Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Richard Bauckham
Cambridge
A b stra ct
^extended review Francis ^'Vatson, Gospel Writing, engages critica/ with som e of
the major argnments of h e h o o<, including W atson's case against Q and for Fukes use
of Matthew, his claim that the Gospel o f Thomas preserves a very early genre of gospel
writing, his argument that the Gospel ofjohn is dependent on the Egerton Gospel, and his
account of the process (normativization) that produced the canon of the four gospels
Flis work is criticized generally for neglecting the wider literary con text of the gospels
in ancient Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature.
Keywords
Gospels, apocryphal gospels, canon, Gospel o f Thomas, Egerton Gospel, Q
C o r r e s p o n d i n g author:
Richard Bauckham , A rc h w ay C o u rt, C am b rid g e CB3 , UK.
Email: rjb @ st-a n d re w s.ac .u k
Against Q
Watsons book could have been subtftled How to dispense -/// Q and get >
theology right a! the same time. A remarkable amount o f tire discussion actually
revolves around Q. This is because Watson sees the Q hypothesis and its success
as the central plank irr the dismantling of tire canon (of the fourfold gospel) irr
modem gospels scholarship, the history ofwhiclr, tro Reinrarus to Harnaek, Ire
relates in some detail in Chapter 2. This account of the history o f the Synoptic
?roblem is designed to climax in Ham acks view o fQ as the earliest and most
reliable source for the historical Jesus, preferable to Mark, giving us Jesus
unadulterated by the theological interpretations of Jesus that pervade the New
Testament. The Q hypothesis therefore represents for Watson the overarching
theological error o f modem study o f tire gospels: its quest, pursued by means of
source criticism, for tire uninterpreterl Jesus behind the gospels. Watson, while
not abjuring source criticism, wishes to create a new framework that, instead of
working backwards to tire m ost original form of tire gospel tradition, traces
rather the forward movement o f the tradition, the process o f the reception of
Jesus and the written interpretations o f lrinr, culminating in tire fortuation o f the
canon, hr this new framework, source criticisrtr takes its place, not as a means of
moving backwards, but, through observation oi'the way an author (such as Luke
or 1110 )interprets his sources, as a means of tracing the forward movement of
constant reinterpretation ofthe Jesus tradition. Removing Q from the account of
gospel origins becomes almost a symbol of tins reversal of herm ^eutical
direction
One cannot deny that l-larnacks view o f Q is persistent, but it is sonrecvlnh
misleading to end tire story with him. The landscape of gospels criticism was
tramd'orirrerl after Hamack by fonn criticism, whose effect was to separate Jesus
even I'rom Q by a grill'01'Oi'al transmission of traditions. This effectively meant
that the quest, ifit was to be viable at all, c o t: l not proceed simply by identifying
reliable early sources. Every individual unit o fth e tradition had to be assessed
separately !;/ means o fth e I'anrous criteria oi'autlieiitich}. Mere presence In Q
did not guarantee the authenticity 01'a saying. An i n te r e s t ^ feature ofW atsons
own account o f gospel origins is that he minimizes the Importance o f oral tradi-
lion at least in the sense that he thinks tire oral and the written co-existed and
Interacted all along. While abolishing Q, he fills tire period before Mark instead
with early Sa.yhrgs LTdlectioiis.
Watson is well aware that a source-critical hypothesis cannot be refirted by
theological argnnrent. The strength ofthe Q hypothesis lies in its claim to be the
most adequate explanation of fire literary relationship beLveen Matthew and
Lrfice. So Watson nrust refute it in those terms and put apother Irypotlresis in its
place. In (Iris book he has become probably, al'ter Mark Goodacre, the foremost
contemporary proponent ofthe Farrer hypothesis, rvlticlt he calls the /./IV/hypoth-
esis. et fire source-critical and the theological remain ftrsed. Gliapters ami 4,
wlriclr contain his refutation o f the Q hypothesis and Iris account 01' Irow Luke
Interpreted Maltlrew, designed to make the L/M hypothesis plausible, are laced
with cominreirts suggesting that if one resists his interpretation ofnruch ip Lukes
Gospel as highly creative Interpretation ol'Mat therc, this wifi be because one falls
to assess this positively as a I'eatrne o fth e traditions own, ongoing dymamic, in
cvlncli (he can go so Ihr as to say) Jesus was continually reinterpreting lrinrself.
