The Oxford Conference On The Synoptic PR

The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem
D A N B AT O V I C I
University of Bucharest
dan_batovici@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The past two centuries have witnessed a wide spectrum of solutions for the
Synoptic Problem. Even though quite far from a consensus, the problem
tends to incorporate new domains from ongoing connected research: the
relevance of the Gospel of Thomas, the Synoptic authors’ use of the Old
Testament or recent studies on communication media in antiquity. This
article surveys a number of issues presented in the papers of the Oxford
Conference on the Synoptic Problem, held in May 2008, ranging from
challenging past and present solutions of the Synoptic Problem from dif-
ferent perspectives to new directions of research on this topic.
Keywords: Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis, Gospel of Thomas, Griesbach

Hypothesis, minor agreements, Oxford Conference, synopses, synoptic
problem, Two-Source Hypothesis
Lincoln College hosted on 7-10 April 2008 the Oxford Conference on the
Synoptic Problem. The event was intended to re-visit, on its centenary, the
volume Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (1911), edited by William
Sanday. The proposed topic has not been neglected over the last century
of biblical research, and the conveners—Paul Foster (Edinburgh), Andrew
Gregory (Oxford), John S. Kloppenborg (Toronto), Joseph Verheyden
(Leuven)—sought to cover both the dynamic of the past century’s research
and future possibilities with an accentuated focus on methodological issues.
Conveniently enough, extended versions of most of the papers offered were
uploaded on the conference’s web page, allowing participants to prepare
responses in advance. As a result, considerable time for discussions was
scheduled on the conference programme. It has also been announced that
the papers presented at Lincoln will form the bulk of a forthcoming volume
that will be published by Peeters of Leuven.
Currents in Biblical Research

© 2009 SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC Vol. 7.2: 245-271
http://CBI.sagepub.com
Downloaded ISSNat1476-993X
from http://cbi.sagepub.com DOI: 10.1177/1476993X08099544
UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008
246 Currents in Biblical Research 7.2 (2009)
A. Gregory
The opening paper of the irst section had mainly methodological con-
cerns: A. Gregory (Oxford) discussed ‘What is Literary Dependence?’
Gregory presented various starting points and dificulties in arguments on
dependence between two texts. This echoed the solutions and aporias of
the recent research, and an important point was made in acknowledging
that, while literary dependence cannot be proven, it forms a basis of a
working hypothesis that has proved to be extremely productive. Conse-
quently, after describing various approaches to the oral dynamic of the
texts, Gregory argues both that the hypothesis of literary dependence
does not exclude the perspective concerning oral tradition and the ancient
use of memory, and that it is not weakened by such perspectives. Several
oral and memory practices were presented from recent scholarship that
had relevance for our understanding of the way texts were remembered
in antiquity (Small 1997; Carruthers 2008). That is, they could provide
us with models for the formation of the Synoptic texts. The author further
points out that while the direction of literary dependence remains debated,
a viable working criterion for establishing literary dependence—in all
possible directions within the Synoptic Problem—is the ‘Koester crite-
rion’, which states that a reading can be considered a certain use in one
text of another if the reading is an identiiable redactional particularity
of the latter (Koester 1994: 297). Nevertheless the redactional elements
themselves are open to debate, either when the discussion is focused on
Mark within the Two-Source Hypothesis (Marxsen 1956), or when no
synoptic hypothesis is presupposed and the elements sought are discern-
ible habitual phrases of the evangelist that might indicate redactional fea-
tures (Peabody 1987).
P. Foster
The other two papers of the section were devoted to two synoptic hypoth-
eses that are less favoured by the nowadays research. In the irst of these P.
Foster (Edinburgh) presented ‘The M-Source: Its History and Demise’. He
started by presenting embryonic ideas of a source used only by Matthew
(Burton 1904) extant before B.H. Streeter formulated the classical articula-
tions of the M-source hypothesis in 1924 in The Four Gospels, and con-
tinued by presenting its classic formulation in Streeter: Matthew used a
stream of tradition denoted as the M document, a source comparable in
Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

BATOVICI The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem 247
length to and overlapping with Q—understood here as a pro-Gentile docu-

ment arising in gentile environment—differing from it in character (judais-
tic) and which was compiled shortly after the middle of the irst century,
deriving from Jerusalem. After presenting successive developments and
modiication of the M-source theory in subsequent research (Manson 1949;
Kilpatrick 1946; Parker 1953; Grant 1957), Foster points out that the trend
of recent research generally undermines Streeter’s position that Q was
produced in a gentile milieu (so Meyer 1970 and Kloppenborg 2000, but
Fleddermann 2005: 160), a position that otherwise allowed him to state a
different source, M, as judaistic. Moreover modern scholarship tends to
contest an alleged compositional unity of the M material (Brooks 1987:
112; Davies and Allison 1988; Luz 2007), and, when Streeter mentions it
(Hagner 1993 ignores the discussion on the M source), he inds an under-
estimation of the Matthaean redaction in the development of the M hypoth-
esis (Davies and Allison 1988: 125). Foster concludes that the emergence
of the M source hypothesis was favoured by the fact that it antedates the
formulation of redaction criticism and emerges in a stage of New Testa-
ment scholarship that tended to consider most of the material in synoptics
as incorporated from pre-existing written sources. In this direction, the
view of this theory’s proponents that the role of evangelists was that of
mere transmitters and arrangers of the received traditions was challenged
by subsequent scholarship, starting as early as twenty years after Streeter’s
volume (Kilpatrick 1946) and furthermore refuted as the development of
the discipline of redaction criticism demanded a more creative role for the
evangelists (Bornkamm 1963).
J. Verheyden
The third paper was given by J. Verheyden (Leuven) and treated Proto-
Luke. It was divided in three parts, of which the irst discussed the appari-
tion and reappearances over the time of this hypothesis. Younger than the
Two-Source hypothesis, Proto-Luke was intended as an alternate response
to it as it seemed to resolve a number of issues unsolved by the Two-Source
Hypothesis (Feine 1891; Easton 1926; Taylor 1926). The theory continued
to appear even if with interruptions and signiicantly varying in the shapes
it took (Schürmann 1955; Rehkopf 1959). In the second part Verheyden
reassesses the discussion around the evidence that supports the Proto-Luke
hypothesis and critically identiies two directions of argumentation around
it due to the inherent uneven evidence. The irst direction argues for a con-
tinuum and consistent discernible material that can credibly be assigned

