Book contents
- The Making of the Synoptic Gospels
- The Making of the Synoptic Gospels
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Abbreviations and Symbols
- Note on Color Tables
- 1 Introduction
- 2 State of the Question
- 3 Testimonies of Galilee: Q
- 4 Testimony of the Leaders at Jerusalem
- 5 Embryonic Mark and Matthew
- 6 Luke’s Preparation
- 7 Luke
- 8 Mark
- 9 Matthew (Greek)
- 10 Independence
- Appendixes
- Bibliography
- Indexes
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 November 2024
Book contents
- The Making of the Synoptic Gospels
- The Making of the Synoptic Gospels
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Abbreviations and Symbols
- Note on Color Tables
- 1 Introduction
- 2 State of the Question
- 3 Testimonies of Galilee: Q
- 4 Testimony of the Leaders at Jerusalem
- 5 Embryonic Mark and Matthew
- 6 Luke’s Preparation
- 7 Luke
- 8 Mark
- 9 Matthew (Greek)
- 10 Independence
- Appendixes
- Bibliography
- Indexes
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Making of the Synoptic GospelsExploring the Ancient Sources, pp. 351 - 369Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Abakuks, Andris. The Synoptic Problem and Statistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Edwin A. The Corrections of Mark Adopted by Matthew and Luke. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1901.Google Scholar
Albright, William F. “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabean Age: The Nash Papyrus.” JBL 56 (1937): 145–76.Google Scholar
Alexander, Philip. “Targum, Targumim.” Pages 320–31 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6. Edited by Friedman, David Noel. New York: Doubleday, 1992.Google Scholar
Allison, Dale C. The Jesus Tradition in Q. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Øivind. “Oral Tradition.” Pages 17–58 in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Edited by Wansbrough, Henry. JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Greek Texts with Introductions and English Translations. Edited by Lightfoot, J. B. and Harmer, J. R.. London: Macmillan, 1891.Google Scholar
Aune, David E. “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms of Jesus.” Pages 211–65 in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Edited by Wansbrough, Henry. JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Bachmann, H., and Slaby, Wolfgang A.. Computer-Konkordanz zum Novum Testamentum Graece von Nestle-Aland, 26. Auflage und zum Greek New Testament. 3rd ed. Universität Münster Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980.Google Scholar
Bailey, Kenneth E. “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels.” Themelios 20.2 (January 1995): 4–11.Google Scholar
Baird, J. Arthur. Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969.Google Scholar
Baird, J. Arthur. “Content Analysis, Computers and the Scientific Method in Biblical Studies.” PRSt 4.2 (Summer 1977): 109–36.Google Scholar
Baltes, Guido. Hebräisches Evangelium und synoptische Überlieferung. WUNT 2 Reihe 312. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltes, Guido. “The Use of Hebrew and Aramaic in Epigraphic Sources of the New Testament Era.” Pages 35–65 in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels. Edited by Buth, Randall and Notley, R. Steven. Jewish and Christian Perspectives 26. Leiden: Brill, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.Google Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. “James and the Jerusalem Church.” Pages 415–80 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Vol. 4. Edited by Bauckham, Richard. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.Google Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017.Google Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. “John for Readers of Mark.” Pages 147–71 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Bauckham, Richard. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.Google Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990.Google Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel.” JTS 44 (1993): 24–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. ed. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.Google Scholar
Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 [orig. 1934].Google Scholar
Baum, Armin Daniel. “Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst.” ZNW 92 (2001): 257–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Armin D. “The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books: A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature.” NovT 50 (2008): 120–42.Google Scholar
Baum, Armin D. “Matthew’s Sources – Oral or Written? A Rabbinic Analogy and Empirical Insights.” Pages 1–23 in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by Gurtner, Daniel M. and Nolland, John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.Google Scholar
