ZNT 43/44 (2019): Synoptische Hypothesen

The latest issue of ZNT is devoted to the synoptic problem and includes a number of contributions critically interacting with the two-document hypothesis, plus an extensive review of Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis (ed. Mogens Müller and Heike Omerzu; LNTS 573; London: T&T Clark, 2018). The full table of contents can be found here.

Tobias Hägerland, “Editorial Fatigue and the Existence of Q”

Tobias Hägerland has just published an article in NTS critically interacting with Mark Goodacre’s famous concept of editorial fatigue. Here is the abstract from NTS:

“This article challenges Mark Goodacre’s contention that the distribution of editorial fatigue in Matthew and Luke points not only to Markan priority but also to Luke’s dependence on Matthew. Goodacre’s argument is criticised through questioning the assumptions that Matthew’s handling of Q would have been analogous to his handling of Mark and to Luke’s handling of Q, as well as the claim that no instances of editorial fatigue can be detected in Matthew’s handling of the double tradition. The conclusion is that the argument from editorial fatigue cannot be used to establish that the existence of Q is improbable.”

Ernst Baasland, “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt”

Ernst Baasland has published a new article in ZNW. Here’s the abstract from ZNW:

“The thesis of an Inaugural Speech is widely accepted. To neglect its existence will substantially weaken the “two-source theory”. The exact content, the genre and rhetoric of the speech have, however, not been investigated sufficiently. Is Luke’s Sermon on the Plain in fact identical with the historical Inaugural Speech? Do also parts of the Q-material in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount originate from this speech? A new approach is to differentiate four groups of traditions in the Sermon on the Mount: a. the Inaugural Speech = common material in Luke and Matthew; b. the Q material in the Sermon on the Mount; c. “The triple-tradition”; d. the “Sondergut” in Matthew and Luke. A precise and comprehensive reconstruction of the Inaugural Speech as such is hardly possible, but the genre and the rhetorical outline of the Speech can to a large extent be reconstructed. The parallels in Mark, the Gospel of Thomas and particularly in the Epistle of James and in Justin’s Apology can also illuminate the genre and text behind Matthew and Luke. Reconstructions often have an element of speculation. Due to the existence of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke a reconstruction is necessary, possible and fruitful – at least if we take the parallels, the genre and the composition into account.”