While it is not my putpose to defend Q, it seems to me that Watson has given
unwarranted importance irr Iris programme to dispensing with Q and the acconr-
!ranynrg hypothesis ol'Lukair creativity in interpreting Matthew. I do not see rvliy,
should one judge the Q hypothesis to be the nrost plausible explanation ofthe data
ofthe Synoptic Problem, orre CO cel not Integrate Q into a framework like Watsons.
Q would be an early Interpr^atioir of Jesus (does anyone still seriously believe it
gives us Jesus uninterpreted, as Wrhsons rhetoric so ol'ten imputes?), and one
could observe the lyarrnulc of ongoing iherpretatioir in the cvays that Matthew
and Luke receive and interpret Q. Conversely, one could accept tire ./M hypoth-
esis merely as a way o f dismissing Luke as airy kind of source for knowing about
the historical Jesus. The backward and forward movements, with their respective
theological 1'reiglrt, are both possible with or without Q.
Luke
el
cannot
ofQ
teo, be
that,
there said
ifis
ssna
one
too
no
is
o
obvious replacement theory to explain tire relationship between Matthew !
eect Q (but not Markanpriority) are perhaps divided Luke. Those into those
who
whose primary reason is that Q is not itself plausible and tirse whose primary
reason is that they ) persuasive the case for fuke's use of Matthew. Mark
acre is orre o f tire latter
oo
T. am
dow not hich!
sure
Watson falls, but his
overall argument certainly requires that readers he as persuaded of Lukes exteiv
sive rewriting 01'Matthew as <are of tire case against Q. Alter all, tire latter is in
itself !3 a !natter of identifying sources the backward rnve!ncnt towards the
gn!al-hereas moreit or is Lukes use of Matthew that o!re observes the
dy!ra!nic of reinteqrretation at work. Tlris also means : Watson cannot aiTord 0
over considering whether other alternatives to Q might he plausible. They <
could offer very different 1 !! ! !! of dre ^' of tradition across the
<0^ ,Gospels.
' One might, for example, conclude that Luke, as well as Matthew
wrote !rot only to interpret what others had already written. but also to incorporate
additional traditions ahout .lesus. Tlris is aspect oftlre ongoing production
ofgospels that Watson rarely mentions, preferring to stress the ,>
// ' nature of
the tradition (as though the mustard seed ol'early Sayings Collections grew of itself
into tire great tree oftlre gospels, canonical .)other
Watson 1 drat other alternatives to Q are possible, hut opts to show at
-length that Lukes Gospel can he explained as a result ofL ukes creative engage
meitt the texts o f Matthew M ark of a simple and intelligible
compositional procedure (p. I (. What he means a simple conmositronal
procedure is, 1 think, that Lukes use o f Matthew is governed some has
-principles which explain the result (pp. 215-16), hut it must he said drat the pro
cess of applying those principles ,his actual composition 01' his gospel seems
r this account, very complicated. What !0 s account,missing apartfromfrom!
d
the reasonable suggestion that Luke used a notebook to collect sayings
M atthews Sermon )( the Mount that he wanted to reserve for later use170 (p(,.
is consideration ol'arcim ]^positional practices, including the practicalities
o f using a ar!ety of sources and the wa^s i!r which ancient writers reproduced
sources. The im portant 0 o f Gerald owning (198da; 1980b 1988 ;;
and Robert ['ronhacker^)20112005) ;000;( do not appear m Watsons (
bibliography. Here, as too ode!r elsewhere, Watson engages with the gospels
including ( ' 0 ' ones) as though the texts o f tire gospels themselves 1
,were all the evidence we !reed for understanding their composition. O f course
his is how study oftlre Synoptic Trohle!n has usually proceeded, hut it is coming
to he seen as inadequate. 1 rot suggesting that the process Watson attributes!
to Luke is implausihle, merely that it he useful to set it the context of
Thom as
dire longest chapter in the book is called Thomas versus Q (Chapter , This
title may surprise because the Gospel o f Thomas has often been considered evi-
dence in favour o fQ . Generically, Thomas is (to use Watsons teriiriirology)
Sayings Collection (SC), the only extant example 1 'tills kind o f collection of
Jesus traditions. Since Q is also supposed to be a sayings gospel, Thomas at least
shows that such gospels existed. Watson, however, argues that Thomas and Q are
actually quite dissimilar in genre, since Thomas a collection of individual say-
ings (or at least small units) each prefaced by Jesus said. This is an important
observation, with which 1 readily concur. (In my view tire strongest argument
against Q is generic: it is neither a narrative gospel nor a mere collection of say-
ings, but has an implied, but partial, narrative sequence and sayings combined
into discourses.) So rather than supporting Q, Thomas can, ill a certain sense,
replace Q at the heart of the so-called synoptic problem (p. 284), since,
although Watson does not claim that Thomas as we have it necessarily pre-dates
the Synoptics or airy of them, it is a later exemplar of an archaic genre, the
primitive L'liristiair Sayings Collection (p. 221). On the basis of Thomas, we can
postulate early (written) SCs, wlriclr were used by Mark and Mattl1c',. These can
then fill tire gap left by Q as a bridge between the earliest Palestinian traditions
and tire narrative gospels that we have. argunrent id work even if Thomas
were no more tlrair a later exemplar ol'trn arclrnic genre, but Watson tlrnrks there
are sayings in Thomas that fins gospel has probably preserved in an earlier forirr
than tlrelr Synoptic parallels, so that at least an early version of Thomas may well
be very early. If so, this would considerably strengthen tire argument l'or suppos-
ing that the format o f Thomas (Jesus said + small unit ofteaclring) goes back to
an early period.
Perhaps because, in any case, 1 find the idea o f early written collections of
sayings ofJesus quite plausible, 1 ) . found Watsons argument in this chap-
ter also plausible. But on closer study, the argument seenrs to me to fidl apart. I
have the advantage of profiting fiom two book on '!'la/mas published in 2012,3
too late to be adequately reflected in Watsons work.4 These books, by Simon
Gatlrercole and Mark Goodacre, argue in different but complementary ways for
the substantial dependence of Thomas on tire Synoptic Gospels. Together they
make a very strong case. Gatbercole argues that, even if one does postulate a
Thomas and the Lord said 2 [ Clement, but the torii'ier is required by Jesus
saying to Thonras, I am not your M aster [(O S . Thom. 13], an expression ofthe
notion that Jesus and his select disciples are etuuately equal.) Watson also
claims the Gospel o fth e Egyptians as a s c , but we know nothing about it apart
from the frw quotations in Clement o f Alexandria, all ofwlrlclr come from an
extended dialogue between Jesus and Salome. Tire Gospel o fth e Egyptians was
most likely a dialogue gospel, like several ofthe gospels from Nag Hammadi, a
quite different genre from Thomas.
There may well have beeil early SCs, but I do not tlnuk we can know that hom
Thomas or learn from Thomas what they were like. Since Thomas can take say-
mgs out ofnarrative contexts in the Synoptics or compress that narrative context
rather incoherently (e.g., (O S . Thorn. 100), it has probably taken sayings from
narrative contexts in other gospels too. Thomas may well be a compilation of
sayings drawn from a variety o f sources, none of them SCs. Thomas had no
interest in narratives about Jesus, since it is in finding the true niterpretahon of
Jesus esoteric sayings tbat salvation lies.The upshot of Watsons wbole aru-
nrent in this chapter is that SCs like '/'/ .were the sources ofsayings ofJesus
in Mark and Matthew. But cvliat Iras he gained by substituting for (,) other, suspi-
ciously Q-like sources? It is doubtless important that he does not allow Tuke
access to them, but, since he thinks SCs were still available to 2 Clement and
Polycarp, is it not actually rather likely that Luke afro knew one or more of
them? They might be fire source ofsayings traditions peculiar to Luke or even of
Lukan versions of double tradition sayings where Luke not very close to
Matthew. W hy not? Perhaps it is because it would spoil the elegant simplicity of
Watsons solution to tbe Synoptic Problem, or because it might detract from the
creativity o fL u k es work.
Another dilTerence between Q and Watson's SCs is tlrat there can be ! 'Cl'it-
ical e d i t io n ol'them (p. 284). But Watson him self reconstructs an s c containing
eight identifiable Items from which Mark produced his ch. 4 (p. 283). By dis-
pensuig with Q, Watson has not barred the road back to a more original Jesus
behind the gospels. Be has slmpty opened other avenues that nray have to be
rather mora speculative than even the critical edition o fQ , but, if Iris ai'gunreiits
prevail, there will likely be no lack o f scholars prepared to risk travelling those
avenues.
Egerton Gospel
hr Chapter 6 Watson argues that tbe unknown gospel, of which four substantial
fragments are known in Papyrus Egerton 2, so far I'rom being dependent 01! Join!
ami file Synoptics, as has usually been thought, is actually a source that the author
of the Gospel 01'John used. []hypothesizing how John used and interpreted it,
Watson builds an argument related to tire changing circumstances of gospel
communities/ Nre argument is nigenlom, but 1 think can be conclusively
refuted simply by observing the usage ofw ords and phrases that are identical in
the parallel passages ot/lolin and the Egerton Gospel. I will give examples here
only from the first verse in the Egerton Gospel that has a parallel in John:
G E g erA 4 /
[ ] 0 5 ' !5 [] []1
] 1
Search the scriptures, in w hich you think to have life It is they that bear w itness
about me.
John 5.39:
,' , ' , !
! ! !
] search the scriptures because you think in them to have eternal life. A n d it is they
that bear w itness about me.
(1) The verb occurs in the gospels only in Jolur (twice), elsewhere
in the NT 1'our times. In both occurrences in Jolm (5.39; 7.52) it refers to
searching the Scriptures ( implicit in 7.52). 11'tills were tlie only usage tliat
loohs cl1a!acte!'!st c of Jolm, he could liavc adopted it from his source.
(2) Tire verb occurs llms: Matthew 1; hr!l<e 1; Jolm 33; Acts II;
Paul 8; Hcbrervs 8; Joliairirlire epistles 10; Pevehh!on 4. The phrase
occurs 19 times in Jolm, once in 1 Jolm (5.9), and
nowhere else ill tire NT. ot'tlie occurrences In Jolm, 8 are
. That Jolm should have borrowed this highly characteristic usage
Iron! the Egerton Gospel is extremely improbable.
6. He has evidently repudiated his partieipaticn in the volnnie The Gospels fo r All christiatis
(Bauekhani [ed.] 1 (which argued against the view that each gospel was written for its
own community .
