List of TablesForeword by N. T. Wright, Bishop of DurhamAbbreviationsIntroduction: Reasons for Questioning Q - Nicholas Perrin (Biblical Seminary, Pennsylvania)The Q Hypothesis and the Role of Pre-Synoptic Sources in Nineteenth-Century Scholarship - John C. Poirier (Jewish Theological Seminary of America,...
Out of PrintUnavailable
You May Also Like
List of TablesForeword by N. T. Wright, Bishop of DurhamAbbreviationsIntroduction: Reasons for Questioning Q - Nicholas Perrin (Biblical Seminary, Pennsylvania)The Q Hypothesis and the Role of Pre-Synoptic Sources in Nineteenth-Century Scholarship - John C. Poirier (Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York)Order in the Double Tradition and the Existence of Q - Jeffrey Peterson (Austin Graduate School of Theology, Texas)Luke's Rewriting of the Sermon on the Mount - Mark A. Matson (Milligan College, Tennessee)The Limits of a Reconstructed Q - Nicholas Perrin (Biblical Seminary, PennsylvaniaReconstructing Mark: A Thought Experiment - Eric Eve (Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, UK)When Is a Text Not a Text? The Quasi Text-Critical Approach of the International Q Project - Mark Goodacre (University of Birmingham, UK)Unpicking on the Farrer Theory - Ken Olson (University of Maryland, Maryland)How Minor? Assessing the Significance of the Minor Agreements as an Argument against the Two-Source Hypothesis - Richard Vinson (Baptist Theological Seminary, Virginia)Some Implications of Dispensing with Q - Nicholas Perrin (Biblical Seminary, Pennsylvania)A World without Q - Mark Goodacre (University of Birmingham, UK)BibliographyIndex of Ancient and Biblical TextsIndex of Modern Authors
One need not undertake a very close reading of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke to recognize that they have much in common. But what are the origins of their literary relationship?The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw considerable energy devoted to this question. Early hypotheses supposed a primitive proto-Gospel to have been the source for all three Synoptics, but later theories envisioned two sources--an early version of Mark and a sayings-source document eventually dubbed Q.In contemporary Gospel studies, Q has taken on a quasi-factual status, resulting in such publications asThe Critical Edition of Q,complete with critical apparatus. This textualization of Q has taken place despite the fact that Q has never been found, we have no manuscripts of Q, and no church fathers attest that such a document ever existed.InQuestioning Qeditors Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin introduce a diverse network of scholars who examine the Q hypothesis from a variety of perspectives--historical, literary, source-critical and redactional--and ask ultimately, Can we dispense with Q? and What would a world without Q look like?Even the most ardent and articulate defenders of Q will benefit from this well-reasoned, respectful challenge to an oft-unexamined assumption.
Nicholas Perrin (Ph.D., Marquette University) former research assistant to N.T. Wright, is associate professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School, Illinois. He is the author of numerous books and articles, including Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Diatessaron; Questioning Q (with Mark Goodacre); Thomas: The Other Gospel; Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know about the Words of Jesus and Jesus the Temple
Koorong -Editorial Review.
Mark Goodacre (D.Phil., University of Oxford) is Associate Professor in New Testament at the Department of Religion, Duke University, and the author of The Case Against Q; The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze and Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique