued that the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels could be explained if the writers independently used one original gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic.  The uses of some sort of “Ur-gospel” was adopted by others and was later modified by J. G. Eichhorn who hypothesized the existence of several lost gospels that were used as sources for the writers of the Synoptic Gospels.  Notable is the fact that no such “Ur-gospel” has yet been discovered.  Carson and Moo state that this position has not met with much favor in the last hundred years[1].
Common Dependence on Oral Sources
            Shortly after Lessing proposed the independent use of a “Ur-gospel” by the Gospel writers, J. G. Herder argued in 1797 the dependence of the Synoptic Gospels on a fixed oral tradition summarizing the life of Christ better fit the available data.  German scholar J. K. L. Gieseler expanded and defended this view at length in 1818.  This view was more popular in the 19th century than it is today though it does continue to be supported by a small number of scholars[2]
Common Dependence on Gradually Written Fragments
            Controversial theologian F. Schleiermacher suggested that several fragments of the gospel tradition were in existence in the early church.  These fragments, Schleiermacher argued, grew until they were incorporated into the Synoptic Gospels.  An important note is that Schleiermacher was the first to argue that Papias’s “logia” refers to one of these fragments as a part of a collection of sayings.  With the discovery of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, we do know that such collections of sayings did exist in antiquity but this thesis is no longer argued in this form[3]
Interdependence
            The last of the four most common solutions to the Synoptic Problem states that two of the Gospel writers used one or more of the Gospels in writing his own.  Interdependence has been urged as the solution to the Synoptic Problem from the early days of the church.  Carson and Moo rightly point out that the view of interdependence commands almost universal assent among contemporary New Testament scholars with good reason[4].  There are numerous theories of interdependence that have been advanced over the years.  Here I will focus on four of them that have received the most attention by scholars. 
            The Augustinian Proposal.  As early as the fourth century, Augustine was proposing that Matthew’s Gospel must have been written first, Mark then summarized Matthew’s Gospel, followed some time later by Luke who used both Matthew and Mark in his Gospel account[5].  This view is not currently in favor with modern scholars with a few notable exceptions[6].  This view was widely held until the late nineteenth century among those who saw a literary relationship among the Synoptic Gospels.  The Augustinian proposal also has the support of the early church fathers including Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome who accepted the priority of Matthew very early in church history.  A variation of the Augustinian proposal that was popular with Roman Catholic held that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and when it was translated to Greek, the translator adapted some of the language used in Mark and Luke which were already in Greek.
The “Two Gospel” Hypothesis.  One of the variations of the Augustinian proposal was offered by J. J. Griesbach (1745-1812) who accepted Augustine’s proposal as to the priority of Matthew but believed that Luke was next in order followed by Mark’s Gospel which was simply an abbreviation of Matthew and Luke.  More recently, William R. Farmer published his book The Synoptic Problem[7]reintroducing an idea from the family of literary-dependence suggesting the priority of Matthew’s gospel followed by Luke who used Matthew.  According to Farmer, Mark comes next using both Matthew and Luke to complete his shorter Gospel account.  Farmer’s convincing defense of his position has continued for several decades[8].  Some, such as Grant Osborne, remain unconvinced pointing out the flaws in Farmer’s arguments such as the many omissions if Mark used Matthew and Luke as the source for his Gospel and the fact that Luke would be almost entirely dependent on Matthew in spite of the fact that Luke clearly states he used multiple sources (Luke 1:2)[9].
The Two Source Hypothesis Featuring Q.  In the two-gospel hypothesis, Matthew and Luke are the sources used by Mark to create his Gospel.  The two source hypothesis holds that Mark and a now lost source “Q” (short for Quelle, the German word for “source”).  Q is believed to be a written source containing the sayings of Jesus.  The strength of the two source hypothesis lies in the explanations offered regarding the materials, both shared and unshared, in their Synoptic Gospels.  Of course, as with the other solutions offered for the Synoptic Problem, there are weaknesses with the two source hypothesis including the exceptions to the patterns found in the similarities and the fact that the existence of Q is purely hypothetical.
Markan priority is widely accepted though in recent years there have been challenges to this position.  Streeter’s so-called Fourth Head of Evidence – that Matthew and Luke improve Mark’s more primitive wording – remains one of the strongest arguments for Markan priority to date.  Examples to improvements to more primitive wording such as phrases that might cause offense, suggest difficulties, or eliminate redundancies include Mark 1:32 and 6:5.  In fact, B. C.  Butler, a defender of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis agrees that Streeter’s Fourth Head of Evidence supports the priority of Mark to the exclusion of other solutions[10].
            Any review of the two source hypothesis, no matter how brief, would not be complete without taking time to discuss Q.  For the new student of the New Testament, all of this discussion of Q is a bit exciting.  What a wonderful document filled with the sayings of our Lord and Savior used by more than one of the Gospel writers to complete their accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus.  There is one problem with this document.  Not a single copy of such an important document has been found.  Not even a fragment to document its existence!  This lack of evidence has not stopped some scholars from creating an entire history of the Gospel of Q.  Mark Goodacre rightly criticizes the recent books on the topic as virtually ignoring the fact that Q remains a hypothetical abstract[11].  To be clear, there is not even a mention of Q in the ancient literature. 
            Other reasons for questioning the existence of Q include the lack of other documents from antiquity that look like Q[12].  While it is true that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas provides a parallel for interest in collecting the sayings of Jesus, Q is credited with containing narrative material that the Gospel of Thomas clearly lacks.  Such collections may have even been the beginning of a written tradition during the oral transmission period previously discussed but it certainly does not provide the basis for the existence of Q.
            Still, the supposed existence of Q and the two source hypothesis does seem to answer more problems than it creates which, I am fast learning, is rather rare with studies of the Synoptic Problem.  Variations of this hypothesis such as Streeter’s four source hypothesis[13], Oxford hypothesis, Markan priority, etc. appear to be in a state of constant flux to the new student of New Testament studies.