Baum, Armin D. Der mündliche Faktor und seine Bedeutung für die synoptische Frage: Analogien aus der antiken Literatur, der Experimentalpsychologie, der Oral Poetry-Forschung und dem rabbinischen Tradition. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 49. Tübingen: Francke, 2008.Google Scholar
Bird, Michael F. The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.Google Scholar
Black, Matthew. “The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew.” JSNT 37 (1989): 31–41.Google Scholar
Black, M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.Google Scholar
Bock, Darrell L. “Questions About Q.” Pages 41–64 in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Edited by Black, David Alan and Beck, David R.. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.Google Scholar
Boring, M. Eugene. “The ‘Minor Agreements’ and Their Bearing on the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 227–51 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett. Edited by Foster, P., Gregory, A., Kloppenborg, J. S., and Verheyden, J.. BETL 239. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.Google Scholar
Bornkamm, Günther. “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew.” Pages 52–57 in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Translated by Percy Scott. Günther Bornkamm. Edited by Barth, Gerhard, and Held, Heinz Joachim. NTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963.Google Scholar
Bornkamm, G. “Evangelien, synoptische.” Pages 753–66 in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 3rd ed. Edited by Galling, Kurt. Vol. 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958.Google Scholar
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1988.Google Scholar
Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 3rd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000.Google Scholar
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.Google Scholar
Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921.Google Scholar
Burkett, Delbert. The Case for Proto-Mark: A Study in the Synoptic Problem. WUNT 399. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkett, Delbert. Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.Google Scholar
Buth, Randall, and Pierce, Chad. “Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does *Εβαϊστί Ever Mean ‘Aramaic’?” Pages 66–109 in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels. Edited by Buth, Randall and Notley, R. Steven. Jewish and Christian Persepectives 26. Leiden: Brill, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, B. C. The Originality of St Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.Google Scholar
Byrskog, Samuel. Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. With a foreword by Martin Hengel. WUNT 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.Google Scholar
Cadbury, Henry J., and the editors. “The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing History.” Pages 7–29 in The Beginnings of Christianity. Part I: The Acts of the Apostles. Volume II: Prolegomena II. Criticism. Edited by Jackson, F. J. Foakes and Lake, Kirsopp. London: Macmillan, 1922.Google Scholar
Caird, G. B. The Gospel of St Luke. Pelican Gospel Commentaries. Baltimore: Penguin, 1963.Google Scholar
Calvin, J. Harmonia ex tribus Evangelistis composita, Mattheo, Marco et Luca: adiuncto seorsum Johanne, quod pauca cum aliis communia habeat. Geneva: Stephanus, 1555.Google Scholar
Carmignac, Jean. La naissance des Évangiles Synoptique. 3rd ed. Paris: O.E.I.L., 1984.Google Scholar
Carmignac, Jean. “Studies in the Hebrew Background of the Synoptic Gospels.” ASTI 7 (1968–69): 64–93.Google Scholar
Carson, D. A., and Moo, Douglas J.. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.Google Scholar
Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. SNTSMS 122. Cambridge: University Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, Maurice. Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel. SNTSMS 102. Cambridge: University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Chang, Kai-Hsuan. “Questioning the Feasibility of the Major Synoptic Hypotheses: Scribal Memory as the Key to the Oral-Written Interface.” JSNT 41.4 (2019): 407–32.Google Scholar
Chapman, John. Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels. Edited, with an introduction and some additional matter, by Barton, John M. T.. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1937.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, Scott D. “The Use of Greek in Early Roman Galilee: The Inscriptional Evidence Re-Examined.” JSNT 38.3 (2016): 356–95.Google Scholar
Chilton, Bruce. Profiles of a Rabbi: Synoptic Opportunities in Reading about Jesus. BJS 177. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Clivaz, Claire. “The Impact of Digital Research: Thinking about the MARK16 Project.” Open Theology 5 (2019): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Edited by Robinson, James M., Hoffmann, Paul, and Kloppenborg, John S.. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.Google Scholar