to Proto-Luke, while the second one aims to outline that Proto-Luke had a
distinguishable character from that of Luke–Acts in respect to its theology,
while arguing that it is predominantly Semitic in style (Brodie 1999). The
third and last part of the paper evaluates the state of scholarly attempts
to reconstruct Proto-Luke, asking whether the results are comparable to
similar investigations on Ur-Mark, the Sign Source and Q. The problems
that arise point to the accentuated difference between the offered solutions
(Taylor 1926; Boismard 1997) and the use of source-critical tools involved
in reconstructions, and they also point to the need for studying the viability
of word/verse by word/verse analysis.
C. Tuckett
In the irst keynote address at the conference, C. Tuckett (Oxford) presented
a detailed account of ‘The Current State of the Synoptic Problem’. The
even-handedness of his paper, offered as it was by a scholar active in the
theoretical debates on the Synoptic Problem, was very well received and has
perhaps set the fair tone of all following discussions. After a brief survey of
the variety of past and present solutions to the Synoptic Problem, Tuckett
stated that this very topic is a rather small part of the larger venture that
problematizes the development of the Jesus tradition and involves ‘aspects
of Historical Jesus study, form criticism (broadly conceived), source criti-
cism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, reception history and textual
criticism’. Furthermore, the manuscripts we still have date from the third
century onwards with the consequence that the texts of the synoptics are,
‘to a certain extent, a scholarly construction’ as far as the alleged contrast
between the hypothetical Q and the factual, solid nature of the text of one
Gospel is concerned. In this framework, the Two-Source Hypothesis is not
the only one to postulate a hypothetical source, since ‘any and every source
theory involves positing the existence of a number of different sources and
traditions at various points in the overall model of the origin and develop-
ment of the tradition’. Further the author questions in the same way the
claims of two theoretical stances within the Synoptic Problem: the argu-
ments for prevalence of simpler solution (Farmer 1976), in that a too sharp
cut between ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ is still debatable, and the argument
using Occam’s Razor in comparing hypotheses (Goodacre 2001: 18, 77).
With this background in mind, Tuckett proceeds to analyze three current
theories, the Two-Source Hypothesis and its two main counter theories,
the Griesbach (1978; Farmer 1976; McNicol, Dungan and Peabody 1996;
Peabody, Cope and McNicol 2002) and the Farrer-Goulder theories (Farrer

1955; Goulder 1989; Goodacre 2001; Mosse 2007). The starting point is
the enumeration of issues that question the status of ‘assured results’ held
by the Two-Source theory: the ‘Lachmann fallacy’ (Tuckett 1980; 1983:
6-7; Palmer 1967) concerning the ‘argument from order’ (Neville 1993),
the lack of strength of the arguments based on consistency and the dif-
iculties raised by ‘minor agreements’ (Strecker 1993; Ennulat 1994). Fol-
lowing this, Tuckett provides a sketch of the challenge that the Griesbach
Hypothesis is opposed to Markan Priority, and the topics treated include
the avoiding of the hypothetical sources, the Patristic testimony, phenom-
enon of order, Mark as conlation of Matthew and Luke, and the overlap
passages. The next is an analysis of the critique of Q in the Farrer-Goulder
hypothesis, focusing on the phenomenon of order, Matthew’s alleged addi-
tion to Mark and the minor agreements. The paper inishes with a retro-
spective on the Two-Source Hypothesis in respect of minor agreements
and overlaps and the extent of reordering required, with the conclusion
that all alleged solutions to the Synoptic Problem have a provisional nature
inasmuch as they are all still open to questioning.
C. Hedrick
The three papers of the second section were devoted to speciic matters—
the parables, the attitude towards Judaism, and the miracles—and their
particular relevance for the Synoptic Problem. The irst of these, Charles
Hedrick’s (Southwest Missouri State University) ‘The Parables and the
Synoptic Problem’, was presented in absentia by P. Foster as the chair of
the session. The paper’s purpose is to analyze the particular literary form
of parables in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, questioning
whether it is possible to shed some light on the problem of the common
parable tradition. The discussion is focused on the fourteen parables—out
of a total of the thirty-eight parables—that are common to at least two of
the four texts considered.
The analysis of the percentage of distribution of these parables seems to
suggest that, from the perspective of the parables tradition, Mark’s priority
is more sustainable since he only presents parables addressed to crowds,
as ‘it is unlikely he would have omitted all of the other parables (33) in
Matthew, Luke, and Thomas had they been known’. In addition, Luke
seems not to have seen Matthew or Thomas, given the high number (13 out
of the total of 38, while Matthew has 5, Mark 2, and Thomas 4) of parables
that are only in one—in this case Luke’s—version. Furthermore, since
Thomas, Matthew and Luke have the same number of them—10 each—

they are equally close to each other and, due to the fact that, while Matthew
and Thomas share 9 parables and Thomas and Luke 7, Matthew, Luke and
Mark share only 3, it could be said from this perspective that Matthew,
Luke and Thomas are more related than Matthew and Luke are to Mark.
A number of examples are then analyzed in order to conirm and illustrate
the above, with the conclusion that the ‘similarities and differences among
the parables compared in this study seem better accounted for by the two
source hypothesis’.
W. Loader
A second paper on a speciic perspective was given by W. Loader (Perth),
‘Attitudes to Judaism and the Law: A Synoptic Perspective’. Loader
offered a brief overview of the dynamics of the New Testament scholarship
over against its Jewish background (Davies 1955; Sanders 1977) before
he started—assuming explicitly ‘traditional source theories’—his analy-
sis of three passages relevant for the assumed perspective: the controversy
over purity in Mk 7.1-23; Jesus’ approach to Torah in Mt. 5.17-48; and
Lk. 16.16-18, ‘a key statement within Luke–Acts and related to the begin-
ning of the Matthaean passage’. Should Mk 7.1-23 be comprehended as
rebufing the legitimacy of purity laws on mainly food, ‘then Jesus’ state-
ment stands in conlict with many provisions in Torah’, as Mark has Jesus
‘setting aside not just Jewish scruples about hand washing but biblical law
about what makes a person unclean’. The Matthaean account of the same
parable (15.1-20), on the other hand, differs in that he doesn’t have Jesus
saying all foods are clean but simply that eating with unwashed hands does
not desecrate, offering therefore not a denial of the law but a different inter-
pretation to it and this difference, in Loader’s view, is due to Matthew alter-
ing Mark’s text. The conclusion of the paper presents Matthew and Luke
afirming adherence to Torah, the former ‘in the light of his own Jewish
sensitivities and in a strongly Jewish context’, the latter ‘reassuring both
his Gentile and Jewish hearers that they have not lost their way but are the
true heirs of prophetic hope’.
D. Reid
The third paper devoted to a particular perspective on the Synoptics, by
D. Reid (Toronto), discusses ‘Miracles Stories and the Synoptic Problem’.
After outlining the weak presence of this perspective within Synoptic
Problem scholarship, Reid offers a methodology for testing the Synoptic

