Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis

This collection of essays is the fruit of the second meeting of a group investigating “Narrative Transformation as Theological Interpretation of the Gospels.” The proceeds of its first meeting were also published in the Library of New Testament Studies as volume 550 under the title Luke’s Literary Creativity. The second volume is the proceeds of the conference Gospel Interpretation and the Q Hypothesis held in Denmark in 2015.The volume contains 14 essays. Heike Omerzu provides the opening essay that outlines the reason for the volume, gives a synopsis of each essay, and explains how they contribute to the larger issue under discussion. By a brief historical review of the Synoptic problem, she points out that the current solutions proposed vary depending on the location of the scholarship. In particular, the two-source theory is the point of departure for this discussion. So, by collecting scholars from Germany, England, and America, each of the different solutions are brought into dialogue in this volume. The other 13 essays are this dialogue and are grouped under two larger headings, those that deal with issues of method (“History and Theology,” 6 essays) and those that put method into practice (“Textual Studies,” 7 essays). The volume is rounded out with three indexes (author, subject, references). Even though some of the contributors are continental scholars, all essays are presented in English.The first part opens with John S. Kloppenborg discussing the methodologies utilized by scholars in approaching the Synoptic problem and their links to historical and theological reasoning. The quest for the historical Jesus and the early Jesus Movement are briefly examined as case studies. His conclusion is that any solution of the Synoptic problem is “not innocent of ideological commitments” so scholarship in the area should be humble in the confidence with which it proposes its solutions. Next, Stefan Alkier presents a historical survey of the Synoptic problem from the early church to the present. His essay concludes with 10 theses that acknowledge the absence of a present consensus “theory” that is able to explain all the data and highlights the value of consulting previous explanations. Third, Mogens Müller argues that the two-source hypothesis is the result of an interest in ascertaining the historical sources behind the Gospels. But if the Gospels are seen as literary creations and dated in sequence (Mark, Matthew, Luke), then there is no need for the two-source hypothesis. The next three chapters are a discussion between Francis Watson and Christopher M. Tuckett. Watson starts with a number of historical observations about the origin of the Q theory, in particular noting that Q is a canonical solution to the Synoptic problem since it is reconstructed from the canonical texts. However, there are parallels with Q in noncanonical sayings sources (such as P.Oxy. 1) that open the possibility that the search for a solution to the Synoptic problem should also take into account the noncanonical sayings sources. Tuckett’s essay is a critical review of Watson’s work Gospel Writings in which Watson argues that the existence of Q is a less satisfactory solution to the Synoptic problem than the view that Luke is dependent on Matthew. Tuckett examines areas he perceives are weak in Watson’s argument—his methodology and particular examples of coincidences and Watson’s explanations. In response, Watson lists seven theses where he disagrees with Tuckett with respect to Q. The interaction of these essays is a good introduction to both the methodological and exegetical significance of the proposed solutions to the Synoptic problemThe second part of the book opens with Eve-Marie Becker’s essay on the value of Q for Markan studies. She argues that Mark knew Q and did not use it as a source but instead wrote his gospel to surpass Q. Clare K. Rothschild proposes that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Q 7:31–35 is “a self-referential designation for John the Baptist.” Luke used Baptist traditions in Q and combined them with Jesus traditions. Hildegard Scherer suggests that Q existed because the social matrix (relationships between people) pictured in the double tradition is so coherent. Mark Goodacre presents a case for the Farrer solution to the Synoptic problem by exploring the places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark—the so called “Mark-Q Overlaps.” This is followed by Werner Kahl’s essay that focuses on Matthew and Luke’s use of Mark 1:1–8. He proposes that the differences between the Synoptic gospels can be explained by understanding Matthew to have used Mark and Luke to have used both Mark and Matthew in writing up his account. That is, he again defends the Farrer solution to the Synoptic problem. Shelly Matthews examines the composition of Luke and argues that the final form was compiled in the second century from a “core Luke” to which were added Luke 1–2 and 24. The additions were possibly made in response to a Marcionite version which also used the core and added its own flourishes. Finally, Dieter T. Roth critically reviews recent scholarship that invokes Marcion’s Gospel in solutions to the Synoptic problem.In accordance with its aim, the volume does place essays alongside each other that represent differing solutions to the Synoptic problem. The inclusion of material on issues of both methodology and textual comparison keeps the significance of the attempts to solve the problem at the forefront of the reader’s mind. Further, the essays are well written and mostly easy to read, a point that bears stating given the hypothetical nature of the solutions and the attention to minute detail required to argue a case from difference in the Gospels. The book does not suit the undergraduate who is first entering into the problem but is appropriate for the advanced student or researcher who has been exposed to the various solutions and would like to see them juxtaposed in detail

Archaeology · Art · Creativity · Epistemology · Gospel · Historical Jesus · Library science · Linguistics · Literature · Narrative · New Testament · Paragraph · Political science · Scholarship · Sociology · Archaeology and Historical Studies · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Classics · Computer Science · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy