Bibliographia. Annotated Bibliographies (www.bibliographia.co)

by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: rc@ontology.co

Synoptic Problem: Bibliography of the main studies in English from 1964 (Mic - Pat)

Contents

The Bibliography is composed by the following sections:

Studies (mainly from 1964) in alphabetical order:

1: A - Bro

2: Buc - Day

3: De - Fee

4: Fit - Gou

5: Gre - Klo

6: Kni - Mey

7: Mic - Pat (Current page)

8: Pea - Row

9: San - Tri

10: Tuc - Z

Bibliography of studies on Synopsis - Concordances - Harmonies of the Gospels

N.B. Some abstracts will be added in the near future.

Studies on the Synoptic Problem

  1. Michaud, Jean-Paul. 2005. "Effervescence in Q Studies." Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt no. 30:61-103.

  2. Millard, A. R. 1995. "Writing and the Gospels." Qumran Chronicle no. 5:55-62.

  3. Monaghan, Christopher J. 1970. Reflections on the Synoptic Gospels and Their Special Design. Staten Island, N.Y: Alba House.

  4. ———. 2010. A Source Critical Edition of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in Greek and English. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press.

    Two volumes.

  5. ———. 2017. "The Synoptic Problem: Where to from Here?" Pacifica no. 30:72-87.

    Abstract: "The study of the Synoptic Problem continues with a wide range of hypotheses proposed to explain the relationship of Mark, Matthew and Luke to the early Jesus tradition, and to each other. This article reviews recent developments in synoptic studies highlighting the recognition of the ongoing role of the oral tradition, the ways in which scribal compositional practices in the first century have been used to test the major hypotheses, and the methodological constraints that accompany research in this area."

  6. Montefiore, Claude Goldsmid. 1927. The Synoptic Gospels. London: Macmillan.

    Second revised edition in two volumes; first edition 1909.

  7. Montgomery, Robert M. 1970. The Two-source Theory and the Synoptic Gospels. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

  8. Mosbo, Thomas J. 2017. Luke the Composer: Exploring the Evangelist's Use of Matthew. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

  9. Mosse, Martin. 2007. The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem. Miulton Keynes (GB): Paternoster Press.

  10. Mournet, Terence. 1969. Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency. Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

  11. Müller, Mogens, and Omerzu, Keike. 2018. Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis. New York: Bloomsbury.

    Contents: Preface VII; List of Contributors IX; Chapter 1. Heike Omerzu: Introduction: what is at stake by advocating or disputing to Two-Source Theory? 1;

    Part I History and Theory

    Chapter 2. John S. Kloppenborg: Conceptual stakes in the synoptic problem 13; Chapter 3. Stefan Alkier: Sad sources: observations from the history of theology on the origins and contours of the synoptic problem 43; Chapter 4. Mogens Müller: Were the gospel authors really 'simply Christians without literary gift' (Albert Schweitzer) ?: Arguments for the quest for sources behind to gospels 79; Chapter 5. Francis Watson: Q and the Logia: on the discovery and marginalizing of P.Oxy.1 97; Chapter 6. Christopher M. Tuckett: Watson, Q and 'L/M' 115; Chapter 7. Francis Watson: Seven these on te synoptic problem, in disagreement with Christopher Tuckett 139;

    Part II Textual Studies

    Chapter 8. Eve-Marie Becker: Mark with and against Q: the earliest gospel narrative as a counter-model 151; Chapter 9. Clare K. Rothschild: Refusing to acknowledge the immerser (Q 7.31-35) 165; Chapter 10. Hildegard Scherer: Coherence and distinctness: exploring the social matrix of the double tradition 185; Chapter 11. Mark Goodacre: Taking our leave of mark-Q overlaps: Major Agreements and the Farrer Theory 201; Chapter 12. Werner Kahl: The gospel of Luke as narratological improvement of synoptic pre-texts the narrative introduction to the Jesus story (Mark 1.1-8 parr.) 223; Chapter 13. Shelly Matthews: Does dating Luke-Acts to the Second Century affect the Q Hypothesis? 245; Chapter 14. Dieter T. Roth: Marcion's gospel and the synoptic problem in recent scholarship 267;

    Author Index 283; Subject Index 288; Index of References 292-302.

  12. Myllykoski, Matti. 1991. "The Material Common to Luke and John: A Sketch." In Luke-Acts. Scandinavian Perspectives, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, edited by Luomanen, Petri. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  13. Neirynck, Frans. 1972. Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Revised edition, with supplementary notes 1988.

  14. ———. 1973. The Argument from Order and St. Luke's Transpositions. Gembloux: J. Duculot.

    Reprinted in: F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays, pp. 737-768.

  15. ———. 1973. "Minor Agreements: Matthew Luke in the Transfiguration Story." In Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: Für Josef Schmid, edited by Hoffmann, Paul, 253-266. Freiburg im Bresgau: Herder.

    Reprinted in: F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays, pp. 797-810.

  16. ———. 1974. The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, with a Cumulative List. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    In collaboration with Theo Hansen and Frans van Segbroeck.

  17. ———. 1978. "The Symbol Q (= Quelle)." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 54:119-125.

    Reprinted in: F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays, pp. 683-689.

  18. ———. 1979. "Once More: the Symbol Q." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 55:382-383.

  19. ———. 1982. "Recent Developments in the Study of Q." In Logia. Les paroles de Jésus = The Sayings of Jesus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Delobel, Joël, 29-75. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, pp. 409-464.

  20. ———. 1982. "The Griesbach Hypothesis: the Phenomenon of Order." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 58:111-122.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, pp. 281-292.

  21. ———. 1982. Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. Leucen: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Contents: Collected Essays 1966-1981

    I. The Four Gospels

    1. La rédaction Matthéenne et la structure du premier évanglle [1967]

    2. La matière marcienne dans l'évangile de Luc [1973]

    3. Duplicate Expressions in the Gospel of Mark [1971]

    4. L'epanalepsis et la critique littéraire. Á propos de l'évangile de Jean [1980]

    II. The Empty Tomb Stories

    5. ANATEIΛANTOΣ TOY HAIOY. Mc 16,2 (1978]

    6. La fuite du jeune homme en Mc 14.51-52 [1979]

    7. Marc 16,1-8: Tradition et rédaction. Tombeau vide et angélophanie [1980]

    8. Les femmes au tombeau. Étude de la rédaction mattéenne. Matt. xxviii.1-10 [1969]

    9. Le recit du tombeau vide dans l'évangile de Luc (Lc 24.1-12) [1976]

    10. Lc xxiv.12. Les témoins du texte occidental [1978]

    11. The Uncorrected Historic Present in Lk xxiv.12 [1972]

    12. The 'Other disciple' in Jn 18,15-16 [1975]

    13. John and ihe Synoptics [1977]

    14. ΠAPAKYΨAΣ BAEΠEI. Lc 24,12 et Jn 20,5 [1977]

    15. AΠHΛΘEN ΠΡOΣ EAYTON. Lc 24.12 et Jn 20.10 (1978]

    16. ElΣ TA IΔIA: Jn 19,27b (et 16.32) [1979]

    17. La traduction d'un verset johannique: Jn 19,27b [1981]

    III. The Gospel of Mark

    18. L'évangile de Marc (I). Á propos de R. PESCH, Das Markusevangelium, 1. Teil [1977]

    19. L'évangile de Marc (II). Á propos de R. PESCH, Das Markusevangelium, 2. Teil [1979]

    20. Note sur la nouvelle édition du Commentaire [1980]

    21. Marc 13. Examen critique de l'interprétation de R. Pesch [1980]

    22. Le discours anti-apocalyptique de Mc 13 [1969]

    23. Deux nouveaux commentaires sur Marc [1981]

    24. The Redactional Text of Mark [1981]

    25. Jesus and the Sabbath. Some Observations on Mark II,27 [1975]

    IV. Matthew and Luke

    26. The Symbol Q (= Quelle) [1978]. Once More: The Symbol Q [1979]

    27. The Gospel of Matthew and Literary Criticism. A Critical Analysis of A. Gaboury's Hypothesis [1971]

    28. Les évangiles synoptiques: X. Léon-Dufour [1979]

    29. The Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel Synopsis [1976]

    30. The Argument from Order and SL Luke's Transpositions [1973]

    31. Deuteromarcus et les accords Mathieu-Luc [1980)

    32. Les ac:cords mineurs et la rédaction des évangiles. L'épisode du paralytique [1974]

    33. Minor Agreements Matthew-Luke in the Transfiguration Story [1973]

    34. Mc 9,33-50 en de overlevering van de Jezuswoorden (E.T. Concilium) [1966]

    35. De Jezuswoorden over echtscheiding [1972]

    36. The Miracle Stories in the Acts of the Apostles. An Introduction [1979]

    V. The Text of the Gospels

    37. The Synopric Gospels According to the New Textus Receptus [1976]

    38. The New Nestle-Aland: The Text of Mark in N26 [1979]

    39. L 'édition du texte de Q. A propos de A. POLAG, Fragmenta Q [1979]

    40. L'edition des Elzevier et le Textus Receptus du Nouveau Testament [1980]

    41. Note on the Codex Bezae in the Textual Apparatus of the Synopsis [1976]

    42. La Concordance de Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (1617) [1979]

    43. La nouvelle Concordance du Nouveau Testament [1976-1981]

  22. ———. 1984. "The Matthew-Luke Agreements in Mt 14,13-14/Lk 9,10-11 (par. Mk 6,30-34). A Response to M.-E. Boismard." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses:25-43.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, pp. 75-94.

  23. ———. 1985. "The Synoptic Problem." In The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal, edited by Bellinzoni Jr., Arthur J., 85-93. Macon: Mercer University Press.

    Reprinted from The Interpreter's Dictionay of the Bible, Nashville: Abindon 1976, Supp. pp. 845-848.

  24. ———. 1987. "Τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε: Mt 26,68/Lk 22,64 (diff. Mk 14,65)." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 63:5-47.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, pp. 95-138.

  25. ———. 1989. "The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark." In The New Testament and Early Christianity = La reception des écrits neotestamentaires dans le christianisme primitif, edited by Sevrin, Jean-Marie, 123-175. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, pp. 715-772.

  26. ———. 1989. "Note on Luke 9:22: a Response to M. D. Goulder." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 65:390-394.

    Abstract: "In M.D. Goulder's opinion, the minor agreements of Mt 16,21 and Lk 9,22 against Mk 8,31 indicate Matthean influence on Luke. He does not question Matthew's redaction of Mark's text, so here, too, the focus shall be on Luke's changes."

  27. ———. 1990. "Introduction: The Two-Source Hypothesis." In The Interrelations of the Gospels. A Symposium led by M.-E. Boismard - W.R. Farmer - F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984, edited by Dungan, David L., 3-22. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. III. 1992-2000, pp. 343-362.

  28. ———. 1990. "Matthew 4:23-5:2 and the Matthean Composition of 4:23-11:1." In The Interrelations of the Gospels. A Symposium led by M.-E. Boismard - W.R. Farmer - F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984, edited by Dungan, David L., 23-46. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  29. ———. 1990. "Response to the Multiple-Stage Hypothesis I: The introduction to the feeding story." In The Interrelations of the Gospels. A Symposium led by M.-E. Boismard - W.R. Farmer - F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984, edited by Dungan, David L., 81-93. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  30. ———. 1990. "Q Mt and Q Lk and the Reconstruction of Q." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 66:385-390.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, pp. 475-480.

  31. ———. 1990. "Synoptic Problem." In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Brown, Raymond E., Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Murphy, Roland E., 587-595. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

  32. ———. 1990. "Response to the Multiple-Stage Hypothesis II: The healing of the leper." In The Interrelations of the Gospels. A Symposium led by M.-E. Boismard - W.R. Farmer - F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984, edited by Dungan, David L., 94-107. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  33. ———. 1990. "Response to the Multiple-Stage Hypothesis III: The eschatological discourse." In The Interrelations of the Gospels. A Symposium led by M.-E. Boismard - W.R. Farmer - F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984, edited by Dungan, David L., 108-124. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  34. ———. 1991. "The Minor Agreements and Proto-Mark. A Response to H. Koester." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 67:82-94.

    Reprinted in: F. Neirynck, Evangelica II: Collected Essays, 1982-1991, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 59-73.

  35. ———. 1991. "A Symposium on the Minor Agreements." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 67:361-372.

    Reprinted in: F. Neirynck, Evangelica III: Collected Essays, 1992-2000, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 333-339.

  36. ———. 1991. "The Minor Agreements: Note on a Test Case. A Response to W. R. Farmer." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 67:73-81.

  37. ———. 1991. Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Contents: I. The Minor Agreements

    1. The Minor Agreements and the Two-Source Theory [1991]

    2. Note on Lk 9,22:: A Response to M.D. Goulder [1989]

    3. Note on a Tesl Case: A Response to W.R. Farmer [1991]

    4. The Minor Agreements and Proto-Mark: A Response to H. Koester [1991]

    S. The Matthew-Luke Agreements in Mt 14,13-14 / Lk 9,10-11 (par. Mk 6.30-34): A Reponse to M.-Ė Boismard ([984]

    6. TIΣ EΣTIN HO ΠAIΣAΣ ΣE: Mt 26,68 / Lk 22,64 (diff. Mk 14.65) [1987]

    II. Matthew and Luke

    7. AΠO TOTE HPΞATO and 1be Structure of Matthew [1988]

    8. Luke 14,1-6: Lukan Composition and Q Saying [1991]

    9. Luc 24,36-43: Un réclt lucanien [1985]

    10. Actes 10,36-43 et l'Évanglle [1984]

    11. Actes 10,36a TON AOΓON ON [1984]

    12. Le texte des Actes des Apôtres et les caracteristiques stylistiques lucaniennes [1985]

    lll. Mark and the Synoptic Problem

    13. The Griesbach Hypothesis: The Phenomenon of Order [1982]

    14. Les expressions doubles chez Marc et le problèmc synoptique [1983]

    15. L'arrière-fond sémitique des évangiles synoptiques : Réponse à P. Rolland [1984]

    16. Marc 6,14-16 et par. [1989]

    17. KAI EΛEΓON en Mc 6114 [1989]

    18. Words Characteristic of Mark: A New List {M. Friedrich) (1987]

    19. Mark and His Commentators: Mk 1,1-8,26 [1989]

    20. The Order of the Gospels and the Making of a Synopsis [1985]

    21. Once More: The Making of a Synopsis [1986]

    22. Greeven's Text of the Synoptic Gospels [1982]

    23. Le texte des évangiles dans la Synopse de Boismado-Lamouille [1987]

    IV. The Saylngs of Jesus

    24. Recent Developments in the Study of Q [1982]

    25. A Synopsis of Q [1988]

    26. QMt and QLk and the Reconstruction of Q [1990]

    27. Mt 12,25a / Lc 11,17a et la rédaction des évangiles [1986]

    28. The Eschatological Discourse [1990]

    29. Paul and the Sayings of Jesus [1986]

    V. The Fourth Gospel

    30. John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories [1984]

    31. John 21 [1990]

    32. The Anonymous Disciple in John 1 [1990]

    33. The Signs Source in the Founh Gospel: A Critique of the Hypothesis [1983]

    34. John 4,46-54: Signs Source and/or Synoptic Gospels [1984]

    35. Note sur Jn 21,14 [1988]

    36. Parentheses in the Fourth Gospel [1989]

    37. John 5,1-18 and the Gospel of Mark: A Response to P. Borgen [1990]

    VL The Apocryphal Gospels

    38. The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark [1989]

    39. Papyrus Egenon 2 and the Healing of the Leper [985]

    40. Le lexique de Bauer-Aland [1988]

  38. ———. 1993. "The Minor Agreements and the Two-Source Theory." In Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, edited by Strecker, Georg, 25-63. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, pp. 3-42.