hypotheses starting from the miracle stories, proposing ‘that the miracle
tradition may usefully be employed to test the relative redactional plau-
sibility of competing hypotheses’ by the means of a synchronic reading
of this particular tradition. The explicit assumption is that the evangelists
consciously and deliberately edited their sources and therefore their inten-
tions are discernible upon a synchronic reading and ‘the degree of overlap
between editorial interests […] and those implied by a redaction-critical
reading, upon assumption of any given Synoptic Problem hypothesis, is
evidence either for or against the hypothesis itself’. Reid then applies this
method to Markan posteriority, Marcan priority and to Luke’s alleged use
of Matthew—in each case from within the mentioned perspectives—with
the explicit aim to form a basis for an ongoing discussion rather than to
conclude on it.
U. Schnelle
The irst paper of the third session was U. Schnelle’s (Halle-Wittenberg)
‘Die synoptische Frage in der Geschichte der neueren protestantischen
Theologie’, and was read, in the author’s absence, by the chair of the
session, J. Verheyden. The paper is a comprehensive account of the
history of the Synoptic Problem with an emphasis on the Protestant
scholarship contribution to the subject. The lecture starts with the theo-
ries developed around the end of the eighteenth century and the begin-
ning of the nineteenth: Urevangeliumshypothese in the works of G.E.
Lessing (1778) and J.G. Eichorn (1820), Diegesenhypothese with J.B.
Koppe (1782) and D.E. Schleiermacher (2001), Traditionshypothese in
J.G. Herder (1880) and J.C.L. Gieseler (1818) and Benutzungshypothese
with J.J. Griesbach (1978). The paper continues with a presentation of
the Two-Source Theory and a report of the subsequent theories: (new)
Griesbach-Hypothesis (Dungan 1990: 125-230) and the Farrer-Goulder
Hypothesis (Nineham 1955; Goodacre 1996). An evaluation of the recent
research closes the paper (Derrenbacker 2005; Wördemann 2002; Sch-
nelle 2007).
K. Corley
An interesting feminist approach to the ensemble of the Synoptic scholar-
ship is adopted in the paper of Kathleen Corley (University of Wisconsin),
‘White Male Dominance of Synoptic Gospel Research and the Creative
Process’. Her stance is that scholarship on the Synoptic Problem, as well
as that on the historical Jesus, cannot be a fully objective, purely historical

enterprise. Corley’s perspective emphasizes, as far as biblical studies are

concerned, an element of creativity that simply prevents one from taking
on neutrally biblical study: since scholars are usually looking for them-
selves in the past when studying ancient authors—or scribes and redac-
tors, for that matter, as far as the scholars of the Synoptic Problem are
concerned—there is, simply, not that much to seek there for women or
African American scholars. The paper then analyses three synoptic topoi in
order to describe the way the dynamics of Synoptic redaction favoured this
situation: the empty tomb accounts, starting from the fact that the women
are not doing what one would expect from them as they do not mourn, cry
or talk in general; then the problem of the historical Jesus and a consistent
analysis of the women’s presence in the parables.
D. Peabody
The third paper of the second session offering a larger perspective on the
ensemble of Synoptic Problem scholarship is D. Peabody’s (Nebraska
Wesleyan University) ‘Reading the Synoptic Gospels from the Perspec-
tive of Different Synoptic Hypotheses: Historical, Redactional and Theo-
logical Implications’. There are three hypotheses presented here, the Two
Document (Source) Hypothesis, the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis and the
neo-Griesbach Hypothesis, and the intention is to verify whether the his-
torical and theological—along with redactional—implications that result
from each of them are sustainable or have been conirmed in subsequent
research. As far as the historical and theological implications of the Two
Document hypothesis is concerned, Peabody discusses the following: Q’s
lack of a salviic interpretation of Jesus’ death (Kloppenborg 1992), Mark
being written by a Galilean Christian Jew (Parker 1983), the dismissal of
early Patristic evidence (Orchard and Longstaff 1978), and a number of
redactional problems concerning the minor agreements (Farmer 1993).
Turning to the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis, the questioned implications of
this particular theory are, apart from an excessive role assigned to Matthew
and Luke’s imagination in creating the Jesus tradition, a number of six
other dificulties signalled by advocates of the (neo-)Griesbach hypothesis
(McNicol, Dungan and Peabody 1996). The third perspective evaluated is
the Two Gospel or neo-Griesbach hypothesis, and the implications taken
into account are the categories of evidence previously signalled by John
Kloppenborg as problematic within this theory (1992), concerning Mark’s
portrayal of Jesus’ family, and ‘the increasingly negative way that Mark
depicts disciples of Jesus’.

J. Kloppenborg
In the second keynote paper, J. Kloppenborg (Toronto) offered a compre-
hensive account on the ‘Synopses and the Synoptic Problem’. The explicit
intention of the author is to address the issue—raised in previous schol-
arship—questioning whether one synopsis can be neutral and objective
in respect of the extant synoptic theories. After mentioning that in past
scholarship it was already outlined that the sequence of columns in a syn-
opsis might be related to synoptic hypotheses, Kloppenborg points out that
in inclining the user towards a particular source hypothesis, ‘it is not the
sequence of columns that is decisive, but the division of pericope and, in
particular, the arrangement of parallels’. A number of examples of pericope
division from current synopses with the author’s alternate versions illus-
trate the way the mere choice of pericope division ‘either makes clear or
disguises possible redactional explanations’.
The second half of the paper treats the alignment of parallels, as it proves
to be ‘the most important way that synopses can affect the intelligibility
of various source critical solutions’, for ‘although there are many “ixed
points” with which to align parallel texts, there are also many points at
which multiple alignments are possible’, rendering the neutrality of the
arrangement almost impossible. On one hand, certain arrangements in a
synopsis simply render dificult certain solutions that one may want to apply
in order to explain the synoptic data. On the other hand, these arrangements
are mostly local in the sense that ‘particular aspects of a synopsis may
make clear or obscure certain aspects of a synoptic theory’, leading to the
conclusion that ‘it is not possible to detect a systematic bias in any of the
synopses surveyed in favour of a particular synoptic theory’.
A. Kirk
A very interesting (fourth) session was devoted to related issues with bearing
on the Synoptic Problem and treated—along four papers—memory, scribal
media, ancient rhetoric, ancient compositional practices and the ‘exterior’
use of the written sources. In the irst of these, A. Kirk’s (James Madison
University) paper, ‘Memory, Scribal Media, and the Synoptic Problem’,
was read by A. Gregory in the author’s absence. The paper starts by noticing
that the general premise of most scholarship is that the Synoptic Problem
is to be conined to ‘cognitive habits and writing practices of print culture’,
therefore assuming a strict separation between the oral and written media
for communication, with the result that the latter are to be used margin-

ally, mainly in handling what might seem to be an anomaly from the point
of view of copying and editing scenarios. Yet, from the standpoint of the
scholarship devoted to communication media in antiquity it is accepted
that the scribes—trained not only to memorize a text but also to be able to
handle it piece by piece, as to easily retrieve sequences of it (Carruthers
2008)—were precisely the middle term between the oral tradition and the
written materials. This leads to the result ‘that the patterns of variation
evident in synoptic source relationships are not anomalous but innate to the
scribal’ activity. The remainder of the paper identiies the issues that arise
when the solutions of different synoptic theories are placed in the context
of the communication media of the antiquity; the hypotheses questioned
are the Two-Source Hypothesis (Hawkins 1909; Streeter 1924; Dunn
2003; Kloppenborg 2000; Neirynck 1990), the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis
(Goulder 1974; Goodacre 1996, 2001), Griesbach (Neville 2002; Peabody,
Cope and McNicol 2002; McNicol, Dungan and Peabody 1996) and also
Multi-Stages Hypotheses (Boismard 1972, 1990; Burkett 2004).
A. Damm
A second paper on ancient compositional practices was given by Alex
Damm (Toronto), ‘Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem’. The paper
sets out both to discuss the relevance of ancient rhetoric for source criticism
and to ‘suggest, test and relect briely on a rhetorical means to answering
source-critical questions’. Damm outlines recent studies that have estab-
lished a ‘keen awareness of rhetorical forms and techniques’ in the text
of the Gospels (Mack and Robbins 1989: 198), rendering therefore possi-
ble—when comparing two Synoptic Gospels—the use of the principles of
rhetoric in order to ‘infer which of two texts improves the other’, that is,
‘which draws the other into closer accord with rhetorical conventions for
effective composition’. He continues by proposing a number of criteria for
assessing rhetorical improvement, and the rhetorical form chosen to centre
the analysis is chreia, mostly because ‘an elaborated chreia implies we
can apply rhetorical principles for speeches’. There are three directions of
improvement the author proposes and they address conventions for biogra-
phy and historiography, conventions for parts of a typical judicial speech,
and universal conventions towards writing clearly and appropriately for a
given context. The criteria are then applied to two synoptic source theories:
Farrer-Goulder (Goulder 1989; Luz 2007) and Two Document hypotheses,
and the conclusion scrutinizes both limitations and the new lines opened by
the proposed perspective.