[1] Carson, D A, and Douglas J Moo. An Introduction To The New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, pp. 77-284).
[2] IBID
[3] IBID
[4] IBID
[5] Drane, John. Introducing the New Testament. (Oxford: Lion Publishing PLC, 1999, pp. 182-195). 
[6] Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.  Wenham puts forward a somewhat similar view while placing a strong emphasis on the idea of independence.  Wenham’s argument, which dates all three Synoptic Gospels prior to 70 A.D., warrants close examination and certainly helps to explain more of the difficulties associated with the Synoptic Problem than a later dating.  Wenham, along with B. C. Butler, is considered one of the strongest supporters of the Augustinian proposal in the twentieth century.
[7] Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem. Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press, 1976.
[8] Black, David Allen, and David R. Beck. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
[9] IBID
[10] Thomas, Robert L. Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002.
[11] Goodacre, Mark. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.  Goodacre presents a good argument for dating Matthew and Luke after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. though he does not effectively explain why neither Gospel clearly discusses the destruction.  Instead, Goodacre briefly mentions that the Gospels infer the destruction of the Temple has occurred. 
[12] Drane, John. Introducing the New Testament. Oxford: Lion Publishing PLC, 1999.
[13] Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan and Co., 1924.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Snow in Georgia

It doesn't happen very often but every once in a while, we get a nice blanket of snow here in Georgia.  Of course, that also means a run on the grocery store!  Gotta make sure you have your milk and bread...
Just thought I'd share!  I am working on a family update and a recap of our recent trip to New Mexico so stay tuned.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

The Synoptic Problem: Part 3 Similarities and Differences of the Synoptic Gospels

