lind-peinture
» » The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem

eBook The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem ePub

by Mark Goodacre

eBook The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem ePub
Author: Mark Goodacre
Language: English
ISBN: 1563383349
ISBN13: 978-1563383342
Publisher: Trinity Press International; 1 edition (February 1, 2002)
Pages: 240
Category: Bible Study & Reference
Subcategory: Christians
Rating: 4.9
Votes: 758
Formats: lit rtf azw mobi
ePub file: 1966 kb
Fb2 file: 1690 kb

This book would offer great material for a seminar on Q and the Synoptic Problem, While serious students of the Synoptic Gospels will find this book both challenging and useful.

This book would offer great material for a seminar on Q and the Synoptic Problem, While serious students of the Synoptic Gospels will find this book both challenging and useful. Despite the broad and complex argumentthat Goodacre embraces, the book is easily readable.

But, says Mark Goodacre in The Case Against Q, the .

But, says Mark Goodacre in The Case Against Q, the majority acceptance of Q cannot function as an argument for its existence. From time to time dissenting voices have spoken against such widespread acceptance of Q as a Gospel. He then offers new arguments and fresh reflections reaffirming Markan Priority as the key to successful Synoptic scholarship.

But, says Mark Goodacre in The Case Against Q, the majority acceptance of Q cannot function as an argument .

Goodacre analyzed the similarities between the three Synoptics and represented the results in a proportional Venn diagram . The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg, PA. ISBN 1-56338-334-9.

Goodacre analyzed the similarities between the three Synoptics and represented the results in a proportional Venn diagram, concluding that: 74% of Matthew is paralleled in Luke; 77% of Luke is paralleled in Matthew; 93% of Mark is paralleled in Matthew; 60% of Matthew is paralleled in Mark. Quoting Matthew Larsen, he stated that "there are no two works from the ancient world more similar to each other" than Matthew and Mark. Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas' Familiarity with the Synoptics.

The Case Against Q book. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read

The Case Against Q book. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Start by marking The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read.

Mark Goodacre is one of them. In The Case Against Q, Goodacre presents a careful, balanced and detailed critque of the Q hypothesis, examining the most important arguments of Q's proponents.

Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Religion Department, Faculty Member Goodacre is the author of four books including The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press.

Mark Goodacre, Duke University, Religion Department, Faculty Member. Studies Apostle Paul and the Pauline Letters, Gospel of Thomas, and Historical Jesus. Mark Goodacre is the Frances Hill Fox Professor of Religious Studies at Duke University, North.

The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (2002), Harrisburg (PA), ISBN 1-56338-334-9. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (2001), T & T International: London, ISBN 0-567-08056-0. Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (1996), Sheffield, ISBN 1-85075-631-7. Mark Goodacre: Fatigue in the Synoptics, New Testament Studies, volume 44.

Against Q : Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Mark Goodacre Mark Goodacre.

The Case Against Q : Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Jesus as Restoration Prophet: Engaging the Work of E. P. Sanders. Robert L. Webb, Mark Goodacre. Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm. Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics.

For over a century Gospel scholarship has accepted a hypothetical document called Q as one of the major sources of the Synoptic Gospels. In recent times, it has even been transformed from a sayings source to a Gospel in its own right. But, says Mark Goodacre in The Case Against Q, the majority acceptance of Q cannot function as an argument for its existence. From time to time dissenting voices have spoken against such widespread acceptance of Q as a Gospel. Scholars have pointed out, for instance, that Luke's knowledge of Matthew and Mark would enable one to dispense with Q. Yet, such voices often have gone unheeded due to the lack of a clear, balanced, and scholarly treatment of the case against Q. So, in The Case Against Q Goodacre offers a careful and detailed critique of the Q hypothesis, examining the most important arguments of Q's proponents. He then offers new arguments and fresh reflections reaffirming Markan Priority as the key to successful Synoptic scholarship. With this book, Goodacre provides a more plausible picture of Synoptic relationships than has previously been available, as he reconstructs Synoptic interrelationships and Christian origins. Mark Goodacre is Lecturer in New Testament in the Department of Theology at the University of Birmingham (England) and the author of The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze.
Xanzay
This book is a great read for anyone even remotely interested in New Testament studies. The existence of Q is quite often just assumed and spoken of as a document that we actually possess (authors go as far as to date Q and even Q's sources!).

