Mark Goodacre’s The Case Against Q: A Retrospect Twenty-Two Years On

References

1. Andrejevs, Olegs, Simon J.Joseph, EdmondoLupieri, and JosephVerheyden, eds. The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference. Leuven: Peeters, 2023.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Barker, James W.“Ancient Compositional Practices and the Gospels: A Reassessment.”Journal of Biblical Literature135 (2016): 109–21.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bauckham, Richard. “Gospels before Normativization: A Critique of Francis Watson’s Gospel Writing.”Journal for the Study of the New Testament37 (2014): 185–200.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Burkett, Delbert. The Case for Proto-Mark: A Study in the Synoptic Problem. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Derrenbacker, Jr., R.A.Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Downing, F. Gerald. “Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem.”Journal of Biblical Literature107 (1988): 69–85.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Eve, Eric. Relating the Gospels: Imitation, Memory, and the Farrer Hypothesis. London: T&T Clark, 2021.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Farmer, William R.The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Farrer, Austin M.“On Dispensing with Q.” In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot, edited by D.E.Nineham, 55–86. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Foster, Paul. “Is It Possible to Dispense with Q?”Novum Testamentum45 (2003): 313–37.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Fuller, Reginald H.The New Testament in Current Study. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1962.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Garrow, Alan. “Streeter’s ‘Other’ Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis.”New Testament Studies62 (2016): 207–26.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Garrow, Alan. “An Extant Instance of ‘Q.’”New Testament Studies62 (2016): 398–417.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Goodacre, Mark. Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Goodacre, Mark. “Fatigue in the Synoptics.”New Testament Studies44 (1998): 45–58.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Goodacre, Mark. The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Goodacre, Mark. “Why Not Matthew’s Use of Luke?” In Gospel Reading and Reception in Early Christian Literature, edited by Madison N.Pierce, Andrew J.Byers, and SimonGathercole, 71–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Goulder, Michael. Luke: A New Paradigm. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hägerland, Tobias. “Editorial Fatigue and the Existence of Q.”New Testament Studies65 (2019): 190–206.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Hoffmann, Paul, et al., eds. Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research. 12 vols. Leuven: Peeters, 1996–2014.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Klinghardt, Matthias. “The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion.”Novum Testamentum50 (2008): 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Klinghardt, Matthias. Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien. Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Kloppenborg, John S.“On Dispensing with Q? Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew.”New Testament Studies49 (2003): 210–36.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Kloppenborg, John S.“Conceptual Stakes in the Synoptic Problem.” In Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis, edited by MogensMüller and HeikeOmerzu, 13–42. London: T&T Clark, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Kloppenborg Verbin, John S.Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
26. MacEwen, Robert K.Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Müller, Mogens, and Jasper TangNielsen, eds. Luke’s Literary Creativity. London: T&T Clark, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Müller, Mogens, and HeikeOmerzu, eds. Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis. London: T&T Clark, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Peabody, David B., ed. One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke. London: Trinity Press International, 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Poirier, John C., and JeffreyPetersen, eds. Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis. London: T&T Clark, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Streeter, B.H.The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. 7th ed. London: Macmillan, 1951.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Tuckett, Christopher M.“The Current State of the Synoptic Problem.” In New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett, edited by PaulFoster, 9–50. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Tuckett, Christopher M.“Watson, Q and ‘L/M.’” In Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis, edited by MogensMüller and HeikeOmerzu, 115–38. London: T&T Clark, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Watson, Francis. “Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology.”New Testament Studies55 (2009): 397–415.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Watson, Francis. Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]