7. This is how Watson labets this verse.
8. Watson translates this as imperative, hut it could he indicative, as in John.
This evidence that the Egerton Gospel is the borrower seems to me compelling,
and it comes from only one ersel
Watson also argues tlrat the Egerioir Gospels narrative of the Irealurg of a
leper, wlticlr is parallel to M k 1.40-45, is independent ot Mark; If the Egerton
Gospel is dependent oil .lolnr, it would be rather surprising for this passage to be
independent o f Mark. But I need only point out that, among 1 close verbal
parallels with Mark, is a tell-tale occurrence ol'tlie adverb (immediately),
ofw hich Marl is famously lonrl. Be uses it 42 times, whereas Matthew uses it ?
times (in every case derived tiom Mark), Luke once, Jolm 3 times. Acts once. In
tlie Egerton Gospel it occurs fa a sentence that is as a 1 parallel to Mark and
which is an example ('Marks typical usage precisely whil reference to the beal-
ing in miracle stories (c f 2.12; 5.29, 42; 7.35; 10.52). It is surely incredible
either tbat tins is coincirleiital or tbat Mark learned this characteristic usage tiom
fire Egerton Gospel. Watson makes ! mention 01'tins feature of tire texts, but
confidently declares tbat tire passage in the Egei'toir Gospel sborS few fair}
signs of dependence on the synoptic versions (p. 324). But New Il'any is not
good enough for his case. Ee 1r just one word ( ) would be decisive irr tins
Instance (even if there were no others).
In my view, the Egei'ton Gospel is significant in a 1 different ray from
Watsons proposal about if It is one ofseveral second-century gospels or gospel-
like texts that create new gospel narratives that draw, more or less creatively, on
tire Synoptics and Jolm. Another is the Gospel / '? , while the Longer Ending
o f Mark, tbongb not a complete gospel, is somewhat similar, as is the Epistle /
the Apostles to the extent tbat it has gos]rel-bl<e content. None of these is inter-
ester! irr esoteric teachings of Jesus, like most o f the Nag Ehimmarli Gospels.
They show that it was still possible, as Watson contends, to write new gospels
tliat extend and interpret tiren predecessors, but they also show that the forir gos-
pels they depend on had a status that required them to draw on all four, hr this
strictly clehinftlng gospels. Despite Watsons arguments, there is still a good case
to he made for the view that tire 11011-ca 11011cal gospels we krrow were attributed
to apostles in imitation of the already prestigious gospels that were eventually
rrorrnatlvlzecT. For Thomas, saying 13 is good evidence. Watson quite ol'ton
asserts that gospels were originally a 11011>11rous and only acquired names (the
Gospel according to X ) some time in the second century. But, for example, it is
inconceivable that a work dedicated to a named troll (as Thcophihis must he,
despite suggestions that the name is symbolic) was ever anonymous. The gospels
were no more anonymous than a very large number ofw orks of Graeco-Roman
literature that do not name their author within their text, but have titles that do
name their author attached to them. Watson points to tire 1'act that Justin, for
example, ^though Ire talks about tire memoirs 01 ' the apostles, quotes words of
Jesus simply as words of Jesus or as what the gospel says, without needing to
attribute them to a named gospel. But this simply means that tire most important
thing about them was that they were words of Jesus, not that Justin attached no
importance at all to tire specific attributions o f the gospels be knew. Early
Ghrlstlarr writers often quote the Old Testament as what Scripture says what
God says. This does not mean that they attached no importance to the attrlbu-
tions to Moses, Isaiah and so forth. From other allusions ft is clear that they did.
I do not disagree with W atsons view that we should study the canonical gos-
pels irr relation to the noncano 1ncft gospels, hr fact, 1 argued as nruclr m yself
already in 1985 (Bauckham 1985: 369-403). As historians we cannot presuppose
a difference, 'fhere probably were other gospels or gospel-like writings written
in the sanre period as the four gospels, i.e. before c. 100, but simply as a matter
o f historical judginent ft does not seem to me that any o f the non-cr 1101ncrl gos-
pels that we have belong to tins category (We do have gospel traditions that do
not reflect the canonical gospels in writings ftom around the end o f tire first een-
tury: the Ascension o f Isaiah, Ignatius, Fapias.) But !!oil-canonical gospels crrn
illuminate the canonical gospels in various ways, and a history of gospel writing
ftom the first to the third century at least would be important in its own right.