Goodacre provides a detailed account of why all of the arguments for Q fail. From there, it's just occam's razor: we can explain all of the evidence (including the absence of the document or any mention of the document) without postulating an extra entity.

There is no reason to think that Q exists, and this book shows why. And if you want to read more, the book is about 1/4 footnotes.
LØV€ YØỮ
The first three Gospels, known as the Synoptic Gospels, are too similar in wording to be plausibly attributed either to chance or to oral transmission alone. In particular, Matthew and Luke contain a lot of material in common with Mark (the Triple Tradition), and they both contain a lot of sayings of Jesus in common with each other that are lacking in Mark (the Double Tradition). Clearly, somebody copied from somebody else somehow—a puzzle known to scholars as the Synoptic Problem.

The standard model among scholars is known as the Two-Document Hypothesis—the hypothesis that the authors of Matthew and Luke independently copied from both Mark and a lost sayings document known as “Q” (from the German word _Quelle_, which means “source”). Dr. Mark Goodacre of Duke University (and a good friend of Dr. Bart Ehrman by the way) has challenged the standard model by promoting Austin Farrer’s hypothesis that Matthew was copied from Mark plus copious oral tradition, and Luke was copied from Matthew and Mark plus additional oral tradition.

Admittedly, I am not a trained New Testament scholar, but my views on the Synoptic Problem are more tentative today than they were a year ago. If you had asked me back then, I would have said that I was 90% sure that the standard Two-Document Hypothesis was substantially correct despite those pesky “minor agreements,” and 10% convinced that the solution to the Synoptic Problem was anybody’s guess. Today, I would say that I am only 80% convinced of the Two-Document Hypothesis, 10% convinced of the Farrer Hypothesis—and 10% Synoptic agnostic.

Goodacre begins by reassuring adherents of the standard model that the Farrer Hypothesis and the Two-Document hypothesis agree on the priority of Mark (as opposed to William R. Farmer’s revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis, in which Mark was copied from both Matthew and Luke—a non-starter IMO). In particular, Goodacre cites the standard arguments that Mark was written before AD 70 because it is vague about the details of the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas Matthew and Luke were written well after AD 70 because each contains several passages showing a clear awareness of its destruction.

Mainline New Testament scholars defend the standard model as follows. As to the Triple Tradition, Matthew and Luke usually follow Mark in order as well as content. Of course there are exceptions, but wherever Matthew departs from Mark’s order, Luke usually follows Mark, and vice versa. Conversely, the Double Tradition follows a different pattern, for the same sayings of Jesus are set in different events in Matthew versus Luke. This pattern makes the most sense if Matthew and Luke independently plopped the teachings of Q into different events in Mark’s chronological framework. One big reason for supposing that Luke and Matthew made independent use of Q (rather than Luke copying from Matthew) is that the Lukan version of Q material generally looks more primitive and original than its counterpart in Matthew. To name but three examples, the author of Luke would hardly have any motive for breaking up the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5–7 and scatter the material throughout the rest of his Gospel; it is hard to believe that he would butcher the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9–13 to create the version we find in Luke 11:2–4; and it is far easier to believe that Luke’s version of the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6 is more original than the version in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. Among other things, Luke 6:20–21, 24–25 says: “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. … But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger.” There is a big difference between being poor and hungry and being poor in spirit and hungry for righteousness as we find in Matthew 5:3, 6.

Goodacre engages the above arguments head-on. As he tells the story, Luke has a much larger Greek vocabulary and more literary finesse than Matthew. Whereas Matthew gives one indigestible block of teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, Luke breaks this material up into manageable chunks suitable for public reading in front of a live audience with a short attention-span. Less than a third of this material ended up in Luke 6, the Sermon on the Plain. This is still a fairly large block of text—but it is easy for a live audience to follow because it has a logical flow to it. As for the remaining sayings material, the author of Luke breaks much of it up into independent stories or _pericopae_ in his travelogue of Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem to be crucified in Luke 9:51–18:14. The idea is that it is easier for listeners to follow one short story with one short speech than it is to follow a long sermon that puts them to sleep.

In support of this thesis, Goodacre devotes an entire chapter “The Synoptic Jesus and the Celluloid Christ” to movies about Jesus like _King_of_Kings_ and _The_Greatest_Story_Ever_Told_. The average movie-goer would be put to sleep watching a movie of Jesus reciting all three chapters of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, so the screenplay in each of these movies breaks this material up into manageable bite-sized chunks, much like the _pericopae_ in Luke’s final trip to Jerusalem. Goodacre argues that it is not enough for students of the Synoptic Problem to rely on source criticism (i.e., Matthew and Luke copying from Mark and Q) and redaction criticism (i.e., why did Matthew and Luke make the changes that they did in the material taken from Mark and Q); on the contrary, scholars need to engage narrative criticism as well (e.g., Matthew in his way and especially Luke in his very different way crafted their raw materials into coherent literary masterpieces).

As to the argument from the beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer, Goodacre replies that oral tradition and local church customs did not suddenly disappear as soon as the Gospels went into circulation. After all, the author of Luke 1:2 explicitly says he paid attention to traditions “handed down,” and the Church Father Papias well into the second century reported that oral tradition was still alive and well (Eusebius, _History_of_the_Church_ 3.39). Maybe the author of Luke simply preferred the version of the Lord’s Prayer that was current in his own congregation over the version found in Matthew, just as he preferred the version of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 (cf. Luke 22:14–20) over the version in Mark 14:22–35 and Matthew 26:26–29. Furthermore, he repeatedly expresses concern for the poor who have no worldly hope (as in the Magnificat in Luke 1:52–53), so Goodacre argues that it would be no surprise that he would alter Matthew’s more spiritualized version of the beatitudes to show his mundane concern for the poor.

In the Triple Tradition, Matthew usually agrees with Mark against Luke in wording, and vice versa—but there are exceptions. Sometimes Matthew and Luke agree in wording against Mark—the so-called Minor Agreements (e.g., Matthew 9:2 & Luke 5:18–20 versus Mark 2:3–5). Mainline scholars claim that in most cases the Minor Agreements arose when Matthew and Luke independently polished Mark’s rough Greek and clarified his obscure passages in the same way—much as two independent English teachers grading the same student essay will probably agree in changing “ain’t” to “isn’t,” and eliminating the same dangling participle. In other words, the minor agreements are no big deal.

Goodacre begs to differ. As he tells the story, the theory of Q obscures agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark that are not so minor. To begin with, some of the minor agreements are not so minor (e.g., Matthew 26:67–68 & Luke 22:64 versus Mark 14:65). In addition, there are even more spectacular agreements that mainline scholars lamely explain away as Mark-Q overlap (e.g., Matthew 3:11–12 & Luke 3:16–17 versus Mark 1:7–8). Finally, there is all that massive teaching material common to Matthew and Luke but wanting in Mark that mainline scholars lamely attribute to Q. All these agreements—minor, middling, and major—form a smooth trajectory that is most simply and plausibly explained as Matthean material assimilated into Luke's literary scheme, thereby rendering Q superfluous.

As a mere layperson, I cannot afford to be dogmatic. However, one argument against Q in my mind carries little weight, namely the argument from silence. Silence _alone_ does not count against the existence of the Q document, since Luke 1:1–4 states that there were a number of gospels, albeit unnamed, circulating in the late first-century Church. Rightly or wrongly, proponents of the standard model infer its former existence from the circumstantial evidence found in Luke and Matthew, just as the existence of atoms was justifiably inferred from circumstantial evidence like electrolysis, the ideal gas laws, and Brownian motion before the invention of the electron microscope.

