The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem
"Goodacre has an impressive knack for exposing weaknesses in what so many have supposed are good arguments. Those who do not believe in Q will find him a mighty ally in their unbelief. Those of us who remain in the Q camp will have to meet his worthy challenge and wrestle with his fresh and instructive observations on the synoptic problem." Dale C. Allison, Jr. Errett M. Grable Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity (Dale C. Allison, Jr.)The positing of Q as a source for Matthew and Luke is founded on the twin suppositions of Markan priority and the independence of Matthew and Luke. In this lucid and carefully argued exploration of the Synoptic Problem, Goodacre argues that Markan priority is reasonable and well-founded, and that a good case can be made for Luke's direct dependence on Matthew. If his argument should be sustained, Q would become unnecessary and decades of Gospel research will have to be re-thought. But whether or not Goodacre is ultimately correct, The Case Against Q provides the most accessible and compelling defense to date of the theory of Gospel origins championed by James Ropes, Austin Farrer and Michael Goulder.John S. Kloppenborg, Claremont Graduate University and The University of Toronto (John S. Kloppenborg)This is an urgently needed book in New Testament studies. The Q hypothesis dominates the field partly because of intellectual inertia and partly because it serves the ideological interests of critics who desire a Jesus without a narrative, without a cross. Reminding us that Q is a hypothesis, not an extant ancient document, Goodacre’s sharply-argued book dismantles the shopworn case for Q and challenges us to think freshly about synoptic relationships. His alternative deserves serious consideration: Markan priority, combined with Luke’s use of Matthew as a source alongside Mark. Goodacre’s chapter on narrative criticism and the Sermon on the Mount is especially illuminating. Every intellectually serious teacher of the New Testament must grapple with this book. — Richard B. Hays The George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament The Divinity School, Duke University (Richard B. Hays)"This is an urgently needed book in New Testament studies Goodacre's sharply argued book dismantles the shopworn case for Q and challenges us to think freshly about synoptic relationships Every intellectually serious teacher of the New testament must grapple with this book." (Richard B. Hays)"If his agument should be sustained, Q would become unnecessary and decades of Gospel research will have to be re-thought The Case Against Q provides the most accessible and compelling defense to date of the theory of Gospel origins championed by James Ropes, Austin Farrer, and Michael Goulder." (John S. Kloppenborg)"Those who do not believe in Q will find Goodacre a mighty ally in their unbelief. Those of us who remain in the Q camp will have to meet his worthy challenge and wrestle with his fresh and instructive observations on the synoptic problem." (Dale C. Allison, Jr.)"..a hypothesis well worth considering and well worth developing. Goddacre's sketch of how it might be developed provides a welcome and refreshing contribution to the discussion of the Synoptic Problem and Lukan editorial procedures."—John S. Kloppenborg, Review of Biblical Literature, Oct. 2002 (John S. Kloppenborg)"Although some may question his conclusions, the fact remains that Goodacre's work offers a fresh breath to Synoptic studies. His application of narrative critical methodologies and his interaction with modern cinematic views of Jesus provide an ample amount of interesting material to engage. While including some technical language, his book is still fairly easy to read and his arguments are logically presented. 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."—Leo Percer, Review of Biblical Literature, Oct. 2002 (Leo Percer)"...[Goodacre] hassucceeded in producing a wide-ranging, detailed and cogent argument for theomission of Q from synoptic studies. Despite the broad and complex argumentthat Goodacre embraces, the book is easily readable. Goodacre writes in a lucidand clear style that reduces some complex and innovative arguments to prosethat is easily understood. On a more minor point, it is encouraging thatGoodace retains the use of the original Greek (or Coptic in the case of Thomas)throughout the work. This is important when dealing with detailed textualarguments. However, Goodacre courteously renders a translation on almost everyoccasion; thus assisting those for whom Greek (or Coptic) remains a distinctlysecond language.The Case Against Q...isa challenging, well argued and eminently readable work. It is worth seriousconsideration by anyone with an interest in the synoptic problem." —The Expository Times, December 2005(Expository Times)"Goodacre has an impressive knack for exposing weaknesses in what so many have supposed are good arguments. Those who do not believe in Q will find him a mighty ally in their unbelief. Those of us who remain in the Q camp will have to meet his worthy challenge and wrestle with his fresh and instructive observations on the synoptic problem." Dale C. Allison, Jr. Errett M. Grable Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity (Sanford Lakoff)"This is an urgently needed book in New Testament studies Goodacre's sharply argued book dismantles the shopworn case for Q and challenges us to think freshly about synoptic relationships Every intellectually serious teacher of the New testament must grapple with this book." (Sanford Lakoff)"If his agument should be sustained, Q would become unnecessary and decades of Gospel research will have to be re-thought The Case Against Q provides the most accessible and compelling defense to date of the theory of Gospel origins championed by James Ropes, Austin Farrer, and Michael Goulder." (Sanford Lakoff)"Those who do not believe in Q will find Goodacre a mighty ally in their unbelief. Those of us who remain in the Q camp will have to meet his worthy challenge and wrestle with his fresh and instructive observations on the synoptic problem." (Sanford Lakoff)"..a hypothesis well worth considering and well worth developing. Goddacre's sketch of how it might be developed provides a welcome and refreshing contribution to the discussion of the Synoptic Problem and Lukan editorial procedures."—John S. Kloppenborg, Review of Biblical Literature, Oct. 2002 (Sanford Lakoff)"Although some may question his conclusions, the fact remains that Goodacre's work offers a fresh breath to Synoptic studies. His application of narrative critical methodologies and his interaction with modern cinematic views of Jesus provide an ample amount of interesting material to engage. While including some technical language, his book is still fairly easy to read and his arguments are logically presented. 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."—Leo Percer, Review of Biblical Literature, Oct. 2002 (Sanford Lakoff)“…[Goodacre] hassucceeded in producing a wide-ranging, detailed and cogent argument for theomission of Q from synoptic studies. Despite the broad and complex argumentthat Goodacre embraces, the book is easily readable. Goodacre writes in a lucidand clear style that reduces some complex and innovative arguments to prosethat is easily understood. On a more minor point, it is encouraging thatGoodace retains the use of the original Greek (or Coptic in the case of Thomas)throughout the work. This is important when dealing with detailed textualarguments. However, Goodacre courteously renders a translation on almost everyoccasion; thus assisting those for whom Greek (or Coptic) remains a distinctlysecond language.The Case Against Q…isa challenging, well argued and eminently readable work. It is worth seriousconsideration by anyone with an interest in the synoptic problem.” –The Expository Times, December 2005(Expository Times)