Similarities and Differences of the Synoptic Gospels
            There are a great many similarities to be found in the Synoptic Gospels.  In fact, over 97% of Mark’s Gospel appears in Matthew with over 88% appearing in Luke’s Gospel.    The fact that so much of Mark’s Gospel is found in the work of Matthew and Luke has given rise to the belief in Markan priority rather than Matthew having been written first.  For now, a brief overview of each of the Synoptic Gospels is on order.
            There is early support suggesting that Matthew, the tax collector, originally wrote in Aramaic which provides important testimony to the priority of Matthew[1].  To say that the priority of Matthew is settled would certainly be incorrect.  Matthew likely had a Jewish audience in mind when writing his Gospel.  Some suppose his heavy use of Old Testament quotations was intended to teach Christians how to read their Bibles[2].  While this may or may not be true, Matthew’s appreciation of the links between the old covenants and new cannot be understated.  Matthew’s Gospel adopts a decidedly christological view of the Old Testament.
            It is believed that Mark was the interpreter for the Apostle Peter.  Mark’s gospel is action oriented shifting from one scene to the next rather quickly[3].  Mark focuses on Jesus’ passion, the cost of discipleship, and service.  Mark carefully balances his Christology and discipleship with suffering.  Mark also reminds Christians that their salvation depends on the death and resurrection of Christ and tying the Christian faith to the reality of the historical events[4]
            Luke’s Gospel is the longest single book of the New Testament[5].  As the author of his Gospel and Acts, Luke made the largest contribution to the New Testament.  Luke provides a lengthy presentation of Jesus’ birth and early life.  Luke’s Gospel is unique in that it shows Jesus’ interest in the outcasts of Jewish society including the Gentiles (2:32), moral outcasts (7:36-50), and the economically deprived (14:12-14).  Also noteworthy is Luke’s focus on the Holy Spirit.
The following table from Carson and Moo provides an excellent illustration of some of the similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels[6].
Order of Event in the Synoptics
(Note: Bold type indicates places where Matthew and Luke deviate from the order of events followed in Mark.  A dash indicates that the incident does not appear in the gospel.)
Pericope
Matthew
Mark
Luke
Jesus and Beelzebul
12:22-27
3:20-30
11:14-28
The Sign of Jonah
12:38-45
---------
11:29-32
Jesus' Mother and Brothers
12:46-50
3:31-35
8:19-21
Parable of the Sower
13:1-9
4:1-9
8:4-8
The Reason for Parables
13:10-17
4:10-12
8:9-10
Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower
13:18-23
4:13-20
8:11-15
Parable of the Weeds
13:24-30
--------
--------
A Lamp on a Stand
--------
4:21-25
8:16-18
Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly
--------
4:26-29
--------
Parable of the Mustard Seed
13:31-32
4:30-34
--------
Parable of the Yeast
13:33
--------
--------
Jesus' Speaking in Parables
13:34-35
--------
--------
Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds
13:36-43
--------
--------
Parable of the Hidden Treasure
13:44
--------
--------
Parable of the Pearl
13:45-46
--------
--------
Parable of the Net
13:47-50
--------
--------
The Householder
13:51-52
--------
--------
The Stilling of the Storm
8:18,23-27
4:35-41
8:22-25
Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac
8:28-34
5:1-20
8:26-39
Raising of Jairus's Daughter/Healing of a Woman
9:18-26
5:21-43
8:40-56
Rejection at Nazareth
13:53-58
6:1-6a
4:16-30
Sending out the Twelve
10:1-15
6:6b-13
9:1-6
Beheading John the Baptist
14:1-12
6:14-29
[9:7-9]
Feeding of the Five Thousand
14:13-21
6:30-44
9:10-17
Walking on Water
14:22-36
6:45-56
--------


[1] Enns, Paul P.: The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Chicago, Ill. : Moody Press, 1997, c1989)
[2] Carson, D A, and Douglas J Moo. An Introduction To The New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, pp. 77-284).
[3] IBID
[4] IBID
[5] Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: It's Background And Message (2nd ed). Nashville: Broadman & Hollman Publishers, 2003. 
[6] IBID. See also Figure One.

