The synoptic problem is an important and visible subfield within NT studies, yet, for some reason, almost every NT introduction written in the past forty or so years has passed on a defective understanding of that subfield. Two problems in particular plague these NT introductions: (1) their discussions of the synoptic problem tend to rely on a logical argument disproven almost sixty years ago, and (2) they tend to misrepresent the current state of the question by marginalizing the Farrer hypothesis, which today is the Two-Source Theory’s leading competitor.
Abbott, Edwin A.1901The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke ( London: Adam and Charles Black).
2.
Achtemeier, Paul J., Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson2001Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
3.
Blomberg, Craig L.1997Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey ( Leicester: Apollos).
4.
Brown, Raymond1997Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL;New York: Doubleday).
5.
Burkett, Delbert2002An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
6.
Butler, B.C.1951The Originality of St Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
7.
Chapman, John1937Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels (ed. John M.T. Barton;London: Longmans, Green & Co.).
8.
Colwell, Ernest Cadman1947‘Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations’ , JBL66: 109-33.
9.
Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed2001Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, behind the Texts (San Francisco: Harper).
10.
Davies, W.D., and Dale C. Allison , Jr1988A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. I. Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC, 26A; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
11.
Dungan, David L.1970‘Mark-The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke’, in David G. Buttrick (ed.), Jesus and Man’s Hope, I (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary): 51-97.
12.
1999A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (ABRL ; New York: Doubleday).
13.
Ehrman, Bart D.1997The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn 2000 , 3rd edn 2004).
14.
Farmer, William R.1964The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis ( New York: Macmillan).
15.
1996‘Preface’, in Allan J. McNicol, David L. Dungan and David B. Peabody (eds.), 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): xi-xiii.
16.
Fiensy, David A.1997New Testament Introduction (College Press NIV Commentary; 2nd edn; Joplin , MO: College Press).
17.
Freed, Edwin D.1986The New Testament: A Critical Introduction ( Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).
18.
Goodacre, Mark S.1998‘Fatigue in the Synoptics’, NTS44: 45-58.
19.
2001The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (The Biblical Seminar, 80; London: Sheffield Academic Press).
20.
2002The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
21.
2008‘The Evangelists’ Use of the Old Testament and the Synoptic Problem’, paper presented at the Oxford Synoptic Problem Conference, 7-10 April.
22.
Goulder, Michael D.1974Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London : SPCK).
23.
1989Luke: A New Paradigm (2 vols.; JSNTSup, 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
24.
1993‘Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew’, in Georg Strecker (ed.), Minor Agreements: Symposium Göttingen, 1991 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 143-60.
25.
Guthrie, Donald1970New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
26.
Jacobson, Arland D.1992The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q ( Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press).
27.
Jameson, Hampden G.1922The Origin of the Synoptic Gospels: A Revision of the Synoptic Problem ( Oxford: Blackwell).
28.
Jeremias, Joachim1971New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
29.
Kloppenborg, John S., Marvin W. Meyer, Stephen J. Patterson and Michael G. Steinhauser1990Q-Thomas Reader (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press).
30.
Kloppenborg Verbin, John S.2000Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel ( Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
31.
2002‘Goulder and the New Paradigm: A Critical Appreciation of Michael Goulder on the Synoptic Problem’, in Christopher A. Rollston (ed.), The Gospels According to Michael Goulder: A North American Response (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
32.
Koester, Helmut1982Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter).
33.
1990Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development ( Philadelphia: Trinity).
34.
Kümmel, Werner Georg1972The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon Press).
35.
Mack, Burton L.1993The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins ( San Francisco: HarperCollins).
36.
Maier, Adalbert1848‘Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Die drei ersten Evangelien im Allgemeinen’, Zeitschrift für Theologie20: 3-76.
37.
Martin, Ralph P.1975New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students. I. The Four Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
38.
McKnight, Scot2001‘A Generation who Knew not Streeter: The Case for Markan Priority’, in David Alan Black and David R. Beck (eds.), Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic): 65-95.
39.
Miller, Robert J. (ed.) 1994The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (rev. edn; San Francisco: HarperCollins).
40.
Neirynck, Frans1982‘The Griesbach Hypothesis: The Phenomenon of Order’ , ETL58: 111-22.
41.
Neville, David J.1994Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique (New Gospel Studies, 7; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press ).
42.
Patterson, Stephen J.1993The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press).
43.
1995‘Yes, Virginia, there is a Q’, BRev11.5: 39-40.
44.
1998 a The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
45.
1998b Review of Christopher Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q, JBL117: 744-46.
46.
Perrin, Norman, and Dennis C. Duling1982The New Testament: An Introduction (2nd edn; San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich ).
47.
Peterson, Jeffrey2004‘Order in the Double Tradition and the Existence of Q’, in Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (eds.), Questioning Q ( London: SPCK, 2004): 28-42.
48.
Poirier, John C.2004‘The Q Hypothesis and the Role of Pre-Synoptic Sources in Nineteenth-Century Scholarship’, in Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (eds.), Questioning Q (London: SPCK): 13-27.
49.
Quentin, Henri1922Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la vulgate (Collectanea Biblica Latina, 5/1; Paris: Gabalda).
50.
Sanders, E.P., and Margaret Davies1989Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press).
51.
Schnelle, Udo1998The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
52.
Seeley, David1994Deconstructing the New Testament (Biblical Interpretation Series, 5; Leiden: Brill).
53.
Sheppard, G.T., and A.C. Thiselton2007‘Biblical Interpretation in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries’, in Donald K. McKim (ed.), Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters ( Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press): 45-66.
54.
Smith, Dennis E.2004‘Jesus and the Gospels’, in Dennis E. Smith (ed.), Chalice Introduction to the New Testament (St. Louis: Chalice): 117-35.
55.
Stein, Robert H.1987The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction ( Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
56.
Styler, G.M.1962‘The Priority of Mark’, in C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (New York: Harper and Row): 223-32.
57.
Tuckett, Christopher M.1980‘The Argument from Order and the Synoptic Problem’ , TZ36: 338-54.
58.
1996Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q ( Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
59.
Wikenhauser, Alfred1963New Testament Introduction (New York : Herder and Herder).
60.
Wilke, Christian Gottlob1838Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftverhältniss der drei ersten Evangelien ( Dresden and Leipzig: Gerhard fleischer).