R. Derrenbacker
The third paper of this session was R. Derrenbacker’s (Regent College
Vancouver) ‘The “External and Psychological Conditions under which
the Synoptic Gospels Were Written”: Ancient Compositional Practices
and the Synoptic Problem’. The author proposes two lists of ancient
compositional practices drawn from the ancient literary evidence, before
applying them to the Synoptic Problem, with respect to the neo-Griesbach,
Farrer-Goulder and Two-Source hypotheses, as a number of the solutions
they propose appear ‘problematic and unattested in ancient literature’,
when compositional techniques are taken into account. The second half
of the paper further enquires into the ‘psychological conditions’ of the
evangelist, scrutinizing the importance of memory in the production of
the Synoptic Gospels on four topics: the relation between memory and
literary production in the ‘memorial cultures’ of antiquity (Small 1997);
the types of memory employed in Jewish Scriptures and in Paul, of which
the irst is ‘the memory of oral tradition’ and the other is ‘the memory of
written text’ (Stanley 1992); memory quotations as the interplay between
written text and memory; Matthew’s use of Q in Matthew. A brief evalua-
tion concludes the paper by noting that ‘entertaining memory and ancient
compositional practices in Synoptic source criticism’ bridges the gap
between the ‘literary paradigm of nineteenth century source criticism’
and the ‘oral paradigm’.
G. Downing
A fourth paper on the relevance of antique redactional practices for the
Synoptic Problem was given by G. Downing (Manchester), ‘Writers’ Use
or Abuse of Written Sources’. Downing started from an older result of an
inquiry on the ancient composition practices commenting that the strik-
ing feature of the Synoptics is not the differences from one to another but
the rather large extent of verbatim agreement one can ind between them
(Downing 1987). In the light of ancient evidence on using sources, the
expected use would be the paraphrase and not verbal similarity. In the
same way, ‘it does continue to seem very strange that we ind so much
identical wording among our Synoptic Gospels’. Furthermore, apart from
a number of examples of antique use of sources that are still far from the
synoptic example, there is offered a possible parallel for the ‘willing-
ness to repeat verbatim’ in the cultural context of Loveday Alexander’s

Fachprosa (1986), as a term half way between Klein- and Hochliteratur,

which can be found in writings in the ields of medicine, architecture and
positive law, where a certain degree of verbatim quotation is intrinsically
required.
R. Stein
The irst paper of the ifth session was R. Stein’s (Southern Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary) ‘Duplicate Expressions in Mark’, and was read, in the
author’s absence, by J. Kloppenborg who held the chair of the session.
Stein reviews the attempts made in past scholarship to make sense of and
systemize what constitutes duality in Mark with its sometimes confusing
status (Neirynck 1988; Tuckett 1983), and then proceeds to formulate a set
of ive criteria that may help to establish legitimate examples of Marcan
dualities, given their diversity: close proximity of the two parts of an alleged
example; redundancy in expression; necessity of the presence of the second
term in context, as ‘this suggests that it may very well have been part of
the pre-Markan tradition the Evangelist received’; brevity, as most of the
examples in Mark treated here are together in a single verse; relatedness,
as the mere ‘presence of compound expressions in Mark do not in and
of themselves constitute examples of duality’. The reminder of the paper
presents a widespread listing of dual expressions in Mark, starting from a
ten-fold classiication provided by C. Tuckett (1983: 20), and concludes
that, on one hand, the claim that Marcan dual expressions might support the
Griesbach Hypothesis is ‘clearly erroneous’, and on the other hand, in the
light of analysis of the evidence, duality is a Markan editorial characteristic
that needs to be set against analyses of duality examples in both Matthew
and Luke.
E. Boring
An approach devoted entirely to minor agreement is adopted in the paper
of E. Boring (Brite Divinity School), ‘The “Minor Agreements” and their
Bearing on the Synoptic Problem’. An extensive analysis, which forms the
irst half of the paper, is devoted to identifying the data that fall under this
heading, assessing irst the possibilities of deining agreement, stressing
then that, so far, ‘all data are theory-laden’, that ‘deinitions of minor agree-
ments are constitutive, not merely descriptive’, and that ‘whether one sees
the deinition as discovering ontological realities or constituting a pattern
of relationships is crucial’. The discussion then moves on to the pericope

division and synopsis construction, to the possibility of counting the minor

agreements as well as of establishing their order of relevance, and to the
prospect of inding a single comprehensive solution for describing them.
The second part is devoted to evaluating and explaining the circumscribed
data, irstly from the point of view of simpler Synoptic theories that require
no hypothetical sources and presuppose direct literary interdependence
between Matthew and Luke, either that Matthew used Luke or Luke used
Matthew, then Mark used both, and secondly within the frame of the
complex solutions that involve hypothetical sources apart from the canoni-
cal Synoptic Gospels.
P. Head
The third paper of the ifth session was given by P. Head (Cambridge),
‘Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem’. To begin with, Head reas-
sesses the relation between the two ields, challenging an alleged too sharp-
cut opinion that might think of ‘textual criticism as the menial servant and
the synoptic problem as the master’, where the former should provide the
genuine texts written by Mark, Matthew and Luke for the use of the latter
domain, and offers examples where a decision within the Synoptic Problem
may lead to a textual criticism decision. When interrelating, the problem
seems to be that ‘scholars accept the solution from outside their primary
discipline as the means to help solve their dificulties’, yet the intention to
‘investigate both these issues in open ways’ generates two kind of dificul-
ties. The irst one envisages the dificulty of displaying ‘all the relevant
data of manuscript witness and synoptic relationships’ and the second one
points to the assimilation of data, given that combining two domains gener-
ate a double set of exigencies and a double level of complexity. Further-
more, the analysis of the manuscripts shows that despite some pieces dating
from the second and third centuries, ‘for the text of Matthew as a whole
we remain dependent on the fourth century uncials’. In Mark’s case we
are even less fortunate, and this fact, doubled by ‘the absence of citations
from Mark among church fathers’, means that we have a serious lacuna in
our knowledge about the history of Mark’s transmission. This renders it
dificult to assume that textual criticism of the reconstituted Markan text
‘corresponds in detail with the original text’. Such results should be veri-
ied for the major Synoptic theories since, for example, ‘the neo-Griesbach
argument that Mark was produced as an accessible digest of Matthew and
Luke, must at least acknowledge that evidence is lacking that Mark ever
actually functioned in that way’.

