Customer Reviews

The Synoptic Gospels, Revised and Expanded: An Introduction

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book presents an analysis of the 3 Synoptic Gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke through the use of "Form Criticism". The basic argument behind this literary criticism is that since these 3 gospels each follow the same basic narrative of the story of Christ, a careful study of the similarities and differences of each of them can lead to indications which community the author was addressing his gospel to, when the author was perhaps writing his gospel, and finally can provide indications on how his portrait of Christ addresses the various challenges of Christianity that the author and his community was facing at that time period.

Keith Nickle's presents his argument in a very logical manner which is both easy to follow, but gives a good introductory basis not only for the information he is trying to present, but also to allow the reader to delve into the New Testament themselves in order to gain a better understanding.

One important piece of information which any potential reader should take note of is the fact that Keith Nickle's does present this book on the theory that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke were both using a copy of Mark and another document/collection of oral traditions commonly called "Q" in each of their writings of the gospels. Nickle's belief is that the gospels originated as oral traditions/Jesus one-liners/written bits and pieces and that Mark first took these various elements and combined it into the basic story of Christ which was circulating among the various early Christian communities of the era. This anonymous author of Mark did this both to provide a secure story of Christ his community could use to learn more about Jesus, but also to address concerns his community had over various challenges they were faced with.

I found this book to be very enjoyable and a good introduction to modern Biblical scholorship. It did not get a 5 star rating because I have spoken with other Biblical scholars who provide just as good an argument that Matthew was written first or that Luke perhaps was. The point is no one will ever really know for sure, but Nickle's is able to present his argument for why he believes Mark was created first in a way that is both convincing and informative.

True to his title, Nickle provides a great introduction to the study of the Synoptic Gospels. He discusses the issues of authorship, date, purpose, recipients, literary dependence, and distinct characteristics of each of the three. These discussions are sandwiched between an opening chapter concerning the gospel tradition and a closing chapter of other considerations related to the Synoptic Gospels.

Although Nickle is a scholarly writer, he manages to write with a style that fits an audience much wider than New Testament specialists. In fact, I became acquainted with this work through a college-level introductory course on the teachings of Jesus. This book is ideal for that kind of situation, and it would probably fit well in seminary courses also.

One of the best things about Nickle's style is the emotion that seeps through in his writing. The reader encounters in _The Synoptic Gospels_ not a dry and detached academician, but a man with great reverence for the gospel tradition who shares in the faith about which he writes. Many times while reading, I could imagine Dr. Nickle's voice raising with excitement as he shared with me the fruits of his study. Such an excitement can have a tendency to rub off on the reader.

I have withheld a perfect score of 5 stars because of some of the presuppositions that are implicit in the author's methods and conclusions. In line with modern critical scholarship, Nickle does not hold to the traditional authorship of the synoptic gospels, gives them late dates, and believes that the early Church was in the habit of creating pericopes and sayings of Jesus that became authoritative gospel material. As a conservative, I had a problem with these implicit assumptions and felt that they were not defended well. However, those matters are minor in light of the book's overall value. It is a wonderful introduction to the subject that would be useful in any minister's library.

I read the first edition of this book some 20 years ago, just when I discovered Bultmann and fell in love with form criticism. At the time, Nickle's analysis impressed me to no end. But in the two decades between then and now, I've become increasingly suspicious of modern scriptural criticism (no, I'm neither a fundamentalist nor an evangelical!). So my reading of this updated edition has been a less powerful experience.

Nickle's survey of the three synoptics is better than many I've read. His text is fluid, user-friendly, and extremely organized. He gives what I still consider to be the best quick survey of the basics of form criticism available, probably because he keeps torturous teutonic jargon to a minimum.

But the book is relentlessly literary in its approach. Nickle deconstructs the three synoptics in a pretty predictable manner, making sure that he examines context, traces origins, classifies genres, and so on. But what he doesn't do, any more than most other scriptural scholars (hence my dissatisfaction with the approach) is to pretty much ignore the fact that the scriptures are meant to be read from a spiritual (as opposed to a metaphorical or similiac) perspective.

Three quick examples of the blindspots this approach breeds. In examining Matthew's Gospel, Nickle spends almost no time on the central image of the Kingdom, and utterly misses the possibility that the Kingdom is a codeword for present right relationships rather than an abstract eschatological possibility. (In this regard, he uncritically follows the 19th century conclusion that all the authors of scripture were positive the world was about to end.) In his examination of Mark, he gives the standard interpretation of the Messianic secret--Jesus' need to protect himself from the authorities--but doesn't in any way consider the possibility, suggested by Richard Rohr among others, that the messianic secret might also be a way of expressing the difficulty of recognizing the Lordship of Jesus--that most of us, including the original apostles, have a hard time getting what's going on. Finally, in his examination of Luke's gospel, Nickle concludes that Luke's concern for the poor and the abused is a "minor theme," thereby practically dismissing the not-at-all minor spiritual/social dimension to the gospel. How sad.