From this point of view I would not want to limit the gospels to those that Watson
privileges. It is notable that, apart ftom Thomas, gospels ftom Nag Hammadi
scarcely appear in his book.
The impression Watson mostly gives is that, in the second century, all gospels
were on an equal footing. Eventually, however. Ire states 1 bel'ore Irenaeus tire
four gospels were widely known and it is unlikely that gospels excluded ftom
the four [fronr the time oflrenaeus nevareis] were equally well-known (p. 612).
Be gives this question 01 ' the extent o f circulation an important role irr deternrin-
ing which gospels were eventually selected for nornrativization. In nry view,
the evidence is stronger than he allows that, at least around the middle of the
second century, the four gospels were those widely used ill the churches and oth-
ers were confined either to limited geographical areas or to very particular
Christian groups. I tliiiik that there is a stage before normativization that Watson
does not identify sufficiently clearly. The key factor is that any church had to
make decisions on which gospels could he read in worship rinrl used as authorta-
five for teaching in worship, This could leave tire status of other gospels
undefined, and initially, ofcourse, such decisions could be provisional and could
be changed (as in the church ofRhossus with regard to the Gospel ofPeter). But
these are the decisions that would eventually lead to nonnativization. As early
as we have sufficient evidence to gauge what was happening, it looks as though
the four gospels were the ones that in most places were treated as suitable for use
in worship.
The occasional use o f other gospels by Christian writers is not necessarily
evidence to the contrary. Wlren Clement o f Alexandria speaks o f the four
Gospels handed down to u s, he probably means that these are the four generally
accepted for use in worship. As ail intellectual and very learned scholar, wlro
quotes from a very wide range o f literature (pagan, iew ish and Christian),
Clement himself is interested in sayings of Jesus attested elsecvliere and may
treat them as authentic, but that does not mean that the Gospel o fth e Egyptians,
for example, was authorized for use in churches that Ire knew. As well as com-
mentarles on all the books recognized as canonical by Eusebius, Clement wrote
commentaries oil the Epistle o f Barnabas and the Apocalypse / '? , which
were used in worship in some churches and probably came close to normativ-
zation, but he did not write commentaries on any gospels other than the four.
whltto the comprehensive truth-claim the gospels seek to articulate (p. 63). Of
course, historiography entails interpretation (fact tnl interpretation coinlrere in all
historiography), and tire uniqueness tire writers of tire gospels attribute to Jesus
undoubtedly nrrikes a difference to tire way they tell Iris story. Moreover, anctom
reception ofhistoriography did not expect tire smrre kind ol'accrirac} that we expect
of academic lristory. But, ridged by the conventions oflristoriography accepted at
the time, contemporary lristory in particular was expected to be well based on evi-
dence. freedom of interpretation had its limits, but whether the canonical gospels
respect those limits is, in Watsons eyes, not a matter that should or need concern us.
Watson clearly prefers theology to genre. The reason we should not be concerned
about historicity in the gospels is that the living Jesus (tire term Watsoir quotes from
the prologue of the Gospel ofThomasl [p. 310]) speaks in tire tradition and in the
gospels. My problem with this theological claim is that Watson asserts it I'mqtientiy
but never explains develops it. It simply intervenes like a bolt from the blue when-
ever we might othercvise feel concerned about how generative tlie tradition or liorv
creative an evangelist cordel be without losing toriclr with the 'rieslr-1;nrl-lrloorl real-
ity (an expression Watson also uses [p. 605]) of tire historical figure of Jesus. But
surely we can and should distinguish between gospels that narrate a story set in the
past, adopting a literary genre appropriate to that intention, and gospels (like most of
the Nag blamnradi Gospels, lirclnclmg /7 . )'for u lriclr past lristory is of no con-
cenr and the living Jesus peaks without reference to it? Watson does alJii'nr the
importance ofpast lristory for the narrative gospels, but he does not see it as a crite-
iron that coiild rlistingnislr betcveen gospels. chiming tlrat the living Jesus speaks
in (some?) gospels, do we not need to insist tlrat tire living Jesus also really lived the
story the narrative gospels tell? That story is the criterion oflns living Identity, and so
the Iristouognipfrcal genre oftlre narrative gospels and tire limits it sets to freedonr
ofinterp relation Is notjtist ofliterary but oftheological importance.
