Bibliography
Abbott, Edwin A. The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke. London: Black, 1901.
———. The Fourfold Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913.
Abbott, Edwin A., and W. G. Rushbrooke. The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels in the Text of the Revised Version. London: Macmillan, 1884.
Abogunrin, Samuel O. “The Synoptic Gospel Debate: A Re-examination in an African Context.” African Journal of Biblical Studies 2 (1987): 25–51.
Aland, Kurt (ed.). Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993.
———. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. 3d ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965.
Allison, Dale C., Jr. The Jesus Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997.
———. Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Anthony, Peter. “What are They Saying about Luke-Acts?” Scripture Bulletin 40 (2010): 10–21.
Argyle, A. W. “Evidence for the View That St. Luke Used St. Matthew’s Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 390–96.
Aune, David E. (ed.). The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Barr, Allan. A Diagram of Synoptic Relationships. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Clark, 1995.
Barrett, C. K. “Q: A Re-examination.” Expository Times 54 (1942–43): 320–23.
Bartholomew, G. C., J. B. Green, and A. C. Thiselton (eds.). Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation. Scripture and Hermeneutic 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Bauckham, Richard (ed.). The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
———. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Baum, Armin D. “Matthew’s Sources—oral or written? A Rabbinic Analogy and Empirical Insights.” Pages 1–25 in Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008.
Bea, Augustin. The Study of the Synoptic Gospels. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
Beatrice, Pier Franco. “The ‘Gospel According to the Hebrews’ in the Apostolic Fathers.” Novum Testamentum 48 (2006): 147–95.
Bellinzoni, Arthur J., Joseph B. Tyson, and William O. Walker Jr. (eds.). The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1985.
Black, David Alan and David R Beck. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Black, David Alan. “Conjectural Emendations in the Gospel of Matthew.” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 1–15.
———. “Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and the Problem of Markan Grammar: Some Methodological Considerations.” Pages 89–98 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992.
———. “El Grupo de Juan: Helenismo y Gnosis.” Pages 303–23 in Origenes del Cristianismo. Edited by A. Piñero. Cordoba: el Almendro, 1991.
———. “Jesus on Anger: The Text of Matthew 5:22a Revisited.” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988): 1–8.
———. “Some Dissenting Notes on R. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem and Markan ‘Errors.’” Filología Neotestamentaria 1 (1988): 95–101.
———. “The Text of Mark 6:20.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 141–45.
Blair, George A. The Synoptic Gospels Compared. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 55. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2003.
Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. 2d ed. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2009.
Boismard, M. E. “Two-Source Hypothesis.” Pages 679–82 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
———. “The Two-Source Theory at an Impasse.” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 1–17.
Borgman, Paul. The Way According to Luke: Hearing the Whole Story of Luke-Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2006.
Bovon, François. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50. Hermeneia Series. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
———. Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950-2005). 2d ed. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006.
Bradby, E. L. “In Defense of Q.” Expository Times 68 (1956–57): 315–18.
Brooke, George J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
Buckley, E. L. An Introduction to the Synoptic Problem. London: Arnold, 1912.
Burkett, Delbert. Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2004.
———. Rethinking the Gospel Sources: The Unity and Plurality of Q. Vol 2. Society of Biblical Literature: Early Christianity and Its Literature. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2009.
———. “The Return of Proto-Mark: A Response to David Neville.” Ephemeridae Theologicae Lovanienses 85 (2009): 129–49.
Burkitt, F. C. The Gospel History and Its Transmission. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Clark, 1907.
Burridge, Richard A. Four Gospels, One Jesus? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Butler, B. C. The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.
———. “St. Luke’s Debt to St. Matthew.” Harvard Theological Review 32 (1939): 237–308.
———. “St. Paul’s Knowledge and Use of St. Matthew.” Downside Review 60 (1948): 363–83.
Carlson, Stephen C. “Clement of Alexandria on the ‘order’ of the Gospels.” New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 118–25.
Carrington, P. According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
Carter, Warren. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. 2d ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.
Casey, Maurice. Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
———. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Catchpole, David R. “The Beginning of Q: A Proposal.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 205–21.
Chapman, John. John the Presbyter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1911.
———. Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels. London: Longmans & Green, 1937.
Clarke, Howard W. The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 2003.
Cope, O. Lamar. Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 5. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976.
Croatto, J. S. “Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher Like Moses in Luke-Acts.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 451–65.
Cromhout, Markus. Jesus and Identity: Reconstructing Judean Ethnicity in Q. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2007.
Crompton, R. H. The Synoptic Problem and a New Solution. Edinburgh: Clark, 1928.
Crossley, James G. The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. Journal for the Study of New Testament Supplement 266. London: T & T Clark, 2004.
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Clark, 1988.
Derrenbacker, Robert A. Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 186. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Donahue, John R., and Daniel J. Harrington, Gospel of Mark. Sacra Pagina 2. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001.
Downing, F. G. “Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 69–85.
———. “A Paradigm Perplex: Luke, Matthew and Mark.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 15–36.
———. “Towards the Rehabilitation of Q.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65): 169–81.
Dunderberg, Ismo. “Q and the Beginning of Mark.” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 501–11.
Dungan, David L. “A Griesbachian Perspective on the Argument from Order.” Pages 67–74 in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.
———. A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition and the Interpretation of the Gospels. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
———. “Mark—The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke.” Pages 51–97 in vol. 1 of Jesus and Man’s Hope. Edited by David G. Buttrick. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970.
———. “The Purpose and Provenance of the Gospel of Mark according to the Two-Gospel (Owen-Griesbach) Hypothesis.” Pages 411–40 in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond. Edited by William R. Farmer. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983.
———. The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
———. “Synopses of the Future.” Pages 317–47 in The Interrelations of the Gospels. Edited by David L. Dungan. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 95. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1990.
———. “Two-Gospel Hypothesis.” Pages 671–79 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Dungan, David L. (ed.). The Interrelations of the Gospels. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 95. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1990.
Dungan, David L., and John S. Kloppenborg. “The Synoptic Problem: How Did We Get Our Gospels?” Pages 1231–40 in The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by William R. Farmer. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Dunn, J. D. G. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Edwards, James R. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009.
Elliott, J. K. “The Relevance of Textual Criticism to the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 348–59 in The Interrelations of the Gospels. Edited by David L. Dungan. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 95. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1990.
Ellis, E. E. “Gospels Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art.” Pages 26–52 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited by P. Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
———. The Making of the New Testament Documents. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
———. “The Synoptic Gospels and History.” Pages 53–56 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Evans, Craig A. “Sorting out the Synoptic Problem: Why an Old Approach is Still Best.” Pages 1–26 in Reading the Gospels Today. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004.
Farmer, William R. “Certain Results Reached by Sir John C. Hawkins and C. F. Burney Which Make More Sense If Luke Knew Matthew, and Mark Knew Matthew and Luke.” Pages 75–98 in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.
———. “A Fresh Approach to Q.” Pages 39–50 in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
———. The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994.
———. Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Scripture, and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
———. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
———. “The Present State of the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 11–36 in Literary Studies in Luke–Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998.
———. “Reply to Michael Goulder.” Pages 105–9 in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.
———. “A Response to Joseph Fitzmyer’s Defense of the Two Document Hypothesis.” Pages 501–23 in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond. Edited by William R. Farmer. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983.
———. “The Statement of the Hypothesis.” Pages 125–56 in The Interrelations of the Gospels. Edited by David L. Dungan. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 95. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1990.
———. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964.
Farmer, William R. (ed.). New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983.
Farrer, A. M. A Study in St Mark. Westminster: Dacre, 1951.
Farrer, M. “On Dispensing with Q.” Pages 55–88 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.
Fee, Gordon D. “Modern Text Criticism and the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 154–69 in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Edited by Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
———. “A Text-Critical Look at the Synoptic Problem.” Novum Testamentum 22 (1980): 12–28.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Priority of Mark and the ‘Q’ Source in Luke.” Pages 131–70 in vol. 1 of Jesus and Man’s Hope. Edited by David G. Buttrick. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970.
