On Source Criticism
Our interpretation of evidence depends largely on our presuppositions, theology, or worldview. Many scholars who employ historical criticism are anti-supernaturalists, and thus investigate the Scriptures through a lens that largely discounts the work of the Holy Spirit.
What’s ironic, is how Christians accept the Bible’s supernatural accounts of water being turned to wine, the dead being raised—and even talking donkeys—and yet resort to natural methodologies to determine why the Scriptures suspiciously share the same material.
While Biblical scholarship—when practiced with the right presuppositions—has been benefited by Historical Criticism in recent years, Christianity has suffered from it in the past (Kishlansky et al., p. 237).
I believe that different conclusions are drawn from different worldviews. Markan priority is preferred by those who presuppose natural agents, whereas Matthean priority by those who presuppose divine agency.
Considering Jesus’ own regard for the divine authority of Scripture, I prefer to view the evidence through Greisbach’s “Two Gospel Hypothesis” (Strauss, p. 53).
Kishlansky, Mark et al., eds. Western Civilization: Romantic & Modern Humanities. Boston:
Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. Print.
Strauss, Mark L. Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.