On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew

  title={On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew},
  author={John S. Kloppenborg},
  journal={New Testament Studies},
  pages={210 - 236}
The case against Q depends logically on the plausibility of Luke's direct use of Matthew. Goodacre's carefully argued book contends (a) that none of the objections to the Mark-without-Q hypothesis is valid; (b) that given certain assumptions about Luke's aesthetic preferences, it is plausible that he systematically reordered the ‘Q’ material from Matthew; (c) that Luke's rearrangement of Matthew shows as much intelligence and purposefulness as Matthew's; and (d) that certain features of the ‘Q… Expand


M’ material is what is present only in Matthew
  • Responding to a criticism of Robert Stein31 Goodacre correctly observes again that this objection is framed from the point of view of the 2DH. For although Luke has little of what appears in Matt 1–2 and Matt 28, it is misleading to suggest that Luke 222  .  31 R. H. Stein, The Synop
  • 1987
Greco-Roman Writing Practices and Luke's Gospel: Revisiting "The Order of a Crank
  • The Gospels According to Michael Goulder: A North American Response
  • 2001
Luke 10:25-28: A Foreign Body in Luke?', Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Biblical Interpretation Series 8
  • 1994
The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem', The Four Gospels
  • 1992
17-20 balancing 7.12, 5.21-48 balancing 6.19-7.11, 6.1-6 corresponding to 6.16-18, and the Lord's Prayer at the centre. See also K. Syreeni
  • The Making of the Sermon on the Mount: A Procedural Analysis of Matthew's Redactoral Activity. Part 1: Methodology & Compositional Analysis (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae
  • 1987