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

Rating:
Summary: Some highlights
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Some highlights
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Meticulously researched, well-reasoned, carefully documented
Review: The Case Against Q: Studies In Markan Priority And Synoptic Problem By Mark Goodacre (Lecturer in New Testament, Department of Theology, University of Birmingham, England) is a crucial and scholarly study of the relationship between the Biblical figures of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The "Q" hypothesis claims that Matthew and Luke referred to another source as well as Mark. That source, now lost, is called "Q." The Case Against Q is a meticulously researched, well-reasoned, carefully documented, cautious analysis and criticism of the Q hypothesis. A fascinating in-depth look at Synoptic relationships, The Case Against Q is a seminal and highly recommended addition to Biblical studies reading lists and reference collections.