M. Goodacre
The third and last keynote paper was given by M. Goodacre (Duke) on
‘The Evangelists’ Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem’.
Goodacre starts by noticing the rare presence in scholarship on the Synop-
tic Problem of scholars who study the evangelist’s use of the Old Testament
and discusses the results of a singular study of this kind (New 1993). He
then proceeds with three elaborated case studies that form the bulk of the
paper: Mal. 3.1 and Exod. 23.20 in Mt. 11.10//Mk 1.2//Lk. 7.27; the temple
incident and Mark’s ‘all the nations’; and alternating primitivity in Mt.
7.23//Lk. 13.27 with regard to Ps. 6.9 of the Septuagint. In a inal section
of his paper Goodacre counts a number of issues such as ‘the general reluc-
tance to discuss ways in which Q’s alleged use of the Old Testament might
shed light on the broader question of testing the Two-Source Theory’, and
identiies a future direction: the importance of textual criticism as ‘a disci-
pline that has a lot to contribute to the investigation of the Old Testament
and the Synoptic Problem’, as some issues ask for a text-critical decision as
well as the necessary inclusion in this discussion of the Gospel of Thomas
and the questions its presence raises. The last part of the paper questions
the possibility of identifying patterns not only for the evangelist’s use of the
Old Testament quotations but also of his use of it as a whole, inviting into
that the considerable ongoing scholarship on the use of the Old Testament
in the New.
C. Heil
The last session contained two papers devoted to Q and one to the Gospel
of Thomas. The topic of C. Heil (Gräz) was ‘Reconstructing Q: Possibili-
ties and Limits’. Heil irst reviews the results of the 1911 Oxford Studies in
the Synoptic Problem, in respect of the order of Q, the overlaps of Mark and
Q, Sondergut texts, and the ‘recensions’ of Q. The next step is to proceed
with a full account of the history of Q reconstructions, discussing the works
of A. Harnack (1907), J.S. Kloppenborg (1987; 2000), The International
Q Project’s Critical Edition of Q (Robinson, Hoffmann and Kloppenborg
2000) and Documenta Q (Garsky, Carruth, Heil, Hieke and Amon 1997),
and that of Harry T. Fledderman (2005), followed by a report on the recent
criticism of Q reconstructions, criticism developed on two directions: the
capacity of their historical-critical method (Hengel 2007; Rodd 2001/2002;
Goodacre 2004; Perrin 2004), and their literary paradigm stressing the

necessity of including the new insights into early Christian oral commu-
nication (France 2007; Dunn 2003; Mournet 2005). Heil concludes by
reassessing the issue of the capacity of the historical-critical method in
reconstructing Q: he states that the ‘ “papyrological paradigm” stands for
an inductive approach which treats each variant without prejudicing the
decision in Matthew’s favor or Luke’s’, and is an approach that is able to
avoid ‘the mistakes of the deductive method of Harnack and Streeter’. Fur-
thermore, the reconsideration of the issues involved in Q reconstructions
concludes on the following planes: Q in an oral and/or a literary paradigm,
the order of Q, the overlaps of Mark and Q, Sondergut texts, ‘recensions’
of Q, and the Gospel of Thomas.
E. Eve
The second paper on Q and its position in Synoptic studies was given by
E. Eve (Oxford), ‘The Synoptic Problem Without Q?’ Eve surveys the
attempts at dispensing of Q in the arguments of synoptic theories opposed
to Two-Source Hypothesis, and chooses to elaborate this on the two present
leading ‘non-Q alternatives to the 2SH, at least in Anglophone scholarship’,
the Farrer-Goulder and Two Gospel (neo-Greisbach) Hypotheses. The irst
issue examined is the Marcan posteriority in the Two Gospel Hypothesis:
Eve irst presents a number of four arguments for the Marcan posteriority
from the standing point of this particular hypothesis—the argument from
order (Farmer 1976: 211-15; Peabody, Cope and McNicol 2002: 20-23),
the conlated Mark (Farmer 1976: 81-82, 99-100, 154-56; Peabody, Cope
and McNicol 2002: 23-27; Orchard 1977: 88-89), the instances where the
text of Mark seems secondary to that of Matthew or Luke (Butler 1951:
123-37) and the Patristic evidence (Farmer 1976: 224-27; Peabody, Cope
and McNicol 2002: 46-54)—and then a set of four dificulties in sustaining
the same claim, with the conclusion that ‘it may be that the keenest test
of the 2GH is the plausibility of the conlation it envisages Mark carrying
out’. Accordingly, an analysis of Luke’s use of Matthew follows in both
the two hypotheses of choice. Three arguments to sustain this claim are
presented and evaluated: ‘the similarity in overall shape of the two gospels
(Farmer 1976: 220-21; Goodacre 2001: 47-48), the major and minor agree-
ments (Neirynck 1974) of Matthew and Luke against Mark (Goulder 1989:
46-50; Goodacre 2001: 163-65), and the alleged similarity of Q and M
coupled with the appearance of Matthaeanisms in Luke’ (Goulder 1989:
11-15; Green 2001; Goulder 1999), with the conclusion that ‘even then
there will be room for disagreement, and it may prove hard to escape the

circularity arising from the fact that the only evidence for what Luke may or
may not have been likely to do is the text he ended up producing’. The third
topic is an assessment of the question about ‘how work on ancient compo-
sitional practices affects the issue’ in discussion, seen as a way to reduce
‘the element of subjectivity in arguments about the Synoptic Problem’.
S. Patterson
The last paper of the conference was given by S. Patterson (Eden Theo-
logical Seminary), ‘The Gospel of (Judas) Thomas and the Synoptic
Problem’. This is a thorough appraisal of the impact of Thomas on Syn-
optic studies that starts with a review of the scholarship on Thomas and
its bearing on the New Testament studies (Quispel 1957; Grant 1959;
Koester and Robinson 1971; Wilson 1960), and outlines four caveats,
of which the irst notices Thomas is an aggregated sayings text (Crossan
1992) differing in this respect from the canonical gospels and ‘what may
be said of the provenance of one or several sayings, cannot be inferred
for the whole’. Patterson addresses then the issue of synoptic inluences
on Thomas and proposes a working hypothesis according to which ‘the
Gospel of Thomas derives for the most part from an autonomous gospel
tradition that overlaps considerably with synoptic tradition’, and their
common background could have been oral Jesus tradition, with the excep-
tion that when we cannot ind in its text ‘occasional inluences’ that links
it to the synoptics, ‘we should assume that Thomas does indeed represent
an instantiation of the Jesus tradition that is not dependent upon the syn-
optic gospels’. Starting from this hypothesis Patterson treats four areas
where Thomas might prove of considerable use for the Synoptic Problem:
the reconstruction of Q, a clearer understanding of Markan redaction, the
provenance and redaction of Matthaean and Lukan special material, and
the roots of the synoptic tradition itself. The reminder of the paper is a
detailed analysis of the relations that link Thomas and Q, on one hand,
and Thomas to Mark, on the other.
Finally, there are at least three perspectives for future study that stand
out from the papers presented to the Oxford Conference on the Synoptic
Problem: the relevance of the Gospel of Thomas, the use of the Old Testa-
ment, and the reality of communication media in antiquity. The volume
containing revised versions of the presented papers and a number of other
commissioned essays is to be published by Peeters of Leuven, and will
most likely prove to be an unmissable reference tool for near future syn-
optic scholarship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Papers from the Conference
Boring, E.
2008 ‘The “Minor Agreements” and their Bearing on the Synoptic Problem’, The
Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10
April 2008.
Corley, K.
2008 ‘White Male Dominance of Synoptic Gospel Research and the Creative Process’,
The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10
April 2008.
Damm, A.
2008 ‘Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem’, The Oxford Conference on the
Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10 April 2008.
Derrenbacker, R.
2008 ‘The “External and Psychological Conditions under which the Synoptic Gospels
Were Written”: Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem’,
The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10
April 2008.
Downing, G.
2008 ‘Writers’ Use or Abuse of Written Sources’, The Oxford Conference on the
Eve, E.
2008 ‘The Synoptic Problem Without Q?’, The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic
Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10 April 2008.
Foster, P.
2008 ‘The M-Source: Its History and Demise’, The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic
Goodacre, M.
2008 ‘The Evangelists’ Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem’, The
April 2008.
Gregory, A.
2008 ‘What is Literary Dependence?’, The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem,
Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10 April 2008.
Head, P.
2008 ‘Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem’, The Oxford Conference on the
Hedrick, C.
2008 ‘The Parables and the Synoptic Problem’, The Oxford Conference on the
Heil, C.
2008 ‘Reconstructing Q: Possibilities and Limits’, The Oxford Conference on the
Kirk, A.
2008 ‘Memory, Scribal Media, and the Synoptic Problem’, The Oxford Conference on
the Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10 April 2008.