  39. ———. 1993. "The Minor Agreements in a Horizontal-Line Synopsis: Appendices I, II, III 221." In Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991, edited by Strecker, Georg, 221-230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  40. ———. 1994. "Luke 10:25-28: a Foreign Body in Luke?" In Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, edited by Porter, Stanley E., Joyce, Paul M. and Orton, David E., 149-165. Leiden: Brill.

  41. ———. 1995. "The Minor Agreements and Lk 10,25-28." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 71:151-160.

    Reprinted in: F. Neirynck, Evangelica III: Collected Essays, 1992-2000, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 283-294.

    Abstract: "In a recently published essay I studied the minor agreements used by some scholars for expanding Q to triple-tradition passages. I examined Q 3,2-4; 3,21- 22; 6,12-16; 10,25-28; 12,1b; 17,2; 17,31 as possible candidates for inclusion in Q and had to conclude that “in none of them the Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark seem to provide conclusive evidence”. One of these passages, the pericope of the Great Commandment, was studied again, and more extensively, with regard to the alternative theory of Luke’s use of Matthew. It is to this last essay that R.H. Gundry now responds with a Rejoinder."

  42. ———. 1995. "Q: From Source to Gospel." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 71:421-430.

  43. ———. 1995. "The Minor Agreements and Q." In The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, edited by Piper, Roland Allen, 49-72. Leiden: Brill.

  44. ———. 1996. "The Sayings Source Q and the Gospel of Mark." In Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für M. Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. III. Frühes Christentum, edited by Cancik, H., Lichtenberger, H. and Schäfer, P., 125-145. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

  45. ———. 1996. "Documenta Q: Q 11,2b-4." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 72:418-424.

  46. ———. 1996. "The First Synoptic Pericope: the Appearance of John the Baptist in Q?" Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 72:41-74.

  47. ———. 1996. "The International Q Project." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 69:221-225.

  48. ———. 1997. "Note on the Argument(s) from Order." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 73:386-392.

  49. ———. 1997. "Note on Q 4, 1-2." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 73:94-102.

  50. ———. 1998. "The Sources of Matthew. Annotations to U. Luz's Commentary." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 74:109-126.

    Reprinted in F. Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, pp. 371-398.

  51. ———. 2000. "NAZAPA in Q: Pro and Con." In From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson, edited by Asgeirsson, Jon Ma., de Toyer, Kristin and Meyer, Mavin W., 159-169. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Reprinted in: F. Neirynck, Evangelica III: Collected Essays, 1992-2000, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 451-461.

  52. ———. 2001. "Luke 9,22 and 10,25-28: the Case for Independent Redaction." In Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, edited by van Segbroeck, Frans, 295-306. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  53. ———. 2001. "Goulder and the Minor Agreements." In Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, edited by van Segbroeck, Frans, 307-318. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  54. ———. 2001. "The Argument(s) from Order." In Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. II. 1982-1991, edited by van Segbroeck, Frans, 363-370. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  55. ———. 2001. Q Parallels: Q Synopsis and IQP/CritEd Parallels. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    IQP = International Q Project.

  56. ———. 2001. Evangelica: Gospel studies = Études d'Évangile : Collected Essays. III. 1992-2000. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Contents: I. Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense: 1. John and the Synoptics: 1975-1990; 2. Literary Criticism, Old and New. 3. The Sayings of Jesus in 1 Corinthians. 4. Q 6,20b-21; 7,22 and Isaiah 61. 5. Luke 4,16-30 and the Unity of Luke-Acts. II. The Minor Agreements; 6. The First Synoptic Pericope; 7. The Minor Agreements and Q: 8. Luke 10:25-28: A Foreign Body in Luke?; 9. The Minor Agreements and Lk 10,25-28; 10. Luke 9,22 and 10,25-28: R.H. Gundry; 11. Goulder and the Minor Agreements; 12. Gospel Issues in the Passion Narratives: R.E. Brown; 13. A Symposium on the Minor Agreements. III. The Synoptic Problem; 14. The Two-Source Hypothesis: Introduction; 15. The Argument(s) from Order: D.J. Neville; 16. The Sources of Matthew: U. Luz; 17. Urmarcus révisé: M.-É. Boismard. IV. The Sayings Source Q:;18. Q: From Source to Gospel; 19. Documenta Q: Q 11,2b-4; 20. Note on Q 4,1-2; 21. Nazara in Q: Pro and Con; 22. The Divorce Saying in Q 16,18; 23. Saving/Losing One's Life: Luke 17,33 (Q?) and Mark 8,35; 24. Mark and Q: Assessment: H. Fleddermann. V. John and the Synoptics Revisited; 25. Once More Luke 24,12: A. Dauer; 26. A Supplementary Note on Lk 24,12; 27. Note on Mt 28,9-10; 28. Short Note on John 19,26-27; 29. Jean 4,46-54: Une leçon de méthode: S. Landis; 30. John and the Synoptics in Recent Commentaries: U. Wilckens, U. Schnelle; 31. The Question of John and the Synoptics: D.M. Smith; 32. The Gospels and Jesus: J.D. Crossan.

  57. Neville, David J. 1994. Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique. Macon: Mercer University Press.

    "The purpose of this historical-critical study is to evaluate the various ways that critics have appealed to the phenomenon of order in attempting to resolve the synoptic problem. But what is “the phenomenon of order”? It refers neither to the historical order of events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth nor to the chronological order in which the gospels were written, but to a literary feature related to the narrative structures of the gospels. Within the context of gospel source criticism, “the phenomenon of order” denotes the pattern of agreement and disagreement between the first three gospels with respect to narrative sequence or to the order in which pericopes are arranged.(11) As such, this particular phenomenon must be distinguished from similar patterns of convergence and divergence in the order of words, phrases, clauses, or even subsections within pericopes.(12)

    This study is restricted to the phenomenon of order in relation to material shared between all three gospels (“the triple tradition”), together with material shared between Matthew and Mark and between Mark and Luke. Sometimes designated “the Marcan tradition,” this appellation stems from the view that the Gospel of Mark, or a document similar to Mark’s Gospel, was a principal source for Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels. No prejudice should be read into my decision to exclude an analysis of the significance of similarity and dissimilarity in the sequential arrangement of material common only to Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels." (pp. 3-4)

    (...)

    "The following historical and analytical survey is divided into three sections. Section I explores the fons et origo of arguments from order for each of these two views: Mark’s dependence on Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels or Matthew’s and Luke’s dependence on Mark’s Gospel. The first to argue for a particular source theory on the basis of the phenomenon of order was Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), who also set source criticism of the gospels on a scientific foundation by constructing a tool designed to facilitate critical comparison of the first three gospels. He called his tool a “synopsis” because it presented the texts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in parallel columns so they could be viewed simultaneously. Consequently, the first three gospels have since been referred to collectively as “the synoptic gospels".” (p. 7)

    (...)

    "Section II traces the development of two distinct arguments from order for Marcan priority in English-speaking synoptic criticism between the publication of F. H. Woods’s influential study, “The Origin and Mutual Relation of the Synoptic Gospels,” and the release of B. H. Streeter’s epochal book on The Four Gospels." (p. 7, two notes omitted)

    (...)

    "Section III examines major turning points in synoptic criticism since the publication in 1951 of B. C. Butler’s The Originality of St Matthew, which forced a number of critics to reassess B. H. Streeter’s “fundamental solution.” The developmental thread in this section is, first, Butler’s demonstration that Streeter’s argument from order for Marcan priority was not so much an argument as a fallacious inference; second, Farmer’s resuscitation of Griesbach’s hypothesis as the theory that allegedly provides the most tenable explanation of the various literary phenomena in the synoptic gospels, particularly the phenomenon of order; and third, Tuckett’s defense of a particular type of argument from order in the wake of Butler’s and Farmer’s criticisms of the use of an inconclusive argument for Marcan priority."(p. 9)

    (11) In the first instance, “the phenomenon of order” simply refers to the sequential arrangement of pericopes in any one gospel, but it is the pattern of agreement and disagreement between the different arrangements of pericopes in all three gospels that is significant for determining their interrelationships.

    (12) Cf. Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study in the Synoptic Problem (Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1977). An entire issue of Second Century (6/2 [Summer 1987-1988]) is devoted to Longstaff s study under the heading “Order in the Synoptic Gospels: Patterns of Agreement within Pericopes.”

  58. ———. 2002. Mark’s Gospel - Prior or Posterior? A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order. London: Sheffield Academic Press.

  59. ———. 2006. "The Demise of the Two-Document Hypothesis? Dunn and Burkett on Gospel Sources." Pacifica: Australasian Theological Studies no. 19:78-92.

  60. ———. 2008. "The Phantom Returns: Delbert Burkett's Rehabilitation of Proto-Mark." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses no. 84:135-173.

  61. New, David S. 1993. Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

  62. Newman, Robert C. 1980. "The Synoptic Problem! A Proposal for Handling both Internal & External Evidence." Westminster Theological Journal no. 43:132-151.

  63. Nickle, Keith F. 2001. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

    Second revised and expanded edition (First edtion 1989).

  64. Nielsen, Jesper Tang, and Müller, Mogens, eds. 2016. Luke's Literary Creativity. New York: Bloomsbury.

    Contents: Preface VII; Abbreviations IX; Contributors XI; Jesper Tang Nielsen: Introduction XIII-XXVII;

    Part I. Luke Rewriting

    Vladimir Wittkowsky: Luke Uses/Rewrites Matthew: A Survey of the Nineteenth-Century Research 3; Mark Goodacre: Re-Walking to "Way of the Lord": Luke's Use of Mark and His Reaction to Matthew 26; Werner Kahl: Inclusive and Exclusive Agreements - Towards a Neutral Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels, or Minor Agreements as a Misleading Category 44; Francis Watson: Luke Rewriting and Rewritten 79; Magnus Müller: Acts as Biblical Rewriting of the Gospels and Paul's Letters 96;

    Part II. Rewriting of Testament Themes and Passages

    Lukas Borman: Rewritten Prophecy in Luke-Acts 121; Lotta Valve: The Lord Elijah in the Temple as in Malachi 3.1: "Overkilling" Elijah Traditions in Luke 2 144; Joseph M. Lear Jr: Luke's Use of the Old Testament in the Sending of the Seventy(-Two): A Compositional Study 160;

    Part III. Rewriting Gospel Themes and Passages

    Daniel Gustafsson: Luke's rewriting o0f the Markan Mélange of Christological Titles (Mark 8.27-33 par.; 12.25-37 par.; 14.55-64 par.) 185; Marianne Bjelland Kartzow: Rewritten Stereotypes: Scripture and Cultural Echo in Luke's Parable of the Widows and the Judge 208; Niels Willert: Luke's Portrait of Jesus and the Political Authorities in His Passion Narrative: A Rewriting of the Passion Narratives of the Other Gospels 225;

    Part IV. Luke Rewriting Roman Authorities

    Martin Friis: Paul in the Presence of Power: Depictions of Social Interactions in Acts and in the Hellenistic Historians 251; Stefan Nordgaard: Luke's Readers and Josephus: Paul and Agrippa II as a Test Case 266;

    Index of References 280; Index of Authors 295-299.

  65. Niemeld, John H. 2002. "Two-Gospel Response." In Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, edited by Thomas, Robert L., 97-110. Grand Rapids (MI): Kregel

  66. ———. 2002. " The Case for the Two-Gospel View of Gospel Origins." In Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, edited by Thomas, Robert L., 126-197. Grand Rapids (MI): Kregel

  67. O'Connell, L. J. 1978. "Boismard's Synoptic Theory: Exposition and Response." Theology Digest no. 26:325-342.

  68. O'Leary, Anne M. 2006. Matthew's Judaization of Mark. Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. London / New York: T & T Clark.

  69. O'Neill, J. C. 1975. "The Synoptic Problem." New Testament Studies no. 21:273-285.

  70. O'Rourke, John J. 1974. "Some Observations on the Synoptic Problem and the Use of Statistical Procedures." Novum Testamentum no. 16:272-277.

    Reprinted in: David E. Orton (ed.), The Synoptic Problem and Q: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum, Leiden: Brill, 1999, pp. 132-137.

  71. Olson, Ken. 2004. "Unpicking on the Farrer Theory." In Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique, edited by Goodacre, Mark and Perrin, Nicholas, 127-150. London: SPCK.

  72. ———. 2015. "Luke 11.2-4: The Lord's Prayer (Abridged Edition)." In Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis, edited by Poirier, John C. and Peterson, Jeffrey, 101-118. London: T & T Clark.

    "In the literature on the Lord's Prayer one frequently finds the claim that there are no credible reasons for Luke to have rejected the material he must have omitted if he knew the longer version of the prayer. I do

    not doubt that many of those accustomed to thinking of Luke's prayer as earlier and more original will not find the reasons for omission proposed here to be fully convincing. Deductions about what an author might or might not have done are never absolutely conclusive but always involve a contest of plausibility among various options. The question, though, is whether more convincing reasons can be given for the other side. There seems to be a working assumption among many scholars that we should assume as a default position that Luke copied out everything in his source for the Lord's Prayer unless it can be demonstrated that Luke necessarily would have omitted it. We would have a great deal of difficulty explaining Luke's omissions from Mark in the Sower, or Gethsemane, or Jairus' Daughter, if this standard were applied consistently. It ought to be incumbent on those asserting that Luke would have retained the unparalleled material from the Lord's Prayer had he known it to produce reasons that are equally or more convincing than the ones given here for their omission. I do not think this has been done." (p. 118)

  73. Omerzu, Heike. 2014. "Beyond the Fourfold Gospel: A Critical Reading of Francis Watson’s Gospel Writing: A

    Canonical Perspective." Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 37:201-209.

  74. Orchard, Bernard. 1976. "J.A.T. Robinson and the Synoptic Problem." New Testament Studies no. 22:346-352.

  75. ———. 1977. Matthew, Luke, & Mark: the Griesbach Solution to the Synoptic Question. Manchester: Koinonia Press.

  76. ———. 1979. "Why THREE Synoptic Gospels? A Statement of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis." Irish Theological Quarterly no. 46:240-255.

  77. ———. 1980. "The Two-Gospel Hypothesis or, Some Thoughts on the Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis." The Downside Review no. 98:267-279.

  78. ———. 1983. "The “Common Step” Phenomenon in the Synoptic Pericopes." In New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, edited by Farmer, William R., 393-407. Macon: Mercer University Press.

  79. ———. 1987. "Some reflections on the relationship of Luke to Matthew." In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church, edited by Sanders, Ed Parish, 33-46. Macon GA: Mercer University Press.

  80. ———. 1988. "The Formation of the Synoptic Gospels." The Downside Review no. 106:1-16.

