top of page
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews

What Is the Synoptic Problem of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and What is the Hypothetical So-Called Q Document?

The reliability of the Gospels has often been called into question by pseudo-scholarship. Were the Gospel writers plagiarists? Did the writers of the synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—simply copy from one another? Is there a document called "Q"? Was the Gospel of Mark written first? Are the Gospels truly authentic and reliable?


“The gospels must now be seen as the result of early Christian mythmaking. Q forces the issue, for it documents an earlier history that does not agree with the narrative gospel accounts.” – Burton L. Mack, retired professor of New Testament studies.


Burton L. Mack is not alone in this perspective. It has become quite common among modern Bible scholars to question the reliability of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, undermining the Bible’s historical account of Jesus’ life and ministry. But why have some scholars begun to view the Gospels as myths? Should their views cause us to question the trustworthiness and truthfulness of these accounts? In the following, we will examine some of the relevant evidence to better understand the situation.


The Reliability of the Gospels Comes into Question From the close of the first century C.E. until the Enlightenment period in the 18th century, the reliability of the Gospels was rarely questioned. However, during the so-called period of enlightenment and especially from the 19th century onward, some scholars began to challenge the view that the Gospels were the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Instead, they regarded the Gospels as human works—flawed and unreliable. These critics argued that the Gospels were not written by the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but were composed later by others, without firsthand knowledge of Jesus. Therefore, in their view, the Gospel writers were incapable of providing an accurate historical record.



Moreover, many of these liberal scholars pointed to the similarities in structure and content between the synoptic Gospels as evidence that the authors copied extensively from one another. They rejected the accounts of Jesus' miracles and resurrection, claiming they were fabrications. Some even went as far as to question whether Jesus was a historical figure at all.


Philosophical rationalism, which laid the groundwork for these doubts, found its early proponents in figures like René Descartes (1596–1650), Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), and John Locke (1632–1704). Theological rationalism, on the other hand, drew from Christian von Wolff (1679–1754), Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781). Wolff sought to harmonize biblical revelation with natural reason, while Reimarus claimed that natural reason was the true source of Christianity. Lessing complicated matters by arguing that historical truths could never serve as proof for the necessary truths of reason. These philosophical and theological shifts were the seeds from which much of modern liberal Christianity and the destructive form of biblical criticism in the 19th and 20th centuries sprang.


The Rise of Biblical Criticism As a result of these influences, “biblical criticism” came to represent not merely a scientific investigation of biblical documents, but a method that assumed the right to pass judgment on the truth claims of the Bible itself. For example, interpreting the Bible “historically” came to imply an acknowledgment of contradictions within the text. In fact, many standard textbooks on biblical criticism assume that any approach which does not admit contradictions is unhistorical. In short, the assumption that the Bible was not entirely reliable became a foundational principle of what came to be known as the “historical-critical method.”


This shift presented a major challenge to those who were theologically committed to the traditional view of inspiration and inerrancy. Yet, as this new approach gained traction, even some conservative scholars began to integrate certain critical studies into their own theological frameworks. By the early 20th century, however, the divide between "conservative" and "liberal" approaches had become nearly absolute.


What Is the Historical-Critical Method? The historical-critical method, often referred to as higher criticism, seeks to explore the origins, authorship, and sources of the biblical texts. It emerged during the 18th and 19th centuries and came to be known simply as "biblical criticism." Various forms of this method include source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition-historical criticism, structural criticism, reader-response criticism, and even feminist criticism.


Eta Linnemann, a former proponent of this approach, offers a cautionary perspective: “In the academic community, the confirmed results of scientific investigation are considered the touchstone of intellectual inquiry. Indeed, society at large has come to respect all claims offered under the rubric of ‘science.’ As a ‘scientific theology,’ the historical-critical method has come to dominate the field of biblical criticism in Germany and is championed in seminaries and universities around the world.”


In her work Historical Criticism of the Bible, Linnemann reveals how modern Bible scholarship has drifted away from truth. Despite its flaws, this approach remains influential, having convinced many that the Bible is not the fully inerrant Word of God but is instead filled with errors, mistakes, and contradictions. This flawed scholarship has caused much of Christianity to lose confidence in the Bible’s inerrancy and divine inspiration.


Why is this approach so flawed? The historical-critical method often dismisses key elements of the Bible as myth or legend. Some scholars who adhere to this view even deny that Jesus ever existed. They regard the Bible as a purely human document rather than the Word of God. Although this method is widely taught in seminaries today, it is recognized by conservative Bible scholars as a modern attack on Scripture.


In his book Basic Bible Interpretation, Roy B. Zuck explains that liberalism, which became influential in the 19th century, continues to persist into the 20th and 21st centuries. It views the Bible as a human book rather than a divinely inspired one and attempts to explain away the supernatural elements of the Bible through rationalistic methods. This viewpoint, embraced by many in the field of biblical criticism, undermines the confidence that believers once had in the Bible as the inspired and fully inerrant Word of God.


The Destructive Nature of Biblical Criticism The historical-critical method is not a neutral academic pursuit; it is inherently destructive to faith in the Bible. The skepticism it promotes weakens and demoralizes people’s assurance in Scripture. Those who adopt this approach inevitably view the Bible as fallible, full of contradictions, and unreliable. However, this is a far cry from the truth. The Bible, when properly understood and interpreted, remains the inspired and inerrant Word of God, fully trustworthy and reliable in all that it teaches.


One of the more controversial theories to emerge from the historical-critical method is the so-called Q document. According to this theory, the similarities between Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark, suggest that both Matthew and Luke drew from an unknown source called "Q" (short for Quelle, the German word for "source"). Advocates of the Q theory claim that it represents an early version of Jesus’ sayings, independent of the narrative accounts found in the Gospels. However, there is no manuscript evidence for the existence of Q, and many conservative scholars reject this hypothesis as unnecessary and speculative.


The traditional view of Gospel authorship holds that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by eyewitnesses or those closely associated with the apostles. This view remains the most reliable and consistent with the evidence available from early church history. Although the Gospels contain similarities, these can be explained by the fact that they are reporting on the same events and teachings of Jesus. Each Gospel writer emphasizes different aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry, providing a fuller picture of the truth.


While the historical-critical method and theories like the Q document may appeal to modern scholarship, they fail to account for the divine inspiration and reliability of the biblical text. The Gospels are not the product of mythmaking or plagiarism; they are the inspired and trustworthy Word of God. Rather than undermining the Gospels' credibility, a proper understanding of their composition affirms their truthfulness and value for the Christian faith.



Grammatical-Historical Interpretation


The grammatical-historical method seeks to uncover the meaning intended by the original author, using language that would have been understood by the author's contemporary audience (Stein 1994, 38-39). This method, dating back to the 19th century, was primarily utilized when higher criticism's historical-critical method was in its infancy (Milton Terry). It remains the only legitimate approach to interpretation for true conservative scholarship from the later 20th century into the 21st century.


Grammatical Aspect


When we speak of interpreting the Bible grammatically, it involves determining the meaning through the study of four key components: (a) the meaning of words (lexicology), (b) the form of words (morphology), (c) the function of words (parts of speech), and (d) the relationships between words (syntax).


First, lexicology concerns itself with the meaning of words. This involves examining (a) etymology, which looks at how words are derived and developed over time, (b) usage, which focuses on how the same word is used by different authors and within various contexts, (c) synonyms and antonyms to consider similar or opposite words, and (d) the context in which a word is used.


Second, the form of words (morphology) addresses the structure of the word and how its form affects its meaning. For instance, the word "eat" has a different meaning than "ate," though they share the same root letters. Similarly, the addition of an "s" to "part" changes it to "parts," which conveys a different meaning.


Third, parts of speech examine the function of the words, including their roles as subjects, verbs, objects, nouns, etc. Each form has its own purpose, and understanding these roles is critical to proper interpretation.


Finally, syntax focuses on how words are related to one another and how they are structured to form phrases, clauses, and sentences. It explores the arrangement of words to create meaning within a given passage (Zuck 1991, 100-101).



Historical Aspect


By "historical," the grammatical-historical method refers to the context or setting in which the biblical texts were written, including the circumstances surrounding their writing and the broader cultural environment of the time.


The context in which a specific passage is written significantly impacts how it is understood. Context includes several aspects:


  • The verse(s) immediately preceding and following the passage in question

  • The paragraph and book in which the verses occur

  • The dispensation during which it was written

  • The message of the entire Bible

  • The historical-cultural environment at the time of writing (Zuck 1991, 77)


These contextual considerations allow the interpreter to understand the author’s intended meaning as it would have been grasped by the original audience.


Faithful Scholars and the Grammatical-Historical MethodDespite the rise of the historical-critical method and other modern approaches to biblical criticism, many conservative scholars have remained faithful to the grammatical-historical method. Scholars such as Bernard Ramm, Harold Lindsell, Gleason L. Archer, Robert L. Thomas, Norman L. Geisler, Thomas Howe, Roy B. Zuck, David F. Farnell, and others have continued to uphold this method of interpretation. These scholars are sometimes labeled as “fundamentalist Protestants,” a term that some use pejoratively.


However, modern-day scholars who attempt to engage with aspects of higher criticism without fully committing to its conclusions often misunderstand the danger involved. While some believe they can use elements of higher criticism without compromising the text's trustworthiness and inerrancy, this is naïve. Many end up either "swimming in the deep end" of higher criticism or dangerously walking along its edges. These liberal approaches ultimately erode confidence in the authority and reliability of the Bible.



Examples of Compromised Interpretations


Here are just a few examples of conclusions drawn by scholars who have been influenced by higher criticism, showcasing how their interpretations stray from a faithful reading of the text:


  1. They claim that Matthew, not Jesus, created the Sermon on the Mount.

  2. The commissioning of the Twelve in Matthew 10 is considered a compilation of instructions by Matthew, rather than something Jesus said on a single occasion.

  3. The parables in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 are believed to be anthologies of parables Jesus delivered at different times, rather than in one cohesive teaching.

  4. Some assert that Jesus did not preach the entire Olivet Discourse as found in the Gospel accounts.

  5. Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage is argued to have been altered by Matthew, with the inclusion of the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.

  6. Matthew 19:16-17 is said to reflect a change in Jesus' conversation with the rich man to avoid a theological problem present in Mark’s and Luke’s accounts.

  7. The Pharisees and scribes, who are portrayed negatively in Matthew, are claimed by these critics to have been decent people, with Matthew misrepresenting them due to his bias.

  8. The genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are seen as figurative rather than accurate records of Jesus' lineage.

  9. The magi in Matthew 2, who visited the infant Jesus, are said to be fictional characters.

  10. It is believed that Jesus only spoke three or four of the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12, rather than the full set recorded.


The Single Original Meaning


The goal of the grammatical-historical method is to determine the original meaning that the author intended, as it would have been understood by the original audience. Each biblical text has one single, definitive meaning. Milton S. Terry, a renowned scholar of the method, wrote: "A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle, we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture" (Terry 1883, 205).


This principle emphasizes the importance of respecting the singular meaning of the text in its original context, rejecting attempts to impose multiple interpretations or speculative readings.

The grammatical-historical method stands as the only proper approach for conservative evangelical scholarship, ensuring that the Bible is understood as the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Through faithful adherence to this method, interpreters can safeguard the integrity of Scripture against the distortions of modern critical theories and preserve the truth of God's Word as it was originally intended to be communicated.



Were the Gospel Writers Plagiarists?