Kloppenborg, J.
2008 ‘Synopses and the Synoptic Problem’, The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic
Loader, W.
2008 ‘Attitudes to Judaism and the Law: A Synoptic Perspective’, The Oxford Confer-
ence on the Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10 April 2008.
Patterson, S.
2008 ‘The Gospel of (Judas) Thomas and the Synoptic Problem’, The Oxford Confer-
ence on the Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10 April 2008.
Peabody, D.
2008 ‘Reading the Synoptic Gospels from the Perspective of Different Synoptic
Hypotheses: Historical, Redactional and Theological Implications’, The
April 2008.
Reid, D.
2008 ‘Miracles Stories and the Synoptic Problem’, The Oxford Conference on the
Schnelle, U.
2008 ‘The Synoptic Question in the History of Protestant Theology’, The Oxford
Conference on the Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College Oxford, 7–10 April
2008.
Stein, R.
2008 ‘Duplicate Expressions in Mark’, The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic
Tuckett, C.
2008 ‘The Current State of the Synoptic Problem’, The Oxford Conference on the
Verheyden, J.
2008 ‘Proto-Luke’, The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem, Lincoln College
Oxford, 7–10 April 2008.
Other References
Aland, K.
1996 Synopsis Quattor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 15th
edn).
Alexander, L.
1986 ‘Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface Writing’, NovT 38.1: 48-74.
1993 The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (SNTMS, 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Aune, D.E. (ed.)
1988 Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres
(SBLSBS, 210; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press).
Banks, R.
1975 Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS, 28; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press).
Bauckham, R.
2006 Jesus and the Eyewitness: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans).

Black, D.A., and D.R. Beck (eds.)

2001 Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
Blackburn, B.
1991 Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Tradition: A Critique of the Theios Aner
Concept as an Interpretive Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark
(WUNT, 2.40; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr).
1992 ‘Miracle and Miracle Stories’, in Green and McKnight 1992: 549-60.
Boismard, M.-É.
1972 Synopse des quatre évangiles en francais, II (Paris: Les éditions du Cerf).
1990 ‘The Multiple Stage Hypothesis’, in Dungan 1990: 231-88.
1997 En quête du Proto-Luc (EB, 37; Paris: Gabalda).
Bornkamm, G.
1963 Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM Press).
Brauner, U., T. Hieke, P. Hoffmann, C. Heil, J.E. Amon, M.E. Boring and J. Asgeirsson (eds.)
1997 Q 12:8-12. Confessing or Denying—Speaking against the Holy Spirit—Hearings
before Synagogues—Fleeing among the Towns of Israel (Leuven: Peeters).
Broadhead, E.K.
1992 Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark
(JSNTSup, 74; Shefield: JSOT Press).
Brock, A.G.
2004 Mary Magdalene, the First Apostle: The Struggle for Authority (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press).
Brodie, T.L.
1999 ‘The Unity of Proto-Luke’, in Verheyden (ed.) 1999: 627-39.
Brooks, S.H.
1987 Matthew’s Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (JSNTSup,
16; Shefield: JSOT Press).
Burkett, D.
2004 Rethinking Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark (New York and London:
T&T Clark International).
Burkitt, F.C.
1901 Two Lectures on the Gospels (London: Macmillan).
Burton, E.
1904 Some Principles of Literary Criticism and their Application to the Synoptic
Problem (Chicago: University of Chicago).
Butler, B.C.
1951 The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Carruth, S., S.D. Anderson and A. Garsky (eds.)
1996 Q 11:2b-4. The Lord’s Prayer (Documenta Q; Leuven: Peeters).
Carruthers, M.
1998 The Craft of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
2008 The Book of Memory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1st edn 1990).
Crossan, J.D.
1992 ‘Lists in Early Christianity’, Semeia 55: 235-43.
Daube, D.
1956 The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone).
Davies, W.D.
1955 Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK).

Davies, W.D., and D.C. Allison

1988 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew,
vol. I (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark International).
Derrenbacker, R.A.
2005 Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BETL, 186;
Leuven: Peeters).
Downing, F.G.
1987 ‘Redaction Criticism: Josephus’s Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels’, in
Porter and Evans 1987: 161-99.
Dungan, D.L.
1980 ‘Theory of Synopsis Construction’, Bib 61: 305-29.
Dungan, D.L. (ed.)
1990 The Interrelations of the Gospels (BETL, 9; Leuven: Peeters).
Dunn, J.G.D.
1990 Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK).
2003 Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Easton, B.S.
1926 The Gospel According to St. Luke: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark International).
Eichhorn, J.G.
1820 Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig).
Elliott, J.K.
1979/80 ‘Textual Criticism, Assimilation and the Synoptic Gospels’, NTS 26: 231-42.
1991 ‘Which is the Best Synopsis?’, ExpTim 102.7: 200-204.
Ennulat, A.
1994 Die ‘Minor Agreements’: Untersuchungzu einer offenen Frage des synoptischen
Problems (WUNT, 2.62; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Evans, C., and J. Sanders
1997 Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations (London
and New York: Continuum).
Farmer, W.R.
1973 ‘A Response to Robert Morgenthaler’s Statistische Synopse’, Bib 54: 417-33.
1976 The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 2nd edn).
1993 ‘The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark and the Two Gospel
Hypothesis. A Study of these Agreements in their Compositional Contexts’, in
Strecker 1993: 163-208.
2001 ‘The Case for the Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, in Black and Beck 2001: 97-135.
Farmer, W.R. (ed.)
1983 New Synoptic Studies (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press).
Farrer, A.
1955 ‘On Dispensing with Q’, in Nineham 1955: 55-88.
Fee, G.D.
1978 ‘Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem’, in Orchard and Longstaff
1978: 154-69.
1980 ‘A Text-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem’, NovT 22: 12-28.
Feine, K.E.P.
1891 Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelge-
schichte (Gotha).

