Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke's Use of Matthew : A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies (Paperback)

by Allan J. McNicol (Editor), David B. Peabody (Editor), David L. Dungan (Editor), William R. Farmer (Introduction)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description
Based on decades of painstaking, collaborative research, the authors of this volume have succeeded in making a historic breakthrough in understanding the Gospel of Luke. They have discovered never-before-seen objective data, proving that the author of the Gospel of Luke systematically and respectfully used sequences of material from the canonical Gospel of Matthew in writing his own Gospel.

Product Details

• Paperback: 333 pages
• Publisher: Trinity Press International; Book and Access edition (December 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1563381842
• ISBN-13: 978-1563381843
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 7.1 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,894,669 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Beyond Q, well researched but flawed, March 28, 2001

By	Stuart Waugh (Sunnyvale, CA USA) - See all my reviews

Beyond the Q Impasse is a collaborative effort that is very detailed and somewhat dry. This work was done by a group committed to one theory, the Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) - which I feel is correct in part anyway -, and so set out with that assumption in mind. As an exercise, it is probably necessary that a serious exploration of the idea that Luke used Canonical Matthew as it's primary source without knowledge of Mark, or more importantly the hypothetical Q document.

This book is an exhaustive analysis of how Luke could have been written to fit the 2GH assumption. It lacks a good introduction to the approach, and lacks examination of alternatives. As a result it is dry, and difficult reading not of much use to anyone other than a researcher into the subject. Of course I think that was the objective, simply to supply some material supporting Luke's use of Matthew. But overall it fails because of a lack of exploration, and instead becomes an uncritical narrative typical of group think. (ouch, this is from a strong supporter of Dr. Farmer and Dr. Longfellow here!)

About the Book's theory :

The presumption of 2GH, based upon the now Canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke, made this exercise dubious. This created a need to have Luke open five scrolls of Matthew at once to create his Gospel, while theoretically possible, seems utterly ludicrous. The complexity of this approach, done without error, defies reasonable human work. A messy work like Acts seems more likely with all its' illogic and redundancy. What's more the movement of material into the Central section, such as the Lawyers' question (Luke 10:25-28), Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10), and the parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13:18-19), creates a resulting level of complexity for the author of Mark to conflate his account from Luke and Matthew which this book supports. Somehow Mark manages to extract material sequentially common with Matthew from the Central section of Luke, such as above, without showing any hint of the other content in that section. Another problem is shown in material, such as the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:1-4), that form and redactional criticism argue found its' way into Matthew from Luke (Matthew 6:9-13; note perhaps also Mark 11:25 was the textual basis for Matthew 6:14-15), breaking up his Blessings and Woes (Matthew 6:1-8, 16-21). Further no account is taken for the missing elements in what is likely an earlier form of that book, which the Marcionites called the "Gospel of the Lord." Simply put there are too many holes in this approach and the theory itself requires a too complex writing system by Luke.

What this book did show though, was that Q is not necessary for a solution to the Synoptic problem. Yet what I see emerging is a more complex history involved in the composition of the Synoptic Gospels than any of the three top theories (the 2SH or "Q", Farrar or "FH" and the 2GH) presents. I think the 2GH will hold, but not derived from the Canonical Luke or Matthew, rather from earlier prototype versions of these books, which were largely lacking all the missing material that cannot be found in Mark. That will be a Luke with no Central Section, and a Matthew lacking most of the common material with Luke. This exercise would look completely different if the Luke which Mark used lacked everything before 4:31 (some evidence exists that verses 4:16,22-24 may have existed in a different location paralleling Mark 6:1-6), Central section material 11:14-28, 12:10 and 8:19-21 in place of 6:20-8:3, with Luke 13:18-19 in place of Luke 8:19, no Central section from 9:51-18:14, Luke 10:25-28 placed before Luke 20:39-40 where it belongs, as well as the Marcionite version of the Ointment story (Luke 7:36-50 but much shorter) after Luke 22:2 where it belongs as well, and finally nothing after 24:11. Note, obvious later additions such as Jesus promising Simon Peter to the Devil in 22:31-33 also would not have been in this Luke. If you likewise follow Harold Riley's proposed proto-Matthew outline you have a better starting point.

In the end if this exercise were repeated on simpler basis, allowing the current compositions have been rearranged, and built up in a series of redactions, you can dispense with the cumbersome five scroll approach for Luke, as well as most of the need for Q. You can then actually apply sequential, redactional, form, and textual criticism to arrive at probable paths for many verses transmission from redaction to redaction. What this book proves is that a simpler model to explain step-wise the redactions is needed rather than a sweeping general theory such as the 2SH, 2GH ad FH give us. Only then can the Q impasse be truly broken.

6 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars What kind of review is the above one, November 6, 2000

By A Customer

I am sorry, but the above review is quite barmy and has no place on a site such as this. Why on earth can't people review the books they are meant to without engaging in such obvious madness ? Jesus lived to 90 ? Shame no one in the ancient world thought to tell us so. Pity the reality (the ignoble execution of a Jewish peasant healer - thought by his followers to be the Messiah - is such a boring, conventional story for all the mad people out there). This book is a work of serious scholarship and ought to be treated as such. It has important implications for anyone engaged in the study of the gospels and Christian origins and is quite refreshing in its critique of common assumptions about the relationships between the primary texts.

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Sorry Dr. Longstaff !, March 28, 2001

By	Stuart Waugh (Sunnyvale, CA USA) - See all my reviews

Could you correct my submitted review. I incorrectly called Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff, "Dr. Longfellow". I'd like him to still talk to me. Thanks!