Culpepper, R. Alan. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Studies on Personalities of the New Testament. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D., and Allison, Dale C.. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97.Google Scholar
de Jonge, Henk J. “Augustine on the Interrelations of the Gospels.” Pages 2409–17 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Vol. 3. Edited by van Segbroeck, Frans and Tuckett, Christopher M.. Louvain: Peeters, 1992.Google Scholar
Delitzsch, Franz. Die vier Evangelien ins Hebräisch übersetzt von Franz Delitzsch (1877–1890–1902). With an introduction by Carmignac, Jean. Vol. 4 of Traductions hébraïques des Evangiles rassemblées par Jean Carmignac. Turnhout: Brépols, 1984.Google Scholar
Derico, Travis M. Oral Tradition and Synoptic Verbal Agreement: Evaluating the Empirical Evidence for Literary Dependence. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016.Google Scholar
Derrenbacker, R. A. Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem. BETL 186. Leuven: University Press / Peeters, 2005.Google Scholar
Derrenbacker, Robert A. “The ‘External and Psychological Conditions under Which the Gospels Were Written’: Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 435–57 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett. Edited by Foster, P., Gregory, A., Kloppenborg, J. S., and Verheyden, J.. BETL 239. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.Google Scholar
Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1934.Google Scholar
Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. 2nd ed. New York: Harper, 1944.Google Scholar
Draper, J. A. “The Twelve Apostles as Foundation Stones of the Heavenly Jerusalem and the Foundation of the Qumran Community.” Neot 22 (1988): 41–63.Google Scholar
Duncan, Mike. Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem. Lanham: Lexington/Fortress, 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, James D. G. “Altering the Default Setting: Re-Envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition.” NTS 49.2 (2003): 139–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, James D. G. “Q1 as Oral Tradition.” Pages 80–108 in The Oral Gospel Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013.Google Scholar
Edmundson, George. The Church in Rome in the First Century. Bampton Lectures. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1913.Google Scholar
Edwards, James R. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.Google Scholar
Edwards, Richard A. A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy, and Wisdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.Google Scholar
Eichhorn, Johann Gottlieb. “Über die drey ersten Evangelien. Einige Beyträge zu ihrer künftigen Behandlung.” Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur 5 (1794): 759–996.Google Scholar
Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. 2nd ed. NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974.Google Scholar
Ellis, E. Earle. The Making of the New Testament Documents. Biblical Interpretation Series 39. Leiden: Brill, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, E. Earle. “New Directions in Form Criticism.” Pages 237–53 in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.Google Scholar
Ellis, E. E. “Gospels Criticism: A Perspective on the State of the Art.” Pages 26–52 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited by Stuhlmacher, Peter. Translated by John Bowden and John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.Google Scholar
Ennulat, Andreas. Die “Minor Agreements”: Untersuchungen zu einer offenen Frage des synoptischen Problems. WUNT 2/62. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.Google Scholar
Eusebius, . The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Translated by G. A. Williamson, revised and edited with a new introduction by Andrew Louth. London: Penguin, translation, 1965; revisions and new editorial matter 1989.Google Scholar
Eve, Eric. Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.Google Scholar
Eve, Eric. Relating the Gospels: Imitation, Memory, and the Farrer Hypothesis. London: T&T Clark, 2020.Google Scholar
Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Farrer, A. M. “On Dispensing with Q.” Pages 55–88 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Edited by Nineham, D. E.. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.Google Scholar
Feine, Paul. Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte: eine Untersuchung. Gotha: Perthes, 1891.Google Scholar
Fleddermann, Harry T. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. With an assessment by F. Neirynck. BETL 122. Leuven: University Press / Peeters, 1995.Google Scholar
Fleddermann, Harry T. Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Biblical Tools and Studies 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.Google Scholar
Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: Griechisch und Deutsch. 2 vols. and Register. Translated and edited by Diels, Hermann and Kranz, Walther. Zürich: Weidmann, 1992.Google Scholar