Fleddermann, Harry T. Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Biblical Tools and Studies 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Foster, Paul. “Is it Possible to Dispense with Q?” Novum Testamentum 45 (2003): 313–37.
Galler, Jayson S. “Matthew 12:30; Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50; 11:23: ‘with and for’ or ‘against’?” Lutheran Theological Review 14 (2002): 10–26.
Goodacre, Mark S. “Beyond the Q Impasse or Down a Blind Alley?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 76 (1999): 33–52.
———. “Fatigue in the Synoptics.” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 45–58.
———. Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 133. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996.
———. Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. The Biblical Seminar 80. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
———. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.
Goodacre, Mark S., and Nicholas Perrin (eds.). Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2004.
Goulder, Michael D. “Is Q a Juggernaut?” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 667–81.
———. Luke: A New Paradigm. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 20. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989.
———. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974.
———. “On Putting Q to the Test.” New Testament Studies 24 (1978): 218–34.
———. “The Order of a Crank.” Pages 111–30 in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.
———. “Some Observations on Professor Farmer’s ‘Certain Results. . . .’” Pages 99–104 in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.
Grant, Frederick C. The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.
Greeven, Heinrich. “The Gospel Synopsis from 1776 to the Present Day.” Pages 22–49 in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Edited by Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Gregg, Brian Douglas Han. The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. PhD diss. University of Notre Dame, 2005.
Griesbach, Johan Jakob. “A Demonstration That Mark Was Written after Matthew and Luke.” Translated by Bernard Orchard. Pages 103–35 in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Edited by Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
———. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Gurtner, Daniel M., and John Nolland (eds.). Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008.
Guy, Harold A. The Origin of the Gospel of Mark. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954.
Han, Kyu Sam. Jerusalem and the Early Jesus Movement: The Q Community’s Attitude Toward the Temple. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 207. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2002.
Harrington, Daniel J. What Are They Sayings About Mark? New York: Paulist Press, 2005.
Hatina, Thomas R. (ed.). Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels: The Gospel of Matthew. Library of New Testament Studies 310. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2008.
Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006.
Hawkins, John C. Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1909 (originally 1899).
Head, Peter M. Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Heil, Christoph. Lukas und Q: Studien zur lukanischen Redaktion der Spruchevangeliums Q. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003.
Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985.
———. Die Vier Evangelien und das Eine Evangelium von Jesu Christus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 224. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Hobbs, Edward C. “A Quarter-Century Without ‘Q.’” Perkins Journal (Summer 1980): 10–19.
Honoré, A. M. “A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem.” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 95–147.
Horsley, Richard A. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 2001.
Horsley, Richard (ed.). Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.
Hultgren, Stephen. Narrative Elements in the double Tradition: A Study of their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 113. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
Humphrey, Hugh. From Q to Secret Mark: A Composition History of the Earliest Narrative Theology. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2006.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Jacobson, Arland D. “The Literary Unity of Q.” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 365–89.
Jameson, G. The Origin of the Synoptic Gospels: A Revision of the Synoptic Problem. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1922.
Johnson, Sherman E. The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.
Johnson, Steven R. Q: 12:33–34: Storing up Treasures in Heaven. The Database of the International Q Project. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
Kelber, Werner H. The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Voices in Performance and Text. Edited by John Miles Foley. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983. Repr., Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997.
Kilpatrick, G. D. The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946.
Kirk, A. K. “The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q.” Pages 191–206 in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Use of the Past in Early Christianity. Edited by A. Kirk and T. Thatcher. Semeia Studies 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Kloppenborg, John S. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.
———. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
———. Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance. Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988.
———. “The Theological Stakes in the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 93–120 in vol. 1 of The Four Gospels, 1992. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck et al. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1992.
———. “On Dispensing with Q? Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew.” New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 210–36.
———. “Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 419–50.
———. Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus. Louisville/London: Westminster/John Knox, 2008.
Kloppenborg, John S. (ed.). Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1995.
———. The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.
Kloppenborg, John, and Robert Derrenbacker. “Self-Contradiction in the IQP? A Reply to Michael Goulder.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 57–76.
Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990.
———. “History and Development of Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 35–57 in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches. Edited by Bruce C. Corley. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983.
Kümmel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1965.
Kürzinger, J. “Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthäusev-angeliums.” Biblische Zeitschrift 4 (1960): 19–38.
———. “Irenäus und sein Zeugnis zur Sprache des Matthäusevangeliums.” New Testament Studies 10 (1963): 108–15.
———. Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments. Regensburg: Pustet, 1983.
LaVerdiere, Eugene. The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999.
Lindemann, A. (ed.). The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Bibliotheca ephimeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 158. Leuven: Louvain Press/Peeters, 2001.
Lindsey, Robert Lisle. A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark: Greek-Hebrew Diglot with English Introduction. Jerusalem: Dugith, 1973.
Linnemann, Eta. Is There a Synoptic Problem? Translated by Robert Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Longstaff, Thomas R. W. Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study in the Synoptic Problem. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 26. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977.
Longstaff, Thomas R. W., and Page A. Thomas. The Synoptic Problem: A Bibliography, 1716–1988. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988.
Lührmann, Dieter. “The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 51–71.
Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 1-8. Anchor Bible 27A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
———. Mark 8-16. Anchor Yale Bible Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Massaux, Édouard. Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus. 3 vols. Translated by Norman J. Belval and Suzanne Hecht. Edited by Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr. New Gospel Studies 5. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1990 (originally 1950).
Mattila, Sharon L. “A Problem Still Clouded: Yet Again—Statistics and ‘Q.’ ” Novum Testamentum 37 (1994): 105–29.
McKnight, Scot. Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
McKnight, Scott, and Grant R. Osborne (eds.). The Face of New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.
McNicol, Allan J., David L. Dungan, and David B. Peabody (eds.). Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1996.
Melver, Rubert K., and Marie Carroll. “Experiments to Develop Criteria for Determining the Existence of Written Sources, and their Potential Implications for the Synoptic Problem.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 667–87.
Menzies, Allan. The Earliest Gospel: A Historical Study of the Gospel according to Mark. London: Macmillan, 1901.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Moloney, Francis J. Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.
Mosse, Martin. The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007.
Mournet, T. C. Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Mrazek, J., and J. Roskovec. Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 273. New York: T & T Clark, 2004.
Neirynck, Frans. “Introduction: The Two-Source Hypothesis.” Pages 3–22 in The Interrelations of the Gospels. Edited by David L. Dungan. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 95. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1990.
———. “The Minor Agreements and Q.” Pages 49–72 in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Edited by Ronald A. Piper. Novum Testamentum Supplement 75. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
———. The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark with a Cumulative List. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 37. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1974.
———. “Synoptic Problem.” Pages 845–48 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplement Volume. Edited by Keith Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976.
———. “Synoptic Problem.” Pages 587–95 in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond Brown et al. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Neirynck, Frans, and J. Verhayden. The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography, 1950–1995. 2 vols. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 105. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1998.
Neville, David J. Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique. New Gospel Studies 7. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1994.
New, David S. Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels and the Two-Document Hypothesis. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.
Nickle, Keith F. The Synoptic Gospels: Conflict and Consensus. Atlanta: John Knox, 1980.
Nolland, John L. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005.
Orchard, Bernard. “Dei Verbum and the Synoptic Gospels.” Downside Review 108 (1990): 199–214.
———. “The Ellipsis Between Galatians 2:3 and 2:4.” Biblica 54 (1973): 469–81.
———. The Evolution of the Gospels. London: Ealing Abbey, n.d.
———. “The Formation of the Synoptic Gospels.” Downside Review 106 (1988): 1–16.
———. “J. A. T. Robinson and the Synoptic Problem.” New Testament Studies 22 (1976): 346–52.
———. “The Making and Publication of Mark’s Gospel—An Historical Investigation.” Annales Theologici 7 (1993): 369–93.
———. Matthew, Luke and Mark. Manchester: Koinonia, 1976.
———. “A New Solution of the Galatians Problem.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 28 (1944): 154–74.