  81. ———. 1990. "Response to H. Merkel." In The Interrelations of the Gospels. A Symposium led by M.-E. Boismard - W.R. Farmer - F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984, edited by Dungan, David L., 591-604. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

  82. ———. 1992. "Mark and the Fusion of Traditions." In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Volume II, edited by van Segbroeck, Frans, Tuckett, Christopher M., van Belle, Gilbert and Verheyden, Joseph, 779-800. Leuven: Peeters.

  83. ———. 1993. "The Publication of Mark's Gospel." In The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, edited by Focant, Camille, 518-520. Louvain: Louvain University Press.

  84. Orchard, Bernard, and Longstaff, Thomas R. W., eds. 1978. J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776-1976. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Contents: Portrait of J. J. Griesbach page vi; Copy of Colloquium announcement vii; List of participants and selected observers ix; Preface xi; Abbreviations xvi;

    1 William R. Farmer: The genesis of the Colloquium 1; 2 Gerhard Delling: Johann Jakob Griesbach: his life, work and times 5; 3 Heinrich Greeven: The Gospel synopsis from 1776 to the present day 22; 4 Bo Reicke: Griesbach's answer to the Synoptic Question 50; 5 J. J. Griesbach: Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (Introduction by Bo Reicke) 68; 6. Bernard Orchard: A demonstration that Mark was written after Matthew and Luke (A translation of J. J. Griesbach's Commentatio) 103; 7 G. D. Kilpatrick: Griesbach and the development of text criticism 136; 8 Gordon D. Fee: Modern text criticism and the Synoptic Problem 154; 9 Thomas R. W. Longstaff: At the Colloquium's conclusion 170; Frans Neirynck and F. Van Segbroeck: 10 The Griesbach Hypothesis: a Bibliography 176;

    Notes 182; Appendix: Additional entries to the Bibliography 219; Index 220-224.

  85. Orchard, Bernard, and Riley, Harold. 1987. The Order of the Synoptics : Why Three Synoptic Gospels? Macon, GE: Mercer University Press.

    Contents: Foreword X; Abbreviations XIII; Part One: Harold Riley: The Internal Evidence 3; Part Two: Bernard Orchard: The Historical Tradition 111; Part Three: Bernard Orchard: How the Synoptic Gospels Came into Existence (A tentative reconstruction of the history of their composition by means of a synthesis of the evidence drawn from parts one and two) 229; REcapitualtion and Conclusion 275; Epilogue 278; Bibliography 281; Indexes 289-294.

    "This study is the first attempt to coordinate, within the compass of a single volume, the three separate lines of argument necessary to solve the Synoptic Problem, namely the historical and patristic evidence, the internal critical evidence for mutual literary dependence, and the ‘‘scenario” necessary to show how the tensions between the first and the second lines of argument can be satisfactorily resolved. It is the work of two scholar priests. Harold Riley, an Anglican, and Bernard Orchard, a Benedictine monk, and forms a further link in a series of studies of the Synoptic Problem, initialed by John Chapman. Christopher Butler, and later developed by William R. Farmer. David L. Dungan Η. H. Stoldt. T. R. W. Longstaff, and many others who have over the past fifty years helped to expose the weaknesses of the various Markan-Priority hypotheses, and have now built up a strong case for the contrary hypothesis known as the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, a recent development of the old Griesbach Hypothesis.

    (...)

    Part one does not attempt to deal with the usual flaws in the argument for Markan Priority, for these have been adequately dealt with by other writers. Instead, Riley works out an original argument in which he shows how the thematic order of Matthew cannot be derived from Mark, nor can that of Luke; and he is then able to show that Mark is in fact derived mostly from our Matthew and our Luke. His section concludes with a refutation of G. M. Styler’s "key-passages” in favor of Markan Priority.

    In part two the historical testimonies are approached scientifically, that is to say, in chronological order according to the dates of the documents in which the evidence has come down to us. Thus the vital Papias testimony is dealt with only when the discussion reaches the fourth century witnesses. In the course of this part the following points become clear: (I) that the evidence for the apostolic origin of the Gospels is in reality both consistent and cogent, despite the two or three minor discrepancies, for which adequate explanations are available; (2) that the late appearance (in mid-second century) of the first direct written attestation of the authorship of the Gospels is in itself no argument for disregarding its value; and (3) that the "John the Presbyter" legend is a fabrication of Eusebius on the basis of a single comment of Dionysius of Alexandria. Thus the conclusions of part two support those of part one.

    Part three, however, will probably be the principal object of critical concern. and understandably, in view of the revolutionary yet conservative nature of the thesis proposed. For here there is a great problem, since scholarly integrity requires that a serious effort be made to see if the data of the patristic tradition, now shown to be compatible with the critical evidence, actually slot into the historical development of the Primitive Church as portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles. In fact they do. and part three shows that it makes excellent sense, historically speaking, for our Greek Matthew to be the first gospel and for our Luke to be the second, with Mark chronologically in the third place. In fact, if Acts was written and completed before Paul’s release from his Roman confinement, it makes good sense to see Matthew as composed for the primitive Jewish Christian Church described in Acts 1-12. and Luke to have been written for Paul’s converts of Acts 13-28. In other words, each Gospel reflects a well-defined stage in the development of the Church, seen against the background of the struggle between the Circumcision and the Non-Circumcision parties. Peter and Paul being the two key figures." (Foreword, X)

