Take Matthew's case ... The lawyer has the last sentence in mind when he writes the first. Such a brief, we are told, is planned on one plane, and is of one mind (at least this is the theory; I do not believe in it). But Matthew begins: 'Jesus was the king of the Jews' and at the end, he knows of himself: 'For heaven's sake, I no longer am a Jew' and leaves.

rosenstock-heussy, fruit of lips, p.39

But this period of turning upside down [in other words, all modern Biblical scholarship] is at an end. It has no interest to me. For readers who cannot study the question I may mention some facts which put in jeopardy the whole era from Reimarus to Wrede in its quest for an historical Jesus 'behind' our source material. They form a road-clock now against the reductionists. We shall never know an 'historical' Jesus 'behind' so-called 'material.'

1. John writes as an eye-witness who knows the minutest details when he cares to mention them. The apostle is the author of the Gospel. Therefore it carries authority.

2. All four Gospels are apostolic. Matthew was the converted publican, and he wrote under James' (John's brother's) eyes in Jerusalem before AD 42. Mark obeyed Peter. Luke lived with Paul. John dictated to a Greek secretary.

...

rosenstock-heussy, fruit of lips, p.11

or, as i prefer to put the same idea, 'frankly, modern scholarship, i don't give a d***.'

Instead of a mere harmony of the Gospels, I have asked: Are they movements of a symphony? Of course they are. And he who climbs this stair of the wondrous four events, called the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, understands again the wondrous 'Anno Domini' by which we count the stepping stones of the incarnation of the Christian era.

eugen rosenstock-huessy, fruit of lips, preface.xxi