The so-called Synoptic Problem has been debated by scholars for centuries. Early Church Fathers held the view that Matthew wrote his Gospel first, followed by Luke and Mark in that order. They also believed it was possible that Mark and Luke were aware of Matthew’s Gospel, yet the Church Fathers gave no indication that Matthew’s Gospel was used as a direct source for theirs. Rather, their writings suggest that all four Gospels were written independently. In particular, when the apostle John wrote his Gospel in 98 C.E., it was assumed that he too was aware of the other three Gospels, but instead of repeating their material, he chose to supplement them by focusing on different events and teachings. This understanding of the relationship between the Gospels remained largely unchallenged for 1,700 years.


The synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—are referred to as such because they present a similar view when compared to the Gospel of John. These three Gospels share much of the same content, narrative structure, and even similar wording. The term “synoptic” is derived from the Greek, with “syn-” meaning “together with” and “optic” referring to “seeing.” Hence, “seeing together” describes how these Gospels offer a collective view of Jesus’ life and ministry. For example, Matthew’s Gospel shares over 90 percent of its content with Mark, and 601 of Mark’s 606 verses are found in Matthew. Luke’s Gospel is about 50 percent similar to Mark’s. However, while Mark’s Gospel contains only 7 percent material unique to itself, Matthew and Luke have much more that is distinctive—42 percent and 59 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, the Gospel of John is approximately 92 percent unique to itself, covering material not found in the other three Gospels.



Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812)


The formal exploration of the Synoptic Problem began in 1774 when Johann Jakob Griesbach published his Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, laying out corresponding passages in parallel columns for easy comparison. From that time onward, these three Gospels have been referred to as the "synoptic" Gospels due to their similarities. Despite his critical work, Griesbach never doubted the authenticity of the four Gospels or their traditional authorship, even though their titles were not attached until the second century C.E. Griesbach maintained that “the apostles were fitted through the Holy Spirit to both understand and transmit the doctrine without danger of error.”


However, it is important to understand Griesbach's views in context. While his statement that "the apostles were fitted through the Holy Spirit to both understand and transmit the doctrine without danger of error" might sound like a belief in full inerrancy, he applied this only to the apostles themselves. For instance, Griesbach would have believed that the Gospels of John and Matthew were without error because they were written by apostles, but he did not extend this same belief to the Gospels of Mark and Luke. According to Dr. F. David Farnell, “Griesbach believed that only those Gospel writers who were apostles were inspired (i.e., Matthew and John). This automatically left the conclusion that Mark and Luke were uninspired accounts. The apostles, Griesbach posits, were not inspired in the act of writing but were given a one-time gift of inspiration at Pentecost that afterward enabled them to understand and transmit doctrine but not inerrantly. Thus, Griesbach rejected the orthodox approach of plenary, verbal inspiration.” Farnell continues, explaining that Griesbach’s view led him to believe that the New Testament writers often erred and that harmonizing the Gospel accounts was impossible.


Griesbach’s approach to the Gospels, particularly his skepticism about the chronological reliability of the Gospel of John, contributed to his decision to omit John from his Synopsis. As a result, Griesbach's work gave rise to the classification of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the "Synoptic Gospels," setting them apart from John's Gospel. Griesbach’s conclusions have had a lasting influence, although his skepticism toward harmonization of the Gospels and his separation of John from the Synoptics laid the groundwork for later critical theories.


Griesbach's Contributions to New Testament StudiesAfter completing his master’s degree at the age of 23, Griesbach traveled extensively throughout Europe, studying Greek New Testament manuscripts in various libraries. His research culminated in the publication of his Synopsis of the Gospels in 1774 and 1775, as well as a critical edition of the Greek New Testament in later years. His work on the Greek text became influential among Bible translators, including Archbishop Newcome, Abner Kneeland, Samuel Sharpe, Edgar Taylor, and Benjamin Wilson.


One notable translation that used Griesbach’s Greek text was Benjamin Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, first published in 1864. This interlinear translation of the New Testament presented the original Greek text with a word-for-word English rendering in one column and a complete English translation in the other. Wilson’s translation even included the divine name "Jehovah" where the Greek text used “κύριος” (Kyrios, meaning "Lord") when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, at Luke 20:42-43, the translation reads: “For David himself says in the book of Psalms, Jehovah said to my Lord, sit thou at my Right hand, ’till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet,” where Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1.


Griesbach’s work was groundbreaking in that it utilized manuscript readings older than those used by Desiderius Erasmus in his 1516 Greek New Testament. His careful examination of New Testament manuscripts laid the foundation for modern textual criticism. The significance of Griesbach’s contributions can be seen in the following statement: “Griesbach spent long hours in the attempt to find the best readings among the many variants in the New Testament. His work laid the foundations of modern text criticism and he is, in no small measure, responsible for the secure New Testament text which we enjoy today.” — J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776-1976, p. xi.


Griesbach's 1776 publication of his Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke presented the text of these Gospels in parallel columns, allowing for easy comparison. This method of presenting the Gospels led to the designation of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the “synoptic” Gospels, as they present a “like view.” Griesbach held firmly to the belief that the Gospels were written by their traditionally ascribed authors. He was convinced that Matthew had witnessed the events he recorded, and that the apostles had been divinely equipped through the Holy Spirit to accurately convey Christian doctrine. However, as noted earlier, Griesbach applied this belief in inerrancy only to the apostles, not to non-apostles like Mark and Luke.


Griesbach’s views were not universally accepted, even during his lifetime. Some scholars, such as G.S. Storr, argued that Mark was the first Gospel written, rather than Matthew. This theory of Markan priority, along with the notion that the synoptic Gospels drew from an unknown lost document called “Q,” gained popularity over time. In modern scholarship, the “Q” hypothesis has been widely embraced, and the analysis of synoptic literary dependence has become a major field of study, with countless books and articles written on the subject. For some theologians, the theory of a "Q" document has even taken on the weight of an article of faith, though it remains speculative.