  86. Orton, David E., ed. 1999. The Synoptic Problem and Q: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill.

    Preface VII; Places or Original Publication IX;

    Stewart Petrie: "Q" Is Only What You Make It 1; R. L. Lindsey: A Modified Two-Document Theory or the Synoptic Dependence and Independence 7; Stefan Porúbcan: Form Criticism and the Synoptic Problem 32; A.M. Honoré: A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem 70; Alfred Jepsen: Ammerkungen eines Aussenseiters zum Synoptkerproblem 123; John J. O'Rourke: Some Observations on the Synoptic Problem and the Use of Statistical Procedure 132; Petros Vassiliadis: The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document 138; Gordon D. Fee: A Text-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem 163; C. M. Tuckett: The Beatitudes: A Source-Critical Study. With a Reply by M. D. Goulder 180; Ronald V. Huggins: Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal 204; Sharon L. Mattila: A Problem Still Clouded: Yet Again - Statistics and "Q" 226; Adelbert Denaux: Criteria for Identifying Q-Passages 243; Index of Authors 269; Index of Biblical References 273.

  87. Osborne, Grant R., and Williams, Matthew C. 2002. "The Case for the Markan Priority View of Gospel Origins: The Two-/Four-Source View." In Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, edited by Thomas, Robert L., 19-96. Grand Rapids (MI): Kregel

  88. ———. 2002. "Markan Priority Response." In Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, edited by Thomas, Robert L., 198-209. Grand Rapids (MI): Kregel

  89. Outler, Albert C. 1983. "Canon Criticism and the Gospel of Mark." In New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, edited by Farmer, William R., 233-243. Macon: Mercer University Press.

  90. Paffenroth, Kim. 1997. The Story of Jesus According to L. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

  91. Palmer, N. H. 1985. "Lachmann’s Argument." In The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal, edited by Bellinzoni Jr., Arthur J., 119-131. Macon: Mercer University Press.

    Reprint of "Lachmann’s Argument", New Testament Studies, 13, 1966-67,pp. 368-378.

  92. Pardee, Cambry. 2019. Scribal Harmonization in the Synoptic Gospels. Leiden: Brill.

  93. Parker, Pierson. 1953. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  94. ———. 1981. "A Second Look at The Gospel Before Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature no. 100:389-413.

    "The late, great Burton Scott Easton was once heard to say that his idea of heaven was a group of competent scholars, sitting about a table through eternity, discussing the synoptic problem. I hope we may infer, not that it will take eternity to solve the problem, rather, that something very like heaven are occasions such as the one that brought forth the present essay. At its 1979 meeting, the SBL [Society of Biblical Literature] Group on the Relationships of the Gospels held a panel discussion. The topics were (a) my old book, The Gospel Before Mark, and (b) a statement from me that had appeared in Seminar Papers Vol. 1. The assignment for the latter was to indicate where my own thinking about the synoptic problem had changed in the past quarter-century and, every whit as important, where it had not. The present article has been revised in the light of comments from the panelists3 and from the JBL editorial board." (p. 389, notes omitted)

  95. ———. 1983. "The Posteriority of Mark." In New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond, edited by Farmer, William R., 67-142. Macon: Mercer University Press.

  96. ———. 1985. "The Second Gospel Is Secondary." In The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal, edited by Bellinzoni Jr., Arthur J., 205-217. Macon: Mercer University Press.

    Reprint from "A Second Look to the Gospel Before Mark", Journal of Biblical Literature, 100, 1981, pp. 395-405.

  97. Patterson, Stephen J. 1993. "Wisdom in Q and Thomas." In In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of John G. Gammie, edited by Perdue, Leo G., 187-221. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.

    Reprinted in: S. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins: Essays on the Fifth Gospel, Leiden: Brill 2013, pp. 141-174.

  98. ———. 2011. "The Gospel of (Judas) Thomas and the Synoptic Problem." In New Studies in the Synoptic Problem. Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett edited by Foster, Paul, Gregory, Andrew F., Kloppenborg, John S. and Verheyden, Joseph, 783-808. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters.

    Reprinted in: S. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins: Essays on the Fifth Gospel, Leiden: Brill 2013, pp. 93-118.

  99. ———. 2014. "Twice More—Thomas and the Synoptics: A Reply to Simon Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas, and Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels." Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 36:251-261.

    Abstract: "Whereas the recent studies by Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole focus on sayings in the Gospel of Thomas which have close Synoptic parallels, this review article highlights the historical and theological questions raised by a late rather than early Thomas.

    Furthermore, the review argues that too much credit is given to scanty or ambiguous evidence for Synoptic dependence (Gathercole), and that several cases of verbatim agreement between Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels (Goodacre) are brief, formulaic

    sayings which might in fact indicate familiarity with Q. Drawing on the modern analogy of how jokes circulate, ‘diagnostic shards’ (Goodacre) of shared words and phrases do not necessarily brand the author of Thomas as a plagiarist, but point in all likelihood to the author’s reliance on common oral tradition. Thomas also draws on numerous other, Synoptic-like traditions that are clearly independent of the canonical Gospels."