My two reviewers choose to focus on the central section of my book and to pass over its wider argument, which is an attempt to rehabilitate the canonical form of the fourfold gospel as an object of study in its own right. Both reviewers are understandably preoccupied with my critique of the Q hypothesis and with the ‘L/M’ and ‘SC’ hypotheses with which I propose to replace it, and much of my response is therefore concerned with these issues. I also engage with Bauckham’s attempt to distance non-canonical gospel texts from the canonical ones, and with Omerzu’s proposed ‘complexity theory’ of gospel origins.
AttridgeHarold W.1984 ‘The Dialogue of the Savior (III, 5)’, in RobinsonJames M. (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library (Leiden: Brill, 2nd edn): 230-38.
2.
WatsonFrancis1998 ‘Toward a Literal Reading of the Gospels’, in BauckhamRichard (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998): 195-217.
3.
WatsonFrancis2013Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