The "Synoptic Problem" and Literary DependenceThe "problem" referred to in the Synoptic Problem is a question of literary dependence. Were Matthew, Mark, and Luke so similar that they were heavily dependent on each other? Were these writers plagiarizing one another's work? The essential question is: where did each Gospel writer obtain the material for his account? Exploring these questions does not weaken faith, as long as we stay grounded in the evidence, unlike the approaches taken by proponents of higher criticism.



The Hypothetical Q Document (30 – 65 C.E.)


The story of Q, derived from the German word Quelle meaning "source," has circulated for over 120 years as part of what is called the "two-source" theory regarding the origins of the Gospels. This theory gained momentum in the 19th century, a time that, contrary to its label as the "period of enlightenment," could more accurately be described as an era of ignorance in regard to biblical reliability. During this time, it was concluded by many that the Gospels were not historically dependable. According to the theory, the early Christian community passed down oral traditions—sayings and deeds of Jesus that were not initially written down (commonly referred to as agrapha, meaning "unwritten"). Supporters of this hypothesis claim that several examples of these supposed agrapha can be found in the writings of second-century Church Fathers. The hypothetical Q document is purportedly a written collection of these oral traditions, which, they claim, was used as a source for Mark’s Gospel and later by Matthew and Luke.


According to proponents of the Q theory, Matthew and Luke did not compose their Gospels from personal memory or through the accounts of others, but instead relied on two main sources: Mark’s Gospel and this theoretical document known as Q. They attempt to establish the existence of Q by pointing to the similarities between Matthew and Luke in verses that do not appear in Mark, arguing that both authors must have drawn from an independent source.


There is, however, a significant problem with this theory: no evidence exists to prove the Q document ever existed. It has never been found, nor has it been quoted or referenced by any Church Father. Despite this lack of evidence, many higher critics present the Q document as if it were an established fact. They use language that lends undue credibility to a document that, as far as anyone knows, never existed. Consider some of the expressions they use:


  • “Q originally played a critical role”;

  • “Q demonstrates”;

  • “Q forces the issue”;

  • “Q calls into question”;

  • “Q is the most important text we have”; and

  • “Q tells us.”


James M. Robinson, a professor of religion and proponent of the theory, has gone so far as to declare, “Q is surely the most important Christian text that we have.” This assertion is not only misleading but entirely unfounded, given that no physical evidence of the Q document has ever been discovered.


Several respected scholars have rejected the two-source theory and the Q hypothesis, including B. F. Westcott (1825-1901), Theodor Zahn (1883-1933), and Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938). Interestingly, both Zahn and Schlatter were German scholars, opposing a theory that largely originated in German academia. Much of the damage done to the perceived reliability of the Bible has indeed stemmed from German scholarship, which was readily embraced by other academics around the world.


Eta Linnemann, once a strong advocate of the two-source hypothesis and a student of the renowned scholars Bultmann and Fuchs, later underwent a significant re-evaluation of her views. Her studies led her to break with historical-critical scholarship and adopt the Independence View, which holds that the Gospels were written independently of one another. She expresses deep frustration with the academic environment in seminaries today, which discourages students from challenging the two-source hypothesis:


“What student in seminar discussion is going to risk being labeled as uncritical and hopelessly behind the times by raising the possibility that the three Gospels are equally original, in keeping with their own claims and early church tradition?” Linnemann laments. Reflecting on her former colleagues' work, she adds, “I am shocked when I look at the books of my former colleagues, which I used to hold in the highest esteem and examine the justification for their position. Instead of proof, I find only assertions. Instead of arguments, there is merely circular reasoning.”


Linnemann’s experience highlights the dangers of accepting unproven theories like the Q document without critical examination. The hypothetical nature of Q and the absence of any tangible evidence for its existence should make any serious scholar cautious before endorsing such a theory. However, because it has become so widely accepted in academic circles, students and scholars alike often feel pressure to conform to this viewpoint, fearing ridicule or professional setbacks if they express dissenting opinions.


In conclusion, the theory of a hypothetical Q document remains just that—a theory, not a proven fact. The language used by its proponents often belies the lack of evidence supporting it. While there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions about the sources of the Gospels, these inquiries must be rooted in facts rather than speculation. As conservative scholars, we remain grounded in the belief that the Gospels were inspired by God and faithfully transmitted by the evangelists, without reliance on a lost document that has never been substantiated.



What are the Facts About Q?


No Church Father or early Christian source makes any reference to a document resembling Q. If the hypothetical Q document were so widely distributed that Mark, Matthew, and Luke each had access to it, why have we never found even a fragment of it? Furthermore, the apostle Paul, who played a significant role in the early Christian movement, would likely have been aware of such an influential document if it had existed, especially considering that it supposedly predated his conversion. However, Paul is conspicuously silent regarding any such document. If Q had truly played a foundational role in the establishment of early Christianity, one would expect some acknowledgment from Paul or other early Christian leaders.


The Independent View, which asserts that the Gospel writers composed their accounts independently, remained the dominant understanding of Gospel origins until the so-called Enlightenment. This period saw the rise of philosophical giants like Hugo Grotius (1593–1645), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), and Matthew Tindal (1656–1733), whose ideas contributed to the errancy of Scripture, biblical criticism, and the promotion of theories like the Two-Source Hypothesis.


The Testimony of Papias


Around 110 C.E., Papias, an early Christian bishop, wrote:


I will not hesitate to set down for you . . . everything I carefully learned then from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth. Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else’s commandments, but those who remember the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. And if by chance someone who had been a follower of the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples. (Papias, c. 110 C.E.)


Papias also provides insights into the origins of the Gospels:


Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently, Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them. Such, then, is the account given by Papias with respect to Mark. But with respect to Matthew, the following was said: Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each person interpreted them as best he could. (Papias, c. 110 C.E.)


