The Case Against Q

by Mark Goodacre

In this book, Goodacre offers a careful and very detailed critique of the Q hypothesis, designed not only to demonstrate the weakness of the prevailing view but also to persuade the reader that a more plausible picture of Synoptic interrelationships is available.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, New Testament, Scripture, Theology

228 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 2002

About the author

Mark Goodacre is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins in the Department of Religious Studies, Duke University, North Carolina, USA. He earned his MA, M.Phil and DPhil at the University of Oxford. His research interests include the Synoptic Gospels, the Historical Jesus and the Gospel of Thomas. Goodacre is the author of four books including The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002) and Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) and he is a former editor of the Library of New Testament Studies book series. He is well known for The New Testament Gateway, the web directory of academic New Testament resources, and he has his own regular podcast on the New Testament, the NT Pod. Goodacre has acted as consultant for several TV and radio programs including The Passion (BBC / HBO, 2008) and The Bible: A History (Channel 4, 2010)

Reviews

[Nance · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's almost silly how convincing this book is. I heard Mark Goodacre lecture on the Synoptic Problem and the Farrer theory years ago and decided then that I had to read one of his books. The Case Against Q surpassed all my expectations. Again and again he demonstrates fallacies in the arguments for Q, Q proponents' misunderstandings of arguments against Q and overlooking of different pieces of evidence in Matthew and Luke, the sheer plausibility and sensibility of Markan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew... by the time he offered an entirely new argument against Q in the second half of the final chapter, I almost felt bad for the theory. He just demolishes it. Thank you, Dr. Goodacre. I no longer have to worry about spending my precious reading time on this issue. It's settled.

[Nicholas Quient · Rating 5 out of 5]

A stellar work. Essentially removes Q from its sacred space and challenge is to consider narrative criticism and the relationship between the Synoptics in a fresh light. Thanks Dr. Goodacre.

[Josh Kemp · Rating 5 out of 5]

I came to the work predisposed to align with the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis, influenced primarily by previous interactions with Goodacre's work, especially "The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze." Full transparency, I am also in the privileged position of currently sitting under Dr. Goodacre's instruction at Duke University.

"The Case Against Q" does several important things, the first of which is Mark's clear establishment of the cornerstone, Markan Priority. The widespread acceptance of the Two-Document Hypothesis has too often seen Markan Priority and Q as inseparable, lumping all opposition to the 2DH into the same camp as the Griesbach Theory, which is built on Markan Posteriority. Goodacre clearly establishes that 2DH does not have the sole claim to Markan priority, as it is of course equally as essential for Farrer if Matthew read Mark and Luke read both. Here and elsewhere he pushes back against rather polemic statements by Q proponents.

One of the things I appreciate most throughout the book is Goodacre's appreciation of Luke as a creative composer, not a mere compiler or one who "puts pearls on a string," as Karl Ludwig Schmidt put it. I find this emphasis a convincing response to the standard 2DH challenge of order variance between Matthew and Luke, and enjoyed passages where Goodacre speculated on Luke's reception his sources and his broader strategy.

Mark's love for the 'Jesus film' genre is on display in the sixth chapter, "The Synoptic Jesus and the Celluloid Christ." In it, he shows us an interesting way that the synoptic problem can be brought into modern conversations about the Jesus story in a way that may be more relevant than, well, scholars peering at synopses and critical editions of Q to all nod in agreement at a now century-old status quo. The adaptive methods that film directors employ in harmonizing/editing the accounts provide an interesting dialogue partner with our conceptions of the evangelists, with or without Q.

The reasons this work has endured are manifold. The book is written in an accessible style, allowing for an audience with a wide range of Greek/Coptic competency. Also helpful are conclusions in each chapter that reinforce the key takeaways for each subject. Lastly, Goodacre critiques the 2DH without the incredulity that much of the opposition expresses in their critiques of Farrer-Goulder. It is unsurprising that Markan Priority without Q has come to be known as the Farrer-Goulder-*Goodacre* hypothesis, and I firmly believe that generations of scholars will benefit from this work.

[R.G. Price · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into this book with my own preconceived case against Q, but was convinced that Prof. Goodacre's case is better than my prior conception. I did not think that the case for Luke using Matthew was strong prior to reading this, but he has convinced me otherwise.

I also appreciated the fact that Prof. Goodacre addresses problems in the field of biblical scholarship in a direct, forthright, and fair way. By that I mean that he doesn't shy away from calling out academic flaws and significant shortcomings in the field, but also avoids getting on his own soap box, which I commend him for.

There were a few arguments in the book that surprised me. The whole of chapter 6, dealing with cinematography, was far more effective than I thought it would be going into it. Upon reading the opening of that chapter I rolled my eyes and almost skipped it, but I'm glad I didn't, because he made a compelling case from a unique perspective.

I do think that he missed some points that could have made his case stronger, but overall I don't think any of the points he did make were ineffective. I would say, however, that I would call this less a "case against Q" and more a "case for" a specific alternative to Q. The actual overall case against Q is broader than what was laid out here. This is a case for one specific alternative that, if true, would preclude the existence of Q.

The only reason I didn't give the book 5 stars is because this an academic book that's not exactly "fun" reading. This is a book that is really only to be read by people researching this subject. But as a research book it is excellent. I think that beyond just making a case against Q, however, the book also exposes real and significant fundamental problems in the field of biblical studies that drive at the heart of the credibility of this field.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Goodacre's The Case Against Q, a text that advocates the Farrer hypothesis as the superior solution to the Synoptic problem, is thorough, entertaining, and utterly persuasive. I am a mere layman and do not feel comfortable making any definitive assertions on the relationships of the Synoptic texts without first engaging critically with the literature of other proposed solutions; however, Goodacre has absolutely convinced me of the plausibility of Luke's knowledge of and dependence upon Matthew. His arguments are varied and creative, and they bring to light many of the unfounded assumptions upon which the Q hypothesis rested at the time of the book's publication. Despite the text's rigor, Goodacre writes in such a way that keeps the thesis accessible to readers who, like myself, are laypeople whose prior knowledge of New Testament scholarship derives mainly from trade publications. Those who seek to interrogate Goodacre's arguments at the deepest level will delight in his generous footnotes. A must-read in New Testament studies.

[Felix · Rating 5 out of 5]

I find Dr Goodacre's work on the synoptic problem compelling and his presentation both clear and entertaining. I have also read and listened to other articles/podcasts etc he has done on this topic and have felt the same way about these. He treats the arguments of those he disagrees with fairly and takes care to present their arguments well before going on to refute them, which is an attitude I appreciate and which I feel speaks to his good faith approach. I have found his arguments convincing (though I will admit the idea of Q does still hold some its old appeal as a concept). While Q is great fun conceptually and has become very entrenched in our conceptions of how the gospels were written, this book (along with Goodacre's other work on this issue and the work of other Q skeptical scholars) makes it clear that it is time to lay it to rest.

[C.J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

As the title suggests, Goodacre argues that the scholarly construct of the hypothetical Q Source (the 200-250 verses that are shared by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark) has had its run. He convincingly demonstrates that Mark was the first gospel composed (aka, Markan Priority), followed by Matthew, who used it as a source for his narrative, and later by Luke, using both Matthew and Mark as sources.

[Ben Montoya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goodacre unpacks some of the flaws of the arguments that scholars use to support the Q hypothesis; this book seems highly persuasive.

[Sergio E · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall a really good book, though I do think that his case for Markan Priority can be improved.