I’ve got a little problem with the status quo in Biblical Studies these days. You see, obsession with the synoptic problem lends itself to certain kinds of readings of the Synoptics – namely Redaction criticism. The real issue for me is that the author of Luke’s Gospel (which we will call Luke for convenience) is not taken seriously by many interpreters of the Gospel. What Luke says is always read in light of what Mark said or what Q supposedly said. The voice of Luke is completely drowned out by comparative readings to the point that he is a mere rearranger and summarizer. As an example of what I am thinking of, consider Marshall’s commentary. (For the record, Marshall probably has a bigger brain than me and his is definitely filled with more information about the subject than my own.) It seems to me that to take Luke seriously as an author is to view him as doing more than playing textual tetris. It is to take him at his word when he says he is going to give an orderly account. Don’t get me wrong, I ultimately think there is some use for Redaction Critcism, but lets see what the text says before we tell it what it can’t say. To put it simply, maybe the synoptics shouldn’t be read together until they have been read alone. Anything else is to censor the authors who worked so hard to preserve the traditions of the faith.