But, I seen Q on star track, surely he must have wrote something.
SAYINGS OF JESUS: SOURCE (Q) IN RECENT RESEARCH A REVIEW ARTICLE, THE
Trinity Journal, Spring 2005 by Keylock, Leslie Robert
Bellinzoni, Arthus J., ed. The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1985.
Collection of Essays which grew out of a SBL Consultation on the Relationship of the Gospels. Covers the Marcan priority and the Q hypothesis and sets out arguments for and against the two-source hypothesis.
BS2555.2 .T86 1985
Boismard, M. E. “The Two-Source Theory at an Impasse.” NTS 26 (October 1979): 1-17.
Shows that the many Mt/Lk agreements against Mark which cannot be accounted for by the two-source theory call for a synthesis of both the Griesbach, and two-source hypotheses.
BS410 .N5 v. 26
Butler, B. C. The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.
Argues for the priority of Matthew and dismisses the theory that Mark and Q are earlier sources.
Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1976.
Argues for a return to the Matthean priority. Book is now reissued by Mercer University Press in the wake of new converts to the Matthean priority, which is really a rehash of the old Griesbach hypothesis.
BS2555.2 .F3 1976
________, ed. New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983.
Collection of essays representing three positions on source theory: Marcan priority with Q, Marcan dependency on either Matthew or Luke, and none of these. A very fine source for understanding different arguments on the problem.
BS2555.2 .N483 1983
Orchard, Bernard. Matthew, Luke & Mark. 2nd ed. Manchester, Eng: Koinonia Press, 1977.
Adheres to what the author calls the Griesbachian principles, i. e., recognition of the Matthean priority. Here, even Luke comes before Mark.
BS2555.2 .073 1977 v. 1
________, and Riley, Harold. The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987.
An Anglican and a Roman Catholic scholar join the band of NT scholars who challenge various forms of the Marcan priority hypothesis by presenting their own Two-Gospel hypothesis.
BS2555.2 .074 1987
Parker, Pierson. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
One of the first published arguments in North America challenging the Marcan priority hypothesis.
Reicke, Bo. The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
Concerned with the origin and formation of the traditions which lie behind the synoptic gospels but concentrates more on reconstruction of literary sources, thereby avoiding much of the polemicized debate regarding the documentary hypotheses.
BS2555.2 .R39 1986
Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1987.
The author argues cogently for the two-document hypothesis in the first part of the book, then deals with form-criticism and the pre-literary period, and finally gives a fine discussion of redaction criticism.
BS 2555.2 .S728 1987
Vassiliadis, Petros. “The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document.” NovTest 20 (January 1978): 49-73.
Argues for the existence of the Q-Document originally written in Greek, and used much by Luke and Matthew.
BS410 .N94 v. 20
Walker, William O., ed. The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1978.
Essays presented at a colloquy at Trinity University, Texas and concerned with airing the problems which still attend the various hypotheses in NT source criticism.
- The Q document is not a surviving source hid by the Vatican, nor is it a book allegedly written by Jesus himself. It’s a hypothetical document that scholars have posited as having been available to Matthew and Luke, principally a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Roman Catholic scholars think the same of it as non-Catholics — there’s nothing secretive about it.