Sunday, February 07, 2010

The Synoptic Problem: Part 2 Development of the Synoptic Gospels

Development of the Synoptic Gospels
            In what has become known as the prologue of Luke’s Gospel, the author describes the process by which he gathered the material for his Gospel.  First, he mentions eyewitnesses who passed down their accounts to him and others.  Second, he mentions the writers who had drawn up an account of the things that had occurred.  Finally, he mentions his own research in writing an orderly account.  Lea and Black believe these three stages refer to the period of oral tradition, the period of written sources, and the period of final composition[1].  Additionally, a brief review of a more modern critical approach to the Gospels is called literary criticism is in order.
Oral Tradition: Form Criticism
Imagine those first Christians who had the opportunity to actually hear Jesus teach.  Imagine having the opportunity to talk with Lazarus in person.  In the period immediately following Christ’s ascension, there were thousands of people who had the opportunity to see Jesus in person, hear Him preach and teach, and talk directly with those on whom Christ performed the miracles that are documented in the Gospels.  The accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry were initially passed on to others orally though it is likely that some began taking notes during his ministry much like students do today.  The Apostle Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 15: 3 (For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures[2]) refers to oral tradition.  The study of this period of Gospel transmission involves the discipline of form criticism which studies the first stage, oral transmission, in the process of writing the Gospels[3]
            Form criticism was initially used by Scandinavian scholars in their study of the Old Testament[4].  The forms included paradigms, tales, legends, myths, and exhortations[5].  Form criticism focused on the characteristics of various things such as the miracle stories or certain kinds parables in order to infer the history of the Christian communities that either shaped the material or even called it into being[6].  Many form critics believed that the Gospels were the work of the early church which had embellished the original records of the life of Christ and whose writers were nothing more than editors who pieced the fragmentary writings together[7].  Lea and Black take a softer stance simply stating that many form critics are skeptical of the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels though form criticism need not conclude with judgment about the historical accuracy of the Gospels[8].  Chafer rightly pointed out that the findings of archeology have gone a long way as a demonstration of the fact of Biblical accuracy and that he believed this would likely continue[9].  By all accounts of which I am aware, Chafer’s belief has proven to be well-founded. 
Written Sources: Source Criticism
            As mentioned previously, some written material containing the accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus must have come into existence even during the oral period of Gospel transmission.  With the passage of time, the eyewitnesses and Apostles age and pass away, the need for a written record of events must have become increasingly apparent to the leaders of the early church.  Source criticism attempts to identify the sources used in writing the Synoptic Gospels and identify their relationships to the Gospels. 
            Source criticism has given rise to a number of theory about the origins of the Gospels including the two gospel hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis, a modified version called four-source, and even brought into question a source that has since been lost.  These proposed solutions as well as others will be discussed in some detail later.  I must agree with Paul Enns in finding two issues with source criticism[10].  First, source criticism seems to ignore divine inspiration completely.  Second, it appears to be firmly rooted in conjecture providing no documentation of underlying sources.
Final Composition: redaction Criticism
            Where form criticism focuses on the oral transmission of the Gospels and source criticism focuses on the written material the Gospel writers used, redaction criticism focuses on the activity of the author[11] in terms of their editorial work while compiling the final versions of their respective Gospels.  This very much casts the writer not only in the role of historian but also in that of a theologian in the modification, composition, and creation of tradition[12].  Redaction critics insist that the writers of the Synoptic Gospels changed and modified their writings to introduce their own points of view and add special emphases.  The redaction critic studies these changes in emphasis and then attempts to determine the setting in which the author wrote their respective Gospels.
            Often redaction critics assume that the changes made by the Gospel authors are theologically motivated.  Carson and Moo point out that while many of these changes may be so motivated, many may be stylistic in nature[13].  In other instances, major additions could be due to historical interests rather than theological concerns.  Like form criticism, redaction criticism has earned a reputation for being a critical method that attacks the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts.  It should be pointed out that simply because some choose to pursue redaction criticism in such a way does not mean that redaction criticism is itself anti-historical.
Contemporary Scholarship: Literary Criticism
            The simplest definition of literary criticism is that it concentrates on studying the text “as it is” rather than focusing on the prehistory of the Synoptic Gospels to help illuminate the meaning of the text.  Most literary critics assumes that the Gospels are in their fixed canonical form  and is not so interested in the process by which the Gospels came to be that way though that is certainly not true of all literary critics[14].
            The literary critic has a valid concern: study of the Gospels has been so focused on the history of the tradition that the Gospels themselves become lost to sight.  Perhaps a better to state this is that other forms of criticism can no longer see the forest for the trees.  Literary criticism has also brought welcome clarity to the way various parts of the Gospels function within the larger literary unit.  That being said, literary criticism is not without issues.
            Many literary critics do not seek to locate the meaning of the author but rather seek meaning in the text itself.  This effectively separates the text from the author leaving the reader to set the context for interpretation for himself.  When literary critics abandon the concept of the author’s meaning, their own subjectivity is left to define the meaning of the text.  Other problems arise from categories of interpretation that are derived from modern literature such as the novel[15].  Similar to other critical approaches, this fails to take inspiration of scripture into account.
            A review of form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism and literary criticism explains a great deal about the current notions of how the Synoptic Gospels came to be in our possession in their current form. Each form of criticism has positive aspects and each has problems.  The more liberal the uses of these methods the more problems arise.  Conservative literary criticism in conjunction with the other critical methods mentioned will most likely yield the clearest understanding of the Synoptic Gospels.  Seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit while seeking a deeper understanding of God’s word will profit one even more.