Misrepresentations by Bart Ehrman


Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic scholar well known for casting doubt on the reliability of the New Testament, has made misleading claims regarding Papias. He dismisses Papias’s account of Mark’s connection to Peter, stating:


There’s an even bigger problem with taking Papias at his word when he indicates that Mark’s Gospel is based on an eyewitness report of Peter: virtually everything else that Papias says is widely, and rightly, discounted by scholars as pious imagination rather than historical fact.


While it is true that Papias exaggerated or expanded certain details, such as the death of Judas Iscariot (drawing on Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18), much of his testimony aligns with the New Testament and other early Christian sources. Other aspects of Papias’s writings, particularly regarding the Gospel writers, receive validation from figures like Irenaeus, who lived not long after Papias and had access to firsthand information. Many renowned Church Fathers drew upon Papias and other sources that corroborate the truthfulness of his accounts.


If we were to discount everything Papias said based solely on his embellishments regarding Judas Iscariot, we would also have to apply the same principle to Ehrman himself, who has been found guilty of manipulating numbers and misrepresenting information to advance his skeptical views. Just as Ehrman’s entire body of work is not dismissed due to his errors, neither should Papias’s contributions be wholly disregarded.


The Influence of the Gospel of Matthew


Up until the time of Irenaeus (c. 180 C.E.), the Gospel of Matthew was the most influential of the four Gospels. If the Q document existed and Mark was written first, with Matthew and Luke merely copying from Mark and Q, why did Matthew’s Gospel become the most widely used and popular among the early congregations? Additionally, why did the early Christians consistently affirm that Matthew’s Gospel was written first, even giving it the place of honor in the canon?


Consider the testimony of Clement of Alexandria. Eusebius, the fourth-century Church historian, informs us that Mark was one of the founders of the church in Alexandria, where Clement later became a leader. According to Eusebius, Clement wrote about a “tradition of primitive elders,” who provided the order of the Gospels as Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, being written in that order. Given Mark’s foundational role in the Alexandrian church, Clement would have had a strong incentive to place Mark’s Gospel first in the order, yet he still recognized Matthew as the earliest Gospel. This adds weight to Clement’s testimony and suggests that the early Church tradition, which placed Matthew first, was based on more than mere speculation.


The hypothetical Q document remains just that—hypothetical. No physical evidence supports its existence, and no early Christian source ever references it. The idea that Mark, Matthew, and Luke relied on a lost document contradicts the testimony of early Church Fathers like Papias, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria, who consistently affirmed the independence of the Gospels. While modern scholars like Bart Ehrman may attempt to undermine the reliability of these early sources, their critiques often lack substance and rely on misrepresentations.


As conservative scholars, we remain committed to the view that the Gospels are divinely inspired, independent accounts of Jesus Christ’s life and teachings. The theories of literary dependence, including the Q hypothesis, are speculative at best and should not be allowed to undermine the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts. The early Church’s recognition of Matthew as the first Gospel and the widespread use of his account among the congregations further confirm the reliability of the Gospel tradition, free from the need for a hypothetical, lost source like Q.



Is There Literary Dependence Found Within the Synoptic Gospels?


Returning to the writings of the early Church Fathers, it is notable that none of them addressed the idea of literary dependence between the Gospels, even when opportunities arose. This omission is significant, as it suggests that the early Christians did not consider the Gospels to be reliant on each other. A key modern work on this subject is Is There a Synoptic Problem? by Eta Linnemann. After conducting an extensive investigation, she found no evidence that either Matthew or Luke were literarily dependent on Mark. Her conclusion was that these Gospels were composed independently of one another, a finding shared by numerous other scholars.


Many renowned biblical scholars, including Louis Berkhof, Henry C. Thiessen, Robert G. Gromacki, Merrill C. Tenney, Jacob Van Bruggen, John M. Rist, John Wenham, and Bo Reicke, have examined the evidence and favor the Independence View. While merely listing prominent scholars does not prove the argument, it lends considerable weight to the case for the independence of the Synoptic Gospels.


Eta Linnemann’s Findings on Literary Independence


This section does not delve deeply into the vast amount of evidence for or against the idea that Matthew, Luke, or Mark were dependent on each other or on the so-called Q document. However, Linnemann’s conclusions provide a succinct summary of the matter. In her final analysis, there was no substantial evidence of dependence. Out of 116 passages in Mark, 40 of them (3,635 words, or 32.28 percent) are not found in either Matthew or Luke. Of the remaining 76 passages, which total 7,625 words, only 1,539 words (20.19 percent) are completely identical across Matthew, Mark, and Luke.


A more detailed breakdown reveals further distinctions:


  • In Matthew and Mark alone, 1,640 words (21.51 percent) are identical.

  • In Mark and Luke alone, 877 words (11.5 percent) match.

  • In Matthew and Luke, only 381 words (5 percent) are the same.


The Role of Basic Words


A significant portion of these identical words can be attributed to basic words in biblical Greek, such as the definite article "the" (ho), which is the most frequently occurring word in the New Testament, appearing 19,870 times. The Greek word for “and” (kai) follows, occurring 9,153 times. When we remove these basic words, as well as pronouns, the percentage of identical words drops significantly.


For instance, in the 1,539 identical words shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, basic words account for:


  • 530 words (32.32 percent) in Matthew and Mark

  • 286 words (32.61 percent) in Mark and Luke

  • 91 words (23.88 percent) in Matthew and Luke


Thus, only 970 of these words are truly significant for determining literary dependence. In total, this means that a mere 12.72 percent of the 7,695 words across the synoptic passages bear any weight in considering literary dependence. Furthermore, 3,635 words (32.28 percent) of Mark’s Gospel are not found in Matthew or Luke at all.