There's a time and a place for form criticism (as well as all the other critical methods that came out of Germany in the 19th century). But reading scripture in an exclusively textual manner is surely too limiting, and the problem with texts like Nickle's is that they give the impression that such a reading is the only game in town. Thus the heart of the Gospels--story, the spirit--runs the risk of being sidelined. Think of it this way. How weird would it be to read Tolstoy's *War and Peace* primarily to discover the different forms of literary expression it contains? After this rather tedious project is finished and neat classifications of the novel are formulated, the very important question still remains: yes, but what's the STORY?

Purchased this book for class REL311 and continue to use it for bible study.The material gives good practices for a good exergetical study of the synoptic gospels.

There is much to like and dislike in this little but packed introduction to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). For its size, it contains one of the best historical summaries of second-temple Judaism in Palestine at the time of Jesus. The summary of the geopolitical history of the area provides much needed context for the gospels that, unfortunately, often goes untouched in many similar works. The descriptions of various Jewish sects at the time challenges many common misconceptions that inevitably follow if we assume, as do many, that Judaism at the tie was a unified religious tradition. The common misconception that all Jews expected a political activist Messiah is just one such example.

The author, however, suffers his own presuppositions leading to an entirely different set of dubious conclusions. Some of these presuppositions stem from his Protestant traditions such as his assertions that the early church began to rely more and more on "scripture alone" with the passing of the apostolic generation. Other presuppositions are grounded in the all too common complete trust in "scientific" methods of historical and form criticism. But assuming such methods to be more scientific and therefore worthy of trust is challenged by many from both Catholic and Protestant traditions. See, for example, Jesus of Nazareth and THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. These presuppositions lead this author to accept Markan priority and Q (from the German word for source, Quelle). Building on this shaky foundation is inevitable for those with the perception that there is indeed a "synoptic problem" that needs resolving. Of course, that premise is, in itself, a matter with no little doubt.

Despite the compilation of presupposition on another leading to questionable conclusions, we have to recognize the unique clarity with brevity with which this author conveys the theories. Indeed, such brevity with clarity makes this perhaps the best work of introduction to the "synoptic gospel problem" inquiry. The Markan priority and Q hypothesis will be with us for a long time and this work is a great introduction to the topic whether we agree with it or not. This work is therefore highly recommended for readers with good critical thinking skills but it is suggested you look elsewhere for a more theologically stable introduction for traditional scripture study.

Books in Excellent condition. Speedy delivery and multiple qty a plus for group study. Very precise and informative for class/personal study. Future orders from supplier recommended. Thank You Very Much.

Very good work - Nickle does a great job of developing reasons why the synoptics are different ....and similar. The depth of his analysis is impressive, using cultural, political and religious reasons to support his views. And he does this with clarity and conciseness.

As one who uses this great resource to teach, I was very happy with Nickle's Second Edition Revised and Expanded version of the Synoptic Gospels. I had been using this book for several years. In 1998, I was asked to teach a course entitled "The Intertestamental Period." While preparing for this course, I realized that this period of history was an important prelude to the time of Christ and the Synoptic Gospels. Following my exposure to this era, I added a brief summary of this material to my Syllabus, whenever I taught the Synoptic Gospels. Nickle's Second Edition contains much of the material and now my students can have the advantage of having this information all in one resource. So, I give this book five stars, without any reservation.

Nickle's book will provide readers with some helpful discussions of the synoptic gospels, mainly by pointing out the possible contexts and audiences for each of them, some variations in focus and themes and literary styles. Nickle approaches the gospels mainly from a form criticism point of view and some source and literary criticism as well. He does not really allow for a faith approach; apparently holding to the modernist axiom of supposed scholarly "objectiveness" is to be valued above all else. Unfortunately, the weight he gives to speculation is hardly objective and clearly reveals presuppositions.

Nickle presumes the "priority of Mark" who must have used other sources, as he surely was not Peter's confidant, even though Nickle does cite Eusebius' reference to Mark gaining the tradition from Peter. According to Nickle none of the gospels are written by their traditional "authors." There is no concrete evidence for this presupposition; the early church's traditional beliefs of authorship are discarded in light of modern "objective" scholarship. Likewise, Nickle presumes as fact the use of "Q" for Matthew and Luke and is suspicious of the early church for their motives for ridding the world of "Q." Matthew and Luke are said to have taken liberties with Mark according to their own agendas.

Nickle briefly laments that the early church wrongfully censored the Gospel of Thomas (sayings of Jesus) and "adapted" them to fit the church's acceptable teachings; in other words, it was the gnostic Gospel of Thomas that is valid and should be in the canon. Nickle dates the gospels of Matthew and Luke based on their intimations of the fall of Jerusalem...these prove they must have been written after 70 AD as if Jesus could never have known of Jerusalem's pending destruction before it happened (subtle implication = he could not have been the omniscient Lord).

I may be percieved as being hard on Nickle, but these are some of the subtle assertions of "fact" that critical scholars make based on the a faithless presupposition that the gospels are more fiction than fact and are myths to teach ideas rather than historical events. Readers can expect to gain a helpful introduction but beware of the subtle presumptions stated as fact.

Outdated as can be evidenced by FF Bruce3's canon of scripture. Too much speculation such as most people in Palestine were illiterate when the Jewish religion taught everyone to be literate. Bruce also contradicts this premise concerning the Gentiles in Greco Roman civilisation. Better get a book, such as Guthrie's New Testament introduction for something more objective and illuminating concerning many different views of Synoptic sources.