Skeptical

Couldn't think of another way of asking this, the title may be a little inaccurate.

Basically I was wondering if there was a book suitable for a layperson that examines how specific stories/passages common between Mark and Matthew and Mark and Luke were altered in specific ways in the telling and examines how the ways in which the common stories were modified indicates growth of "legendary" characteristics.

In short, work that shows how the authors of Mat and Luke altered the stories of Mark in particular ways for particular purposes and then examines those ways and purposes.

I'm not looking for something that just shows parallel stories/verses between the synoptics, I have that. I'm looking for something that goes into some depth in examining the parallels and what the alterations might indicate in terms of the theological perspectives of the authors.

Hope that's clear.

Peter Kirby

It's clear to me. What you are talking about is "redaction criticism." Try searching on that term among the books and journals available to you for some leads.

One has to be careful here about the phrase "growth of legend." This is not a linear process. Indeed, one of the first applications of the computer to gospel criticism was performed by E. P. Sanders in the '60s. He found that there is no tendency for the pericopes to get either shorter or longer over time (that can be detected statistically). Some did, some did not, some stayed about the same length.

A recent book that gives a few examples of christological improvements on Mark, for the purpose of examining Markan priority, is Christology and the Synoptic Problem by Peter M. Head.

A commentary on Luke, with one aim of showing its use of Matthew, is Michael Goulder's Luke: A New Paradigm.

Gunther Bornkamm's Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew is considered a classic work on Matthew from the perspective of redaction criticism.

H. Conzelmann's The Theology of St. Luke is likewise for the Gospel of Luke. Norman Perrin calls it "epoch making" in What is Redaction Criticism?

Note that redaction criticism, while still used in the historical-critical enterprise, is dispensed with by literary critics who seek to understand each gospel on its own terms. Be aware of this difference in approach (Joel Green's commentary on Luke, for example, is radically different in approach than either Conzelmann's or Goulder's).

best,
Peter Kirby

Kosh

It seems to me that Who wrote the Gospels did a pretty good job explaining that as well.

Peter Kirby

I didn't get the same impression as Kosh.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Christology and the Synoptic Problem by Peter M. Head is searchable on Amazon

Julian

I have not read all of it yet but this is pretty good and scholarly but sometimes a bit technical and dry:


The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman

Julian