Fendler, F.
1991 Studien zum Markusevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Fleddermann, H.T.
1995 Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts (BETL, 122; Leuven: Leuven Univer-
sity Press).
2005 Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (BiTS, 1; Leiden: Peeters).
Focant, C. (ed.)
1993 The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism (BETL,
110; Leuven: Leuven University Press).
France, R.T.
2007 The Gospel of Matthew (The New International Commentary on the New Testa-
ment; Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Eerdmans).
Gaboury, A.
1970 La structure des évangiles synoptiques: la structure-type à l'origine des synop-
tiques (NovTSup, 22; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Gamble, H.Y.
1995 Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts
(New Haven, CN: Yale University Press).
Garsky, A., S. Carruth, C. Heil, T. Hieke and J.E. Amon (eds.)
1997 Q 12:49-59: Children against Parents—Judging the Time—Settling out of Court
(Documenta Q; Leuven: Peeters).
Gärtner, B.
1961 The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (London: Collins; New York: Harper &
Brothers).
Gerhardsson, B.
1998 Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic
Judaism and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Gieseler, C.L.
1818 Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und die frühesten Schicksale
der schriftlichen Evangelien (Leipzig).
Goodacre, M.
1996 Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (JSNTSup, 133;
Shefield: Shefield Academic Press).
2001 The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
2004 ‘When Is a Text Not a Text? The Quasi Text-Critical Approach of the Interna-
tional Q Project’, in Goodacre and Perrin 2004: 115-26.
Goodacre, M., and N. Perrin (eds.)
2004 Questioning Q (London: SPCK).
Goulder, M.D.
1974 Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK).
1989 Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup, 20; Shefield: Shefield Academic Press).
1999 ‘Self Contradiction in the IQP’, JBL 118: 506-17.
Goundry, R.
1967 The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Grant, F.C.
1957 The Gospels: Their Origin and their Growth (London: Faber & Faber).
Grant, R.
1959 ‘Notes on the Gospel of Thomas’, VC 13: 179.

Green, H.B.
2001 Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (JSNTSup, 203; Shefield: Shefield Academic
Press).
Green, J.B., and S. McKnight (eds.)
1992 Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL and Leicester: Inter-
Varsity Press).
Griesbach, J.J.
1776 Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae (Halle).
1978 ‘Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis
decerptum esse monstratur’, in Orchard and Longstaff 1978: 103-35.
Hagner, D.A.
1993 Matthew 1-13 (WBC, 33A; Dallas: Word Books).
Hanson, A.T.
1983 The Living Utterances of God: The New Testament Exegesis of the Old (London:
Darton, Longman and Todd).
Harnack, A.
1907 Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament. II. Sprüche und Reden Jesu. Die
zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). [ET The Sayings
of Jesus (New York: Putnam; London: Williams & Norgate, 1908).]
Hawkins, J.C.
1909 Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2nd rev. edn).
Head, P.
1997 Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority
(SNTSMS, 94; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Hedrick, C.W.
2004 Many Things in Parables: Jesus and His Modern Critics (Louisville and London:
Westminster/John Knox Press).
Hengel, M.
2007 ‘Der Lukasprolog und seine Augenzeugen: Die Apostel, Petrus und die Frauen’,
in Stuckenbruck, Barton and Wold (eds.) 2007: 195-242.
Herder, J.G.
1880 ‘Vom Erlöser der Menschen. Nach unsren drei ersten Evangelien… Neben einer
Regel der Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien aus ihrer Entstehung und
Ordnung’, in B. Suphan (ed.), Herders sämmtliche Werke, IX (Berlin).
Hieke, T. (ed.)
2001 Q 6:20-21: The Beatitudes for the Poor, Hungry, and Mourning (Documenta Q;
Leuven: Peeters).
Hoffmann, P., S.H. Brandenburger, U. Brauner and T. Hieke (eds.)
1999 Q 22:28, 30: You Will Judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Documenta Q; Leuven:
Peeters).
Hooker, M.
1983 ‘The Son of Man Question and the Synoptic Problem’, in Farmer 1983: 261-301.
Johnson, S.F.
1991 The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism (SBLDS, 41; Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press).
Johnson, S.R. (ed.)
2002 Q 7:1-10: The Centurion’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (Documenta Q; Leuven:
Peeters).

2008 Q 12:33-34: Storing Up Treasures in Heaven (Documenta Q; Leuven: Peeters).

Kannaday, W.C.
2004 Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition: Evidence of the Inluence of
Apologetic Interests on the Text of the Canonical Gospels (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Kilpatrick, G.D.
1946 The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
King, K.
2003 The Gospel of Mary Magdalene: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Santa
Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press).
Kloppenborg, J.S.
1987 The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in
Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
1992 ‘The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem’, in Segbroeck, Tuckett, Belle
and Verheyden 1992: I, 93-120.
2000 Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark International).
2004 ‘The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James’, in Schlosser 2004: 93-141.
Koester, H.
1990 Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia, PA
and London: Trinity Press International and SCM Press).
1994 ‘Written Gospels or Oral Tradition?’, JBL 113: 293-97.
Koester, H., and J.M. Robinson
1971 Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Koppe, J.B.
1782 Marcus non Epitomator Matthaei (Göttingen).
Köster, H.
1957 Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern (TU, 65; Berlin: Akad-
emie Verlag).
Lasserre, G.
1996 Les synopses: élaboration et usage (Subsidia Biblica, 19; Rome: Pontiical
Biblical Institute Press).
Lessing, G.E.
1778 Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als bloß menschliche Geschichtsschreiber
betrachtet.
Loader, W.
1997 Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (WUNT, 2.97; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck).
Luz, U.
2007 Matthew 1–7 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Mack, B.L.
1989 ‘Elaboration of the Chreia in the Hellenistic School’, in Mack and Robbins
1989: 31-67.
Mack, B.L., and V.K. Robbins
1989 Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels (FFLF; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press).
Mallen, P.
2008 The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke–Acts (LNTS, 367; London
and New York: T&T Clark International).

Manson, T.W.
1949 The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press).
Marxsen, W.
1956 Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
McNicol, A.J., D.L. Dungan and D.B Peabody
1996 Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew. A Demonstration by the Research
Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity
Press International).
Meyer, P.
1970 ‘The Gentile Mission in Q’, JBL 89: 405-17.
Morgenthaler, R.
1971 Statistische Synopse (Zürich and Stuttgart: Gotthelf).
1993 Lukas und Quintilian: Rhetorik als Erzählkunst (Zürich: Gotthelf).
Mosse, M.
2007 The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem
(Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press).
Mournet, T.C.
2005 Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic
Tradition and Q (WUNT, 2/195; Tübingen: Mohr).
Neirynck, F.
1974 The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark with a Cumulative
List (Leuven: Leuven University Press).
1982 Evangelica (BETL, 60; Leuven: Peeters).
1985 ‘The Order of the Gospels and the Making of a Synopsis’, ETL 61: 161-66.
1986 ‘Once More: The Making of a Synopsis’, ETL 62: 141-54.
1988 Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (BETL,
31; Leuven: Leuven University Press).
1990 ‘Synoptic Problem’, in The New Jerome Bible Commentary (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall): 587-95.
1991 Evangelica II (BETL, 99; Leuven: Peeters).
Neirynck, F., J. Delobel, T. Snoy and G. Van Belle
1979 Jean et les synoptiques. Examen critique de l'exégèse de M.-E. Boismard
(BETL, 49; Leuven: Peeters).
Neville, D.J.
1993 Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism (Macon, GA: Mercer Uni-
versity Press).
2002 Mark’s Gospel—Prior or Posterior? A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of
Order (JSNTSup, 222; Shefield: Shefield Academic Press).
New, D.S.
1993 Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two-Document
Hypothesis (SCS, 97; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press).
Newport, K.G.C.
1995 The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23 (JSNTSup, 117; Shefield: Shef-
ield Academic Press).
Nineham, D.E.
1955 Studies in the Gospel: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell)
Orchard, B.
1977 Matthew, Luke & Mark (Manchester: Koinonia Press).