The Reliability of the Gospels


Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Gospels were composed independently and are historically reliable. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John provide trustworthy eyewitness accounts and are grounded in thorough research. They offer fascinating and detailed insights into the life of the historical Jesus Christ. Therefore, like the young Timothy, we should take to heart Paul’s encouragement to continue trusting in the Scriptures:


2 Timothy 3:14-17 Updated American Standard Version

"14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from infancy you have known the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through trust in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, equipped for every good work."


This includes the four Gospels, which have been preserved as part of the inspired Word of God.


The Dangers of Literary Dependence and Collaboration Theories


It is crucial to recognize that the doctrines of inerrancy, the infallibility of Scripture, and divine inspiration are incompatible with theories of literary dependence or collaboration between the Gospel writers. Why? Because such theories inevitably require explaining changes made by one author who relied on another source, leading to potential discrepancies between the Gospels. If one Gospel were dependent on another, any alterations or adjustments could introduce historical inconsistencies, undermining the integrity of the inspired text. This problem arises whenever literary dependence or collaboration is suggested between any of the Synoptic Gospels.


The source document hypothesis, particularly the Q document theory, has damaged the faith of many Christians by casting doubt on the inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Bible. As Paul warned Timothy:


1 Timothy 1:3-4 (UASV)

"As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than God’s plan that is by faith."


Theories such as the Q document or literary dependence promote speculation and unnecessary doubt. The Gospels, as divinely inspired Scripture, stand as trustworthy accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, untainted by any mythical source or collaboration between the Gospel writers.


The evidence overwhelmingly supports the independence of the Synoptic Gospels. Contrary to the claims of those promoting literary dependence or the hypothetical Q document, the Gospels were written independently and faithfully. The historical reliability of the Gospels is clear, and they continue to stand as divinely inspired Scripture. Believers can have full confidence in the truth and accuracy of the Gospels, as they are part of the inspired Word of God.



The Literary Background of the Gospels


When discussing the literary background of the Gospels, two primary questions arise: Why are there four Gospels, and why are three of them so similar (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) while one (John) is so different? To answer these questions thoroughly, it is essential to explore the differences between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the Gospel of John.


Synoptic Gospels vs. Autoptic Gospel


The term "synoptic" means "seeing together," referring to the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke present a similar view of Jesus' life and ministry. John’s Gospel, by contrast, is considered "autoptic," meaning it provides a different and more personal perspective. Below is a basic contrast between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John:


  • Public Ministry vs. Private Ministry: The Synoptic Gospels focus on Jesus' public ministry, primarily in Galilee, while John emphasizes His private teachings, especially in Judea.

  • Galilean Ministry vs. Judean Ministry: Matthew, Mark, and Luke primarily describe Jesus' work in Galilee, while John concentrates on His ministry in Judea.

  • Parables vs. No Parables: The Synoptic Gospels feature numerous parables, while John’s Gospel does not.

  • Human Side vs. Divine Side: The Synoptics often highlight the human aspect of Jesus, while John emphasizes His divine nature.

  • Earthly Aspect vs. Heavenly Aspect: The Synoptics focus on the earthly life of Jesus, whereas John deals more with His heavenly origins and purpose.

  • Synoptical vs. Supplementary: The Synoptic Gospels offer a general overview, while John’s Gospel supplements the material by filling in different details.

  • Official vs. Personal: The Synoptic Gospels offer an official record of Jesus' public ministry, whereas John’s Gospel is more personal and intimate in its portrayal of Christ.


The Synoptic Problem


The "synoptic problem" refers to the question of why Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar in content and structure, and yet also contain notable differences. Subsidiary questions include: Who wrote first? Did the Gospel writers rely on each other? What sources did they use, if any?


The Basic Data of the Gospels

The following table summarizes the similarities and peculiarities between the Synoptic Gospels:

Book

Peculiarities

Coincidences

Matthew

42%

58%

Mark

7%

93%

Luke

59%

41%

John

92%

8%

Only 50–55 verses are unique to Mark. Out of Matthew’s 1,068 verses, 500 are shared with Mark. Luke has 1,149 verses, of which 320 are common with Mark. Mark’s Gospel consists of 661 verses, 50–55 of which are not found in Matthew or Luke. Additionally, Matthew and Luke have about 250 verses in common that are not in Mark. Luke has 580 unique verses, many with a Gentile focus, while Matthew has 300 unique verses, reflecting a more Jewish tone.



Proposed Solutions to the Synoptic Problem


Numerous theories have been proposed to explain the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels. Below are some of the most prominent:


1. The One-Source Theory (Urevangelium)


This theory posits that all three Synoptics drew from a single, primitive Gospel. According to this view, the similarities among the Gospels are due to their reliance on this one source, while the differences are attributed to the individual themes, interests, and styles of each writer.


Problems:


  1. The original source has disappeared, making it difficult to validate the theory.

  2. The differences between the three Gospels are challenging to explain if they stemmed from a single source.

  3. There is no historical record or manuscript evidence of such a primitive Gospel.


2. The Two-Document Theory


This theory argues that Matthew and Luke both used Mark’s Gospel as a primary source, alongside a hypothetical document called Q (from the German Quelle, meaning "source"). According to this theory, the material common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark comes from Q.


Problems:


  1. Q is purely hypothetical; there are no manuscripts or citations from it.

  2. It is inconceivable that Q would omit the Passion and Resurrection narratives, which are central to the Gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:1-19).

  3. The absence of many of Jesus' miracles in Q suggests an anti-supernatural bias.


3. The Mutual-Use Theory


This theory proposes that the similarities among the Synoptics result from two of the Gospel writers using the third as a source (e.g., Matthew and Luke using Mark). The differences come from each writer's unique purpose and presentation style.


