Questioning: A Multidimensional Critique

by Mark S. Goodacre (Editor), N.T. Wright (Foreword), Nicholas Perrin (Editor)

One need not undertake a very close reading of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke to recognize that they have much in common. But what are the origins of their literary relationship? The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw considerable energy devoted to this question. Early hypotheses supposed a primitive proto-Gospel to have been the source for all three Synoptics, but later theories envisioned two sources--an early version of Mark and a sayings-source document eventually dubbed Q. In contemporary Gospel studies, Q has taken on a quasi-factual status, resulting in such publications as The Critical Edition of Q, complete with critical apparatus. This textualization of Q has taken place despite the fact that Q has never been found, we have no manuscripts of Q, and no church fathers attest that such a document ever existed. In Questioning Q editors Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin introduce a diverse network of scholars who examine the Q hypothesis from a variety of perspectives--historical, literary, source-critical and redactional--and ask ultimately, Can we dispense with Q? and What would a world without Q look like? Even the most ardent and articulate defenders of Q will benefit from this well-reasoned, respectful challenge to an oft-unexamined assumption.

Genres: Theology

201 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Akira Watts · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not a Biblical scholar, much less a close reader of the Gospels, so my ability to judge the arguments made in this book may be somewhat constrained. That said, as someone who is skeptical of the Two Source Hypothesis, as well as of the existence of Q, I found this book to be both fascinating and persuasive. While each essay comes at the issue from differing perspectives (I found the analysis of Luke's treatment of the Sermon on the Mount to be particularly rewarding), the one common theme that I kept noting is simple - if one is unconvinced of the independence of Matthew and Luke, then the need for Q really goes out the window.

Again, not being a scholar of this sort of thing, I imagine I missed some of the subtleties of the argument, and my familiarity with the counterarguments is more than lacking. Still, a worthwhile read.