At the heart of the synoptic question is the discussion on the hypothetical source document "Q."
Did it exist or is it a scholarly construct? Here are two contemporary scholars who come to completely different conclusions: John Kloppenborg (Q - Yes) and Mark Goodacre (Q - No).
At Google books, you can preview the introduction to their work and see for yourself their line of argument:
John S. Kloppenborg - Q, the Earliest Gospel
Mark S. Goodacre - The Case Against Q
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A very interesting topic, isn't it?
Another way to address the question: do one's own homework. Work through the evidence in hand and test hypotheses against it.
That's what I was taught to do in seminary.
For an example of what I mean:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/08/a-test-comparison-of-the-double-and-triple-synoptic-tradition-part-1.html
Scroll up from there. The conclusion:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/09/a-comparison-of-doubly-and-triply-attested-synoptic-tradition-part-6.html
The material I work through raises questions about the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark they worked from. Nor is it clear why "Q" has to be invoked, as it often is, to explain the variation across the parallel passages.
In short, when you work with the evidence, all of the major theories seem a bit wobbly.
John, thanks for dropping by and adding a comment. I will make sure and call attention to your blog and posts that you noted.
Post a Comment