Problems:


  1. Different combinations of which Gospel used the others have been proposed, weakening the theory.

  2. This theory does not adequately explain the verses that are common to two Gospels but not the third.

  3. It overemphasizes literary identity while neglecting each writer’s individuality.


4. The Four-Document Theory


This theory claims that the similarities among the Synoptics result from Matthew and Luke using Mark and Q as primary sources. The differences are due to two additional sources: Proto-Luke (L) for Luke’s unique material and Proto-Matthew (M) for Matthew’s unique material.


Problems:


  1. This theory is overly complex.

  2. It reduces Mark to a literary enigma.

  3. It contradicts the early Church's confirmation of the Gospels' eyewitness origins.

  4. Q remains hypothetical.


5. The Fragment Theory


This theory proposes that various people recorded different aspects of Jesus' life and teachings—some focusing on His sayings, others on His miracles, and still others on His Passion. The Gospels were then compiled from these various collections.


Problems:


  1. This theory fails to account for the extensive similarities between the Gospels.

  2. It is difficult to explain the disappearance of these "collections."


6. The Oral Tradition Theory


According to this theory, the similarities among the Synoptics result from their reliance on a common body of oral tradition. The differences arise from each writer shaping the material to suit their respective themes.


Problems:

  1. This theory does not adequately explain the significant differences between the Gospels.

  2. It neglects the role of the Gospel writers as eyewitnesses, relying instead on the assumption of later dates for the Gospels.


7. The Form Criticism Theory

This theory suggests that the Gospel writers used an original document (Q) that was copied and modified into different forms by the early church. The Gospels, therefore, contain varying degrees of mythological embellishment that must be stripped away to uncover the original truth.


Problems:


  1. Q is hypothetical.

  2. This theory wrongly assumes late dates for the Gospels (70–100 C.E.).

  3. It neglects the eyewitness testimony of the Gospel writers.

  4. It conflicts with early New Testament writings like Paul's epistles, which provide consistent accounts of Christ’s life and resurrection.


8. The Independent Eyewitness Records Theory

This theory asserts that the similarities among the Gospels are due to multiple eyewitness testimonies of the same events, while the differences arise from each writer’s thematic focus. In this view, the Gospel writers independently recorded what they witnessed or what was passed down from reliable eyewitnesses.


Problems:


  1. It struggles to explain the close literary identity in some passages.

  2. However, only about 8 percent of the material is literarily identical, and this can be accounted for by vivid memories of impact events.

  3. The writers had supernaturally enhanced memories (John 14:26; 16:13).

  4. The Gospel writers clearly distinguish between their own words and the words of Jesus.

  5. The verified historicity of Acts attests to the historical reliability of Luke’s writings, including his Gospel.


The Rational Background for the Gospels


Many wonder why there are four Gospels. Three main reasons stand out: veracity, doxology, and universality.


1. Veracity


Multiple testimonies establish the truth. As Matthew 18:16 states (echoing Deuteronomy 19:15): “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” The life of God’s Son on earth was too significant to be recorded by only one or two witnesses. Four accounts ensure the full picture of His ministry and confirm the truth.


2. Doxology


The Gospels also serve to glorify God by presenting a fourfold manifestation of His glory. John 1:14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory.” This fourfold manifestation is echoed in the vision of Ezekiel, where God’s glory is symbolized by four creatures—a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle (Ezekiel 1:10). Each symbol corresponds to one of the Gospels: Matthew as the Lion (Christ the King), Mark as the Ox (Christ the Servant), Luke as the Man (Christ in His humanity), and John as the Eagle (Christ in His divinity).


3. Universality


The four Gospels also demonstrate the universal message of Christ. Matthew presents Christ as King to the Jews, Mark as the Servant to the Romans, Luke as the perfect Man to the Greeks, and John as God to the entire world. Together, they show that Jesus is the Savior for all people, regardless of background.


The four Gospels provide a full and complete witness to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Their different perspectives—whether Jewish, Roman, Greek, or universal—contribute to a deeper understanding of the "mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16).


The Gospels: A Fourfold Manifestation of Christ[1]

 

 

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Theme

King

Servant

Man

God

Presented to

Jews

Romans

Greeks

World

Ancestry

Abraham

(none)

Adam

God

Traced to

royalty

(none)

humanity

eternity

Symbol

Lion

Ox

Man

Eagle

Emphasis

taught

wrought

sought

thought

Provision

righteous

service

redemption

life

Key Verse

21:5

10:45

19:10

10:10

Key Word

sovereignty

ministry

humanity

deity

Savior

promised

powerful

perfect

personal

The four Gospels, therefore, represent a full manifestation of Christ in His different roles: King, Servant, Man, and God, offering salvation to the world.



Summary – How Reliable Are the Gospels?


In modern academic circles, the reliability of the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—has often come under attack. Scholars like Burton L. Mack, a retired professor of New Testament studies, have argued that the Gospels are the result of "early Christian mythmaking." This perspective, while popular among some scholars, raises significant questions: Are the Gospels truly mythological, or do they contain reliable, factual accounts of Jesus’ life? Should the opinions of skeptical scholars like Mack cause us to doubt the authenticity of these biblical records?


The Reliability of the Gospels Questioned


For the first 17 centuries of the Common Era, the reliability of the Gospels was rarely questioned. The early Church Fathers and countless believers accepted them as divinely inspired and historically accurate. However, during the 19th century, various scholars, influenced by Enlightenment thinking, began to challenge the Gospels' credibility. These scholars proposed that the Gospels were not inspired by God but were instead constructed by men. They argued that the Gospel writers lacked firsthand knowledge of Jesus and were, therefore, incapable of providing reliable historical accounts.


Furthermore, critics noted the similarities in structure and content between the first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke, often referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels." They suggested that the evangelists must have copied extensively from one another. Many of these critics also rejected the accounts of Jesus' miracles and resurrection, going so far as to claim that Jesus was not a historical person.