Admittedly, Q is “hypothetical,” in the sense that no physical copy that we know of has survived to our time. For that matter, the prosecution’s claim of the guilt of the defendant on trial for an unwitnessed murder is likewise “hypothetical.” Admittedly, nothing in the empirical world is one hundred percent certain. However, given circumstantial evidence of sufficient quantity and quality, the jury will rightly find the defendant guilty beyond a plausible doubt to a practical certainty. Similarly, given relevant and material evidence of sufficient quality and quantity, the former existence of the now-lost “hypothetical” Q document in principle could be reasonably inferred.

The methods by which scholars endeavor to reconstruct Q have worked for historian Wilhelm von Giesebrecht of the University of Königsberg, a student of Leopold von Ranke, the father of modern historical methodology. In 1841, in his historical monograph _Jahrbücher_des_Klosters_Altaich_ (i.e., Annals of the Altaich Monastery—the Benedictine Abbey of Niederalteich on the Danube in Bavaria), Giesebrecht argued that several eleventh-century historical documents were almost identical in a number of passages. From their common material, he reconstructed their common source, and identified it with a lost monastic chronicle known as Annales Altahenses. (At the time, scholars were aware that a document of that name had once existed, but it survived only in fragments.) In 1867, a complete manuscript copy of the Annales Altahenses was discovered, and it confirmed all of Giesebrecht’s major predictions.