———. “A Note on the Meaning of Galatians 2:3–5.” Journal of Theological Studies 43 (1942): 173–77.
———. “Once Again: The Ellipsis Between Galatians 2:3 and 2:4.” Biblica 57 (1976): 254–55.
———. “The Problem of Acts and Galatians.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 7 (1945): 377–97.
———. “The Solution of the Synoptic Problem.” Scripture Bulletin 18 (1987).
———. “Some Reflections on the Relationship of Luke to Matthew.” Pages 33–46 in Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. Edited by E. P. Sanders. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987.
———. A Synopsis of the Four Gospels in English. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press/Edinburgh: Clark, 1982.
———. A Synopsis of the Four Gospels in Greek. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press/Edinburgh: Clark, 1983.
———. “Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels.” Biblica 19 (1938): 19–42.
———. “The Two-Document Hypothesis or, Some Thoughts on the Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis.” Downside Review 98 (1980): 267–79.
———. The Two-Gospel Hypothesis. London: Ealing Abbey, 1989.
Orchard, Bernard (ed.). A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. London, 1953.
Orchard, Bernard, and Thomas R. W. Longstaff (eds.). J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Orchard, Bernard, and Harold Riley. The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987.
Orton, David E. (ed.). The Synoptic Problem and Q: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Overman, J. Andrew. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Owen, Henry. Observations on the Four Gospels. London: 1764.
Palmer, N. H. “Lachmann’s Argument.” New Testament Studies 13 (1966–67): 368–78.
Parker, David C. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Parker, Pierson. The Gospel before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
———. “The Posteriority of Mark.” Pages 65–142 in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond. Edited by William R. Farmer. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983.
———. “A Second Look at The Gospel before Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1980): 389–413.
Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995.
Peabody, David. “Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis: A Reexamination of Augustine’s Thought in De consensu evangelistarum.” Pages 37–64 in New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond. Edited by William R. Farmer. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983.
———. “The Late Secondary Redaction of Mark’s Gospel and the Griesbach Hypothesis: A Response to Helmut Koester.” Pages 87–132 in Colloquy on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches. Edited by Bruce C. Corley. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983.
———. Mark as Composer. New Gospel Studies 1. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987.
Peabody, David B., Lamar Cope, and Allan J. McNicol (eds.). One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.
Penley, Paul T. The Common Tradition Behind Synoptic Sayings of Judgment and John’s Apocalypse: An Oral Interpretive Tradition of Old Testament Prophetic Material. Library of New Testament Studies 424. Edited by Mark Goodacre. Edinburg: T & T Clark, 2010.
Perkins, Pheme. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007.
Petrie, Stewart “‘Q’ Is Only What You Make It.” Novum Testamentum 3 (1959): 28–33.
Reddish, M. G. An Introduction to the Gospels. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997.
Reicke, Bo. “Griesbach’s Answer to the Synoptic Question.” Pages 50–67 and 198–200 in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Edited by Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
———. “The History of the Synoptic Discussion.” Pages 291–316 in The Interrelations of the Gospels. Edited by David L. Dungan. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 95. Leuven: Louvain University Press, 1990.
———. “Introduction to Griesbach’s Commentatio.” Pages 68–73 in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Edited by Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
———. The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991.
Riley, Harold. The First Gospel. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1992.
———. The Making of Mark: An Exploration. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1989.
———. Preface to Luke. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1993.
Rist, John M. On the Independence of Matthew and Mark. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Robbins, C. Michael. The Testing of Jesus in Q. Studies in Biblical Literature 108. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.
Robbinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg (eds.). The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.
Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM, 1976.
Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffman, and John S. Kloppenborg (eds.). The Critical Edition of Q, Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Rodd, C. S. “The End of the Theology of Q?” Expository Times 113 (2001): 5–12.
Rollston, Christopher A. (ed.). The Gospels According to Michael Goulder: A North American Response. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.
Rosché, T. R. “The Words of Jesus and the Future of the ‘Q’ Hypothesis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 210–20.