Thus Watsons theological claim a Iront the tradition as Jesus own self-corn-
mumcation seenrs to me too little integrated with the historical and literary mall-
ties o f gospels. His thesis that, apart from noan^tlc'izatlon , whose rationale is
inaccessible to us, we have no criteria by which to distinguish between gospels,
no way of judging whether they are faithful to the flesh-and-blood reality of
Jesus not, deprives the slogan the living Jesus speaks 01'any real theological
significance. It hovers with benign lack of'cliscrmrniatioii over everything any-
one made ol'Jesus prior to . . . . . . wlrerr, Ire^ presto, it becomes rigor-
ously discriminatory, but not for any reason that we can discern.
R eferen ces
Bauckliain, Richard
1985 The Study of Gospel Traditions outside the Canonical Gospels: tr>>bltns and
Prospects, in David Wenhani (ed.), 5 / '': The Jesus Tradition
' the Gospels (Shemeld: JSTPrs): 369-403.
1990 Jude and the Relatives ofJesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Bauckhanr, Richard (ed.)
1998 The Gospelsfor AU Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Eerdmans).
Burridge, Richard A.
2004 What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (2nd edn;
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Derrenbacker, Robert A.
2005 Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BETL, 186; Leuven:
Leuven University Press/Peeters).
^ 11 The External and Psychological Conditions under which the Synoptic Gospels
Were Written: Ancient Compositional Practices and tit Synoptic Problem in
Eoster, Gregory, Kloppenborg and Verheyden 2011: 435-57.
Downing, E. Gerald
1980a Redaction Criticism: Josephus Antiquities and the Synoptic Problem, I, JS N T 8 :
46-65.
1980b Redaction Criticism: Josephus Antiquities and the Synoptic Problem, II, JSNT
1988 *Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem, JBL 107: 69-85;
reprinted with an appendedNote in Downing 2000: 152-73.
2000 Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century (JSNTSup, 200; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press).
2011 Writers Use and Abuse o f Written Sources, in Foster, Gregoiy, Kloppenborg
and Verheyden 2011: 523-48.
Foster, Paul, Andrew Gregoiy, John s. Kloppenborg and Jozef Verheyden (eds.)
2011 New Studies in the Synoptic Probleny. Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in
Honour o f Christopher M. Tuckett (BETL, 239; Leuven: Peeters).
Gathercole, Simon j.
2012 The Composition / the Gospel / Thomas: Original Language and Influences
(SNTSMS, 151; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Goodaere, Mark
2002 The Case against : Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Har-
risburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
2012 Thomas and the Gospels: The Case fo r Thomass Familiarity with the Synoptics
(Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).
Moessner, David p.
1999 The Appeal and Power o f Poetics (Luke 1:1-4): Lukes Superior Credentials
( ), Narrative Sequence () , and Finnness o f Under-
standing ( a) for the Reader, in David p. Moessner (ed.), Jesus and the
Heritage oflsrael (Elarrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International): 84-123.
2002 Dionysius's Narrative Arrangement ( 0 K0 u0 pa) as the Hermeneutical Key to
Lukes Re-Vision o f the Many, in A lf Cliristopherson, Carsten Claussen, Jrg
Eroy and Bruce Longenecker (eds.), Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World:
Essays in Honour o f Alexander j. M. Wedderbum (JSNTSup, 217; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press64 -149: .
Watson, Francis
2013 Gospel Writing: A Canonical Persvective (Grand Rapids Ml: Eerdmansi.
D ow n loaded frorrT rnt.sagepub.com b y A m erican T heological Library A sso c ia tio n e n M ay 13, 2 0 1 5
As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.