Let us stand back for a minute to gain some perspective. There are thousands of New Testament scholars working on the history of the Gospels and the Quest of the Historical Jesus, but only dozens of classical historians at work on the Quest of the Historical Socrates or the Quest of the Historical Apollonius of Tyana. The reason is not far to seek, for the New Testament happens to be somebody’s religion in a way that Socrates and Apollonius are not. Personally, I believe New Testament scholars have reached the point of diminishing returns, having already discovered 95% of everything recoverable about the history of the first-century Church. A lot of the things we would most like to know about the early Church are simply beyond historical recovery—barring major new archeological discoveries (like a copy of the Q Gospel newly discovered in a cave somewhere in the Judaean Wilderness) that would answer a lot of old questions and raise a lot of new ones. Thus I lack any emotional investment in the solution of the Synoptic Problem. Now that I have said my peace, I shall get out the way and let the scholars debate amongst themselves.
DrayLOVE
This book adduces strong reasons and careful logic to critique the dominant position of the Q hypothesis in Synoptic studies. It is well worth reading carefully. There is an error on p. 144: Lk 1:67 does not contain the word "righteousness" as Goodacre claims. Page 181 successfully explains Lk's alleged Q material in Lk 3-4:16 & Lk 6:20-7:35 as being drawn by Lk from Mt 3-11, but makes no attempt to explain the alleged Q material in Lk 9:51-18.
Gaiauaco
Ch1 The psychological reasons Q is taken for granted. Q literature is written in the language of "discovery" as if an archaeological find rather than a hypothesis. The literature goes from calling it a "source" to calling it a "gospel document." Many scholars either ignore or are unaware of rival hypotheses. Although Q is taken for granted, people can't agree on a reconstruction of it.
Ch2 Arguments for the priority of Mark. His strongest argument is the argument from fatigue. Where Matthew or Luke alter Mark, they sometimes fail to incorporate the change throughout the passage being redacted leaving it incoherent.
Ch3 Answers some arguments for Luke's independence from Matt. According to Burton Mack, Matt was written in the late 80's and Luke around 120, yet Luke had a copy of Q, but not Matt. Goodacre argues that if Luke was written that late, he would be more likely to have a copy of Matt than Q because Q was waning in popularity and Matt was gaining in popularity. Fitzmyer argued that Luke is ignorant of Matt's additions to Mark, but Goodacre shows that Luke agrees with Matt's additions to Mark.
Ch4 Explains why Luke follows Mark's order, but not Matt's. If Luke follows Mark's order but not Matt's, so the argument goes, because he's following Q, and not Matt. Goodacre thinks the claim is overstated because Luke somtimes DOES diverge from Mark's order. Since Matt was written later than Mark, Luke was likely more familiar with Mark. Mark became his primary source and Matt was suplementary. Goodacres shows that Luke breaks up long discourse in Mark 4 which makes it understandable that he would break up Matt's sermon on the mount. Sermon on the mount is very Mathean, so it's reasonable to think Luke would alter it.
Ch5 How narrative criticism could shed light on redaction criticism. Fitzmyer said, "Why would so literary an artist as Luke want to destroy the Matthean masterpiece of the Sermon on the Mount?" Goodacre replies, "It is the thesis of this chapter that it is precisely because Luke is 'so literary an artist' that he would have wanted creatively to rework the Sermon on the Mount." He points out that Luke's purpose was to write an orderly account, so Luke was able to take from Matt's long discourses and weave them into a more plausible historical biography.
Ch6 How Jesus films can shed light on the synoptic problem--analogy of film makers working with their sources. JESUS OF NAZARETH has no Sermon the Mount, but distibutes the material. Film makers abreviate, omit, relocate, and redistrubute to add dramatic effect and biographical plausibility, especially with the Sermon on the Mount, yet they know Matt and aren't cranks for changing it. On the other hand, some of these reworkings were probably inspired by Luke's reworking. But that shows Matt's sermon is not superior to Luke since film makers choose Luke over Matt. Goodacre refutes the argument that Luke wouldn't have altered Matt's masterpeice unless he was a crank because Matt's version is superior to Luke's.
Ch7 Discusses the beatitude, blessed are the poor (in spirit). Matt has "in spirit" but not Luke or Thomas, so it is argued that the version without "in spirit" is more primitive, and therefore reflects Q, explaining why Luke doesn't use Matt's "in spirit." Goodacre explains why Luke would change Matt's version by pointing out that 1) Luke is concerned with the poor, 2) reversals in Luke (blessings and woes) would not work with "in the spirit," for it would have to be contrasted with "woe to the rich in flesh" or "woe to the rich in spirit" which doesn't make sense, and 3) beatitude was addressed to disciples who had left worldly posessions to follow Jesus and were actually poor. Goodacre also says that Luke and Thomas probably agree because Thomas relied on Luke. To explain why, in the beatitudes, Thomas changed "kingdom of God" to "kingdom of heaven" while Luke has "kingdom of heaven" and Matt has "kingdom of God," Goodacre points out that nowhere in Thomas do you find "kingdom of heaven."
Ch8 Argues that Luke used Matt, which is evident in the minor agreements between Luke and Matt against Mark in triple tradition. Against the argument that the minor agreements are too minor to prove anything, Goodacre points out that there's a sliding scale from minor agreements to major agreements (called Mark-Q overlap by Q theorists) to double traditions, and these categories are artificial.
Ch9 Discusses the relevence of Thomas on the synoptic problem, since Thomas seems to give precedence to the genre of "sayings gospel." He argues that they really aren't the same genre since Q has a narrative sequence containing chronology and biography not found in Thomas, especially in the first 1/3 of Q. He explains the other 2/3 and how it is explicable on the assumption that Luke used Matt.
Goodacre is an outstanding teacher. He took a tedius subject and explained it in a way that was easy to follow. His arguments are sharp and well-articulated. He uses footnotes instead of endnotes so you don't have to flip back and forth to read them. The only bad things I have to say about the book is that the vast majority of it answers objections to Luke's use of Matthew, and only a small percentage of the book makes the case that Luke used Matt. He does a great job of tearing down one point of view, but doesn't do much in the way of building up his own case. Ch8 seemed to be the only chapter that really argued positively for his case, and I think more should've been said about the major and minor agreements between Matt and Luke against Mark. The book is way over-priced. There are 17 pages of bibliography, but there are only 189 pages of text.
lind-peinture.fr
© All right reserved. 2017-2020
Contacts | Privacy Policy | DMCA
eBooks are provided for reference only