Aug 11
I’m sorry, I haven’t a Q.
In compiling a book list for the Synoptic problem, I wanted some books that helped the student think things through by looking at texts. The two best examples of this I know are Mark Goodacre’s Way through the Maze and the relevant sections of Sanders and Davies’ Studying the Synoptic Gospels. The problem, in book list terms, is that both of these excellent introductions argue for a version of the Farrer theory. To some extent that guides the selection of the passages they discuss, and certainly affects the way they lead the student through the problem.
I don’t know of a relatively recent book that argues the case for the Two Source Hypothesis by the same detailed examination of texts set out synoptically. So I emailed the godfather of bibiloblogs himself, thinking that if anyone was going to know which books competed with his, Mark would. But no, he doesn’t know of any either. If you do, can I ask you to leave a comment!
This leaves us with the bizarre situation that the student has a ton of available introductions to the New Testament, all of which assure them of the dominance of the Two Source Hypothesis, as a secure foundation on which they can base their study of the Synoptics, and deal with it in a paragraph or three. But when the student who wants to think it through for themselves goes looking for a book that will guide them through the evidence, the texts available tell them that the evidence does not support this secure consensus, but in fact points to a different solution.
It is, to say the least, something of an oddity, and not a very constructive one, when available guided examinations of the evidence have a solution at odds with what the student is taught by their professors is the unshakeable foundation of their studies. So where’s the textbook that will advocate it by guiding the student through detailed examination of the texts, instead of simply adhering to it as a mantra?
August 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Have you looked at Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction? I believe a new edition was recently released. It argues for the two source hypothesis and contains lots of texts in parallel columns.
August 11th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Thanks. Good to know there is one, although I hope, given Q’s preponderance that there might turn out to be more.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Harry Fleddermann’s monster endeavours to reconstruct “Q” and deliver a so-called commentary. He starts with the basic assumption that it is a “single written Greek document”. Out in 1995, and cost a bomb.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I should have said that Fleddermann’s basic assumption is that “Q” actually exists in the first place, as a written greek single document, possibly even awaiting discovery in the sands if they continue to be as generous as in the past … (yeah right, as if!!)
August 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
and it’s roughly 900 or more pages of pretty dull reading. Or rather hilarious. But frustrating.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Yes, that’s not really an introduction, nor an examination of the synoptics to demonstrate the 2 source hypothesis. It simply assumes it and then tries to do something IMO dubious and fairly pointless