▁the ▁differences ▁between ▁the ▁g osp els , ▁yet ▁it ▁is ▁unclear ▁whether ▁every ▁difference ▁has ▁the ological ▁meaning , ▁how ▁much ▁meaning , ▁or ▁whether ▁a ▁difference ▁is ▁a ▁sty list ic ▁or ▁even ▁an ▁accident al ▁change . ▁Further , ▁it ▁is ▁not ▁at ▁all ▁clear ▁whether ▁the ▁difference ▁was ▁made ▁by ▁the ▁evangel ist , ▁who ▁could ▁have ▁used ▁the ▁already – changed – story ▁when ▁writing ▁a ▁g ospel . ▁The ▁evangel ist ' s ▁the ology ▁more ▁likely ▁depends ▁on ▁what ▁the ▁g osp els ▁have ▁in ▁common ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁their ▁differences . ▁ ▁One ▁of ▁the ▁weak ness es ▁of ▁re da ction ▁criticism ▁in ▁its ▁New ▁Testament ▁application ▁is ▁that ▁it ▁assumes ▁Mark an ▁priority . ▁Red action ▁criticism ▁can ▁only ▁function ▁when ▁sources ▁are ▁already ▁known , ▁and ▁since ▁re da ction ▁criticism ▁of ▁the ▁Syn opt ics ▁has ▁been ▁based ▁on ▁the ▁Mark an ▁priority ▁of ▁two - source ▁theory , ▁if ▁the ▁priority ▁of ▁Matthew ▁is ▁ever ▁established , ▁re da ction ▁criticism ▁would ▁have ▁to ▁begin ▁all ▁over ▁again . ▁Follow ers ▁of ▁other ▁theories ▁concerning ▁the ▁Syn opt ic ▁problem , ▁such ▁as ▁those ▁who ▁support ▁the ▁Gre is bach ▁hypothesis ▁which ▁says ▁Matthew ▁was ▁written ▁first , ▁Luke ▁second , ▁and ▁Mark ▁third , ▁do ▁not ▁accept ▁re da ction ▁criticism . ▁ ▁Liter ary ▁criticism ▁▁ ▁Liter ary ▁criticism ▁shift ed ▁scholar ly ▁attention ▁from ▁historical ▁and ▁pre - compos itional ▁matters ▁to ▁the ▁text ▁itself , ▁becoming