[1] Lea and Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message (2nd ed) (Nashville: Broadman & Hollman Publishers, 2003, pp. 113-127).
[2] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. (LaHabra: The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. 1 Co 15:3)
[3] Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: It's Background And Message (2nd ed). Nashville: Broadman & Hollman Publishers, 2003.
[4] IBID
[5] Drane, John. Introducing the New Testament. (Oxford: Lion Publishing PLC, 1999, pp. 182-195).  Drane’s discussion of the various forms used in form criticism is quite useful in understanding the differing approaches to form criticism.  Drane points out that no single approach can answer the questions about the writing of the Gospels.
[6] Carson, D A, and Douglas J Moo. An Introduction To The New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, pp. 77-284).
[7]Enns, Paul P.: The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Chicago, Ill. : Moody Press, 1997, c1989, S. pp. 576)
[8] Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: It's Background And Message (2nd ed). Nashville: Broadman & Hollman Publishers, 2003.

[9] Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology, Vols. 1 & 2. (Grand Rapids: Kregal Pub., 1948, 1976, pp. 61-88).
[10] Enns, Paul P.: The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Chicago, Ill. : Moody Press, 1997, c1989)
[11] Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: It's Background And Message (2nd ed). Nashville: Broadman & Hollman Publishers, 2003.
[12] Enns, Paul P.: The Moody Handbook of Theology. (Chicago, Ill. : Moody Press, 1997, c1989)
[13] Carson, D A, and Douglas J Moo. An Introduction To The New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, pp. 77-284).  Carson and Moo go on to discuss the fact that identifying the particular setting of a specific gospel based on his theology is far more specific than the available data allow.  And like other forms of criticism, the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel material is called into question but in the case of the redaction critic, they assume that the Gospel authors had little concern for historical accuracy.  Further, many redaction critics wrongly assume that the Gospel writers could not be both theologically motivated and historically accurate.  Such an assumption, based on little more than conjecture, is unwise.
[14] Lea, Thomas D., and David Alan Black. The New Testament: It's Background And Message (2nd ed). Nashville: Broadman & Hollman Publishers, 2003.
[15] IBID