Mark Goodacre

Dr. Mark Goodacre clearly presents and argues for a solution to the Synoptic Problem that does not require a hypothetical "Q" gospel. Written as an introduction to the subject of Gospel origins, it is accessible to anyone with a mind open to rational critical thinking.

I was a fan of the Q hypothesis since my college years in the early 1980s, and found the "But wait! There's more!" nature of the quest to refine the content of Q to be a fascinating journey of discovery. Unfortunately, the show more once-upon-a-time existence of a long lost Q document has become an article of faith rather than a scholarly hypothesis. Those whose honest inquiry into gospel origins question this new orthodoxy are subject to Inquisition and re-education or excommunication from the increasingly peevish followers of Q Theory (no longer the Q hypothesis).

Mark Goodacre is a good-natured scholar, and "The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze" is not a strident expose of the circular reasoning and self-contradictions to be found in Q studies today. The pros and cons of each alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem are laid out. The priority of the Gospel of Mark, as opposed to Q, makes good literary and historical sense. With apologies - "First comes Mark, then comes Matthew, then comes Luke in a baby carriage". There need not be a secret lover named Q to complicate the family tree. Is that a spoiler? I pray not. show less

This is an excellent overview of the Synoptic Problem with a proposed solution which bypasses the need for a Q document. Goodacre is intrigued by this mystery, stating that the “Synoptic Problem is probably the most fascinating literary enigma of all time.” He provides a fair analysis of why scholars tend to favor Q as a solution, but then dismantles the arguments in favor the Farrer Theory.

The Synoptic Problem seeks to explain the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are show more simply too similar to have been written indepently. But what is the relationship between the three? Which gospel(s) copied from which, why did portions of the gospel story get left out in the copying, and where did any new material come from?

While Q is the assumed missing link in the Two-Source Theory (which states that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and an as-yet unfound sayings gospel known as Q), the Farrer Theory also assumes Markan priority but then goes in a different direction. It proposes that Luke actually relied on Matthew and Mark, with no need for another source. The idea is that Luke found Matthew’s work largely unacceptable and picked over those additions to Mark that he found in line with his own emphasis while discarding other material. After admitting that the solution is far from proven, Goodacre appeals to Occam’s Razor, choosing what he feels is the less complex solution. If you’re familiar with the divisions titled Mark, Q, M and L, the idea here is that M and Q are Matthew’s additions to Mark, but Q doesn’t derive from an earlier source … it merely represents that portion of Matthew’s additions that Luke chose to retain in his own rewrite.

Written with clarity and numerous examples, but without digging deeper than necessary to portray the issues, this is the best book I’ve read yet about the Synoptic Problem.

Originally published in 2001 by T&T Clark International, this book is now placed in the public domain and made available by the Internet Archive.

T&T Clark International, © 2011

ISBN: 0-567-080-560 show less

Summary: Maintains that John knew of and used Matthew, Mark, and Luke in composing his gospel.

Two things a first time reader of the New Testament will notice: the similarities of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and how different John’s gospel is from these. As it turns out, biblical scholars also noticed this and most over the last hundred years have concluded that John’s account is independent of the other three, commonly known as the Synoptic Gospels. It is generally believed that Matthew and show more Luke drew much of their material from Mark as well as using sharing a common source known as “Q.” Today, more are questioning the “Q” hypothesis since no “Q” document has ever been found.

Mark Goodacre, as his title suggests, believes John knew of the other three gospels and used them in his composition of John. First, he begins his case by noting the numerous instances of verbal agreement between John and the Synoptics. He sets passages side by side showing agreement in both Greek and English texts. Then he observes the parallel ordering of a number of events between John and the Synoptics.. From this, he argues, based on linguistic analysis, that John’s drew from Mark as mediated through Matthew and Luke.

In addition, John’s selectivity actually presupposes that not only he, but his readers, were familiar with the other gospels. He doesn’t include material that his readers were already familiar with. At other times, John recounts the same incidents but uses direct speech, putting Synoptic narrative on the characters lips.

Another question scholars raise is whether the Beloved Disciple of the gospel is John the son of Zebedee, as traditionally believed. Goodacre considers the various arguments for who the Beloved Disciple might be if not John the son of Zebedee. Goodacre agrees with the textual pointers to John, yet also that he is “an idealized witness to the key events of the earliest Christian tradition.”

Finally, Goodacre argues that while expressed in distinct language, John’s Christology is consistent with Synoptic Christology. He uses fourteen terms for Jesus in common with the Synoptics. The “I am’s” find precedence in Jesus statement in walking on water (Matthew 14:27//Mark 6:50). The seven “I am sayings all use imagery found in the Synoptics.

I found the evidence of verbal agreement most persuasive for his argument. A shared oral tradition alone would likely have been marked by less agreement. I also found the argument of John’s presupposition of the other gospels credible for explaining the differences. Lastly, I appreciated the discussion of Christology and how John’s is consistent with the others. However, I would like more discussion of the differences, particularly in discourses, that we find in John. Perhaps that’s another book!

_______________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review. show less

Revisionist scholarship at its most compelling. The arguments are often complex by they are presented in an accessible manner.