Sanday, William (ed.). Studies in the Synoptic Problem. Oxford: Clarendon, 1911.
Sanders, E. P. “The Argument from Order and the Relationship between Matthew and Luke.” New Testament Studies 15 (1968–69): 249–61.
———. “The Overlaps of Mark and Q and the Synoptic Problem.” New Testament Studies 19 (1972–73): 453–65.
———. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Sanders, E. P., and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London: SCM, 1989.
Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.
Schiavo, Luigi. “The Temptation of Jesus: The Eschatological Battle and the New Ethic of the First Followers of Jesus in Q.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (2002): 141–64.
Shin, H. W. Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem in Historical Jesus Research: The Search for Valid Criteria. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 36. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.
Sim, David C. Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. Library of New Testament Studies 333. New York: T&T Clark, 2008.
Simpson, R. T. “The Major Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark.” New Testament Studies 12 (1965–66): 273–84.
Smith, Daniel Alan. Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Saying Gospel Q. Library of New Testament Studies 338. Edited by Mark Goodacre. New York/London: T & T Clark: 2006.
Smith, Robinson. The Solution of the Synoptic Problem: Sources, Sequences and Dates of the Gospels and Epistles, and the Consequent Life of Christ. London: Watts, 1922.
Stanton, Graham N. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.
———. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Stein, Robert H. Gospels and Tradition: Studies on Redaction Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
———. “The Matthew–Luke Agreements against Mark: Insight from John.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 482–502.
———. “Synoptic Problem.” Pages 784–92 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992.
———. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Stoldt, Hans-Herbert. History and Criticism of the Markan Hypothesis. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1980.
Stonehouse, Ned B. Origins of the Synoptic Gospels: Some Basic Questions. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 (originally 1963).
Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924.
———. “St. Mark’s Knowledge and Use of Q.” Pages 165–83 in Studies in the Synoptic Problem. Edited by William Sanday. Oxford: Clarendon, 1911.
Styler, G. M. “The Priority of Mark.” Pages 223–32 in The Birth of the New Testament. By C. F. D. Moule. London: Black, 1962.
Subramanian, J. Samuel. Synoptic Gospels and the Psalms As Prophecy. Library of New Testament Studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2008.
Taylor, R. O. P. The Groundwork of the Gospels. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946.
Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. 2d ed. London: Macmillan, 1935.
Thomas, Robert L. (ed.). Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002.
Throckmorton, Burton H., Jr. (ed.). Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels, with Alternative Readings from the Manuscripts and Noncanonical Parallels. 5th ed. Nashville: Nelson, 1992.
Tuckett, C. M. “Arguments from Order: Definition and Evaluation.” Pages 197–219 in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.
———. “The Beatitudes: A Source-Critical Study, with a Reply by M. D. Goulder.” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983): 193–216.
———. “The Existence of Q.” Pages 19–47 in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Edited by Ronald A. Piper. Novum Testamentum Supplement 75. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
———. “Jesus and the Gospels.” Pages 71–86 in vol. 8 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.
———. “On the Relationship between Matthew and Luke.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 130–42.
———. Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q. Edinburgh: Clark, 1996.
———. The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
———. “Synoptic Problem.” Pages 263–70 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Tuckett, C. M. (ed.). The Messianic Secret. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
———. Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.
———. Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement 116. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Turner, E. G. Greek Papyri. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980.
Tyson, Joseph B. The New Testament and Early Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1984.
———. “The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal.” Pages 437–52 in The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. Edited by Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr., Joseph B. Tyson, and William O. Walker Jr. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985.
van de Sandt, Huub (ed.). Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish Christian Milieu? Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
Vassiliadis, Petros. “The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document.” Novum Testamentum 20 (1978): 49–73.
Walker, William O., Jr. (ed.). The Relationship among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University Press, 1978.
Watson, Francis. Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Weeden, Theodore J. Mark: Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992.
Wilder, T. L. “Pseudonymity and the New Testament.” Pages 293–332 in Interpreting the New Testament. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.
Witherington, Ben III. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Wood, H. G. “The Priority of Mark.” Expository Times 65 (1953–54): 17–19.