One popular theory is that Mark was the first Gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark’s Gospel as a primary source, supplemented by a hypothetical document known as "Q" (from the German word Quelle, meaning "source"). According to the Bible scholar A.F.J. Klijn, this hypothesis degrades the Gospel writers, reducing them to mere "compilers of isolated stories." Such a theory implies that the evangelists were plagiarists and mythmakers rather than inspired authors. This notion has undoubtedly shaken the faith of many and undermined belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture, as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."


Were the Gospel Writers Plagiarists?


The similarities between the Synoptic Gospels do not prove that the writers were plagiarists. There are several reasons why this accusation is unfounded:


Jesus’ Promise of the Holy Spirit: Jesus assured His disciples that the Holy Spirit would "bring back to their minds all the things he had told them" (John 14:26). It is not surprising, then, that the Gospel writers would recall and record many of the same events. The consistency among the Gospels is not evidence of plagiarism but rather a fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide their memories.


Careful Research, Not Plagiarism: Some Bible writers may have had access to the works of others, but this suggests careful research, not plagiarism. For example, the apostle Peter references the writings of Paul (2 Peter 3:15), indicating that early Christians respected the works of other inspired authors. Luke, in his Gospel, explicitly states that he traced "all things from the start with accuracy" after speaking with many eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). This statement demonstrates Luke’s commitment to thorough and precise research, not mythmaking or copying.


Dependence on Oral Tradition: The Anchor Bible Dictionary suggests that the Gospels’ reliance on oral tradition could easily account for the similarities in the sayings of Jesus. In the first century, teachings were passed down orally, often in a memorable form, to ensure their accuracy. The similarities between the Synoptic Gospels are likely due to their use of this common oral tradition, not literary dependence on each other.



Archaeologist William Ramsay, after analyzing Luke’s writings, concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense." Such praise highlights the Gospel writers’ dedication to historical accuracy.


Was the Gospel of Mark Written First?


Many scholars assert that Mark's Gospel was the first to be written and served as a source for Matthew and Luke. However, this theory is not built on a "logically cast-iron argument," as admitted by The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Instead, this assumption stems from Mark's brevity compared to Matthew and Luke. For instance, 19th-century scholar Johannes Kuhn argued that if Mark were not the first Gospel, one would have to imagine that he "cut the two scrolls of Matthew and Luke up into little snippets, mixed these together in a pot, and produced his Gospel from this mixture."


However, the fact that Mark’s Gospel is shorter does not necessarily mean it was written first. Mark's Gospel, though concise, adds more than 180 unique passages not found in Matthew and Luke. These details make Mark’s account distinctive, refuting the idea that it is merely a summary or compilation of the other Gospels.


What About Document Q?


The so-called "document Q" is a hypothetical text that scholars claim was used by both Matthew and Luke alongside Mark. James M. Robinson, a professor of religion, even claimed: "Q is surely the most important Christian text that we have." However, this statement is surprising, considering that no copies of Q exist, and there is no proof that such a document ever existed. Its total disappearance is especially perplexing, given that scholars argue several copies of Q would have circulated. Furthermore, no early Church Father ever quoted or referenced Q.


The theory that Q existed to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke builds one hypothesis upon another. This is why the Bible’s advice from Proverbs 14:15 is so relevant: "A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need for proof." No such proof of Q’s existence has ever been found.



The Gospels—Authentic and Reliable


Critical scholars often focus on speculative theories about the Gospels' origins, distracting many from the solid evidence supporting the reliability of these biblical accounts. The early Christians did not view the events of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection as myths. On the contrary, these events were confirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses. These early believers were willing to face persecution and even death to follow Christ, knowing full well that Christianity would be meaningless if Jesus' life and resurrection were mere fantasies (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 17, 19).


As George W. Buchanan, a professor of theology, wisely observed: "Concentration on hypotheses of origin distracts the Bible student from studying the text itself." This thought aligns with the apostle Paul’s warning to Timothy not to "pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith" (1 Timothy 1:4). Instead of being distracted by unfounded theories, we should focus on the reliability of the Gospel texts themselves.


The Gospels are trustworthy. They contain accounts based on eyewitness testimony and thorough research, filled with many fascinating details about the life of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we do well to follow the example of Timothy, who was urged by Paul to "continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe" (2 Timothy 3:14). We have every reason to accept that "all Scripture is inspired of God," including the four Gospels (2 Timothy 3:16-17).


If Mark Had Not Been Written, We Would Not Know That...


Mark’s Gospel, though shorter, provides numerous unique details not found in Matthew or Luke. For example, without Mark’s account, we would not know that:


  • Jesus looked around with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts (Mark 3:5).

  • John and James were surnamed Boanerges (Mark 3:17).

  • The woman with a blood flow had spent all her resources (Mark 5:26).

  • Herodias held a grudge against John the Baptizer, and Herod feared John and kept him safe (Mark 6:19, 20).

  • Jesus invited His disciples to rest (Mark 6:31).

  • The Pharisees washed their hands up to the elbow (Mark 7:2-4).

  • Jesus took the children into His arms (Mark 10:16).

  • Jesus felt love for the young ruler (Mark 10:21).

  • Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Jesus privately (Mark 13:3).

  • A young man left his linen garment behind (Mark 14:51, 52).


Moreover, Mark is the only Gospel that contains one of Jesus’ parables and two of His miracles—Mark 4:26-29, 7:32-37, and 8:22-26.


Mark’s Gospel contains many firsthand details not found elsewhere. When we take the time to appreciate these unique elements, our respect for the Gospel of Mark—and all the Gospels—only grows. It is clear that each Gospel contributes valuable insights, and together, they provide a complete and trustworthy account of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.


[1] Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014), 35–42.


About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


RECOMMENDED READING


Comments


bottom of page