1978 ‘Are All Gospel Synopses Biassed?’, TZ 34: 157-61.

Orchard, B., and T.R.W. Longstaff
1978 J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Osiek, C.
1993 ‘The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?’, Ex Auditu 9: 97-107.
Palmer, N.H.
1967 ‘Lachmann’s Argument’, NTS 13: 368-78.
Parker, P.
1953 The Gospel Before Mark (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
1983 ‘The Posteriority of Mark’, in Farmer 1983: 67-142.
Peabody, D.B.
1987 Mark as Composer (New Gospel Studies, 1; Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press).
Peabody, D.B., L. Cope and A.J. McNicol
2002 One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity
Press International).
Perrin, N.
2004 ‘The Limits of a Reconstructed Q’, in Goodacre and Perrin 2004: 71-88.
Piper, R.A. (ed.)
1995 The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (NovTSup, 75; Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
Poppi, A.
1996 ‘La questione sinottica oggi e la neutralità delle sinossi’, RivB 44: 75-112.
Porter, S.E., and C.A. Evans (eds.)
1987 New Testament Interpretation and Methods: A Shefield Reader (Shefield: Shef-
ield Academic Press).
Quispel, G.
1957 ‘Thomas and the New Testament’, VC 11: 189-207.
Regev, E.
2004 ‘Moral Impurity and the Temple in Early Christianity in Light of Ancient Greek
Practice and Qumranic Ideology’, HTR 97: 383-411.
Rehkopf, F.
1959 Die lukanische Sonderquelle: ihr Umfang und Sprachgebrauch (Tübingen:
Mohr).
Robbins, V.K.
1993 ‘Progymnasmatic Rhetorical Composition and Pre-Gospel Traditions: A New
Approach’, in Focant 1993: 111-47.
Robinson, J.M., S. Carruth and C. Heil (eds.)
1996 Q 4:1-13, 16: The Temptations of Jesus Nazara (Documenta Q; Leuven:
Peeters).
Robinson, J.M., P. Hoffman and J.S. Kloppenborg
2000 The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke,
Mark and Thomas, with English, German, and French Translations of Q and
Thomas (Leuven: Peeters; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress).
Rodd, C.S.
2001/2002 ‘The End of the Theology of Q’, ExpTim 113: 5-12.
Rolland, P.
1983 ‘Marc, première harmonie évangélique?’, RB 90: 23-79.

1984 Les premiers évangiles: un nouveau regard sur le problème synoptique (LD,
116; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf).
Sanday, W. (ed.)
1911 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Sanders, E.P.
1977 Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press).
1985 Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Sanders, E.P., and M. Davies
1989 Studying the Synoptic Problem (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity
Press).
Schaberg, J.
2002 The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian
Testament (New York and London: Continuum).
Schleiermacher, F.D.E.
2001 ‘Ueber die Schriften des Lukas ein kritischer Versuch’, in H. Patsch and
D. Schmid (eds.), Exegetische Schriften (Berlin: W. de Gruyter): 2-180.
Schlosser, J.
2004 The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (BETL, 176; Leuven: Leuven Univer-
sity Press and Uitgeverij Peeters).
Schnelle, U.
2007 Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Schürmann, H.
1955 Der Abendmahlsberichte Lukas 22,7-38: als Gottdienstordnung, Gemeindord-
nung, Lebensordnun (Paderborn: Schöningh).
Scott, B.B.
1989 Hear Then a Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress).
Segbroeck, F. Van, C. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden
1992 The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (3 vols.; BETL, 100; Leuven:
Leuven University Press and Uitgeverij Peeters).
Small, J.P.
1997 Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical
Antiquity (London: Routledge).
Stanley, C.D.
1992 Paul and the Language of Scripture (SNTSMS, 69; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Stein, R.
1992 ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: Insight from John’, CBQ 54.3:
482-502.
Strecker, G. (ed.)
1993 Minor Agreements (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Streeter, B.H.
1924 The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan).
Stuckenbruck, L.T., S.C. Barton and B.J. Wold (eds.)
2007 Memory in the Bible and Antiquity (WUNT, 212; Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck).
Subramanian, J.S.
2008 Synoptic Gospels and the Psalms as Prophecy (LNTS, 351; London and New
York: T&T Clark International).

Taylor, V.
1926 Behind the Third Gospel: A Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis (Oxford: Clar-
endon Press).
Tuckett, C.M.
1980 ‘Argument from Order and the Synoptic Problem’, TZ 36: 338-54.
1983 The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal (SNTSMS,
44; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
1988 ‘Thomas and the Synoptics’, NovT 30: 132-57.
1993 ‘The Minor Agreements and Textual Criticism’, in Strecker 1993: 119-42.
1996 Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark
International).
Verheyden, J.
1999 The Unity of Luke–Acts (BETL, 142; Leuven: Leuven University Press).
Vinson, R.B.
1984 The Signiicance of the Minor Agreements as an Argument against the Two-
Document Hypothesis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Vouga, F.
1988 Jésus et la Loi selon la Tradition synoptique (Genève: Labor et Fides).
Wilson, R. McL.
1960 Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London: A.R. Mowbray).
Wördemann, D.
2002 Das Charakterbild des bíos nach Plutarch und das Christusbild im Evangelium
nach Markus (Paderborn: F. Schöningh).
Zyl, H.C. van
1997 ‘Objective Display or Textual Engineering? Hermeneutical Aspects in Making
and Using a Synopsis of the Synoptic Gospels’, Neot 31.2: 361-88.

The Oxford Conference On The Synoptic PR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Conference On The Synoptic PR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Conference on the Synoptic Problem

Keywords: Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis, Gospel of Thomas, Griesbach

Currents in Biblical Research

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

length to and overlapping with Q—understood here as a pro-Gentile docu-

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

enterprise. Corley’s perspective emphasizes, as far as biblical studies are

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Fachprosa (1986), as a term half way between Klein- and Hochliteratur,

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

division and synopsis construction, to the possibility of counting the minor

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Black, D.A., and D.R. Beck (eds.)

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Davies, W.D., and D.C. Allison

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

2008 Q 12:33-34: Storing Up Treasures in Heaven (Documenta Q; Leuven: Peeters).

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

1978 ‘Are All Gospel Synopses Biassed?’, TZ 34: 157-61.

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on December 18, 2008

You might also like