Freeman, Kathleen, trans. Ancilla to The Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels, Fragmenta der Vorsokratiker. Oxford: Blackwell, 1948.Google Scholar
Frenschkowski, Marco. “Galilaä oder Jerusalem? Die topographischen und politischen Hintergründe der Logienquelle.” Pages 535–59 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by Lindemann, A.. BETL 158. Leuven: University Press / Peeters, 2001.Google Scholar
Garrow, Alan. “Streeter’s ‘Other’ Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis.” NTS 62 (2016): 207–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, Simon J. “The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels.” JTS NS 69.2 (October 2018): 447–76.Google Scholar
Gathercole, Simon J. “The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts.” ZNW 104 (2013): 33–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity; with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. Combined edition with a new preface. With a foreword by Jacob Neusner. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.Google Scholar
Gieseler, Johann Karl Ludwig. Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und die frühesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1818.Google Scholar
Goodacre, Mark. The Case against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002.Google Scholar
Goodacre, Mark. “Taking Our Leave of Mark–Q Overlaps: Major Agreements and the Farrer Theory.” Pages 201–22 in Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis. Edited by Müller, Mogens and Omerzu, Heicke. ISCO LNTS 573. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018.Google Scholar
Goodspeed, Edgar J. Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist. Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1959.Google Scholar
Goulder, Michael. Luke: A New Paradigm. JSNTSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Griesbach, J. J. “Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur.” Pages 68–73 [Intro. by B. Reicke], 74–102 [Latin original of 1794], 103–35 [trans. by B. Orchard] in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Edited by Orchard, Bernard and Longstaff, Thomas R. W.. SNTSMS 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Griesbach, Johann Jakob. Synopsis evangeliorvm Matthaei, Marc et Lvcae. Halle: Apvd. Io. Iac. Cvrt, 1776.Google Scholar
Grünstäudl, Wolfgang. “Luke’s Doublets and the Synoptic Problem.” NTS 68 (2022): 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gryson, R. “A propos du témoignage de Papias sur Matthieu. Le sens du mot logion chez les Pères du second siècle.” ETL 41 (1965): 530–47.Google Scholar
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1970.Google Scholar
Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by Bernard Noble, Gerald Shinn, Hugh Anderson, and R. Mcl. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.Google Scholar
Harnack, Adolf von. The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries. Edited by Major, H. D. A.. Translated by F. L. Pogson. London: Williams & Norgate, 1910.Google Scholar
Harnack, Adolf von. Sprüche und Reden Jesu: Die Zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John C. Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1909. Reprinted, with a foreword by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968.Google Scholar
Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by Gempf, Conrad H.. WUNT 49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. Die johanneische Frage: ein Lösungsversuch. Mit einem Beitrag zur Apokalypse von Jörg Frey. WUNT 67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. “Eye-Witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels: Form Criticism, Community Tradition, and the Authority of the Authors.” Pages 70–96 in The Written Gospel. Edited by Bockmuehl, Markus and Hagner, Donald A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Translated by John Bowden. Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press International, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengel, Martin. The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century After Christ. In collaboration with Christoph Markschies, Translated by John Bowden. London / Philadelphia: SCM / Trinity Press International, 1989.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. The Pre-Christian Paul. In collaboration with Roland Deines. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1991.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. “The Titles of the Gospels and the Gospel of Mark.” Pages 64–84 in Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.Google Scholar
Hennecke, Edgar. New Testament Apocrypha. 2 vols. Edited by Schneemelcher, Wilhelm. Translated and edited by Wilson, R. McL.. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963.Google Scholar
Hennecke, Edgar. New Testament Apocrypha. Rev. ed. 2 vols. Edited by Schneemelcher, Wilhelm. Translated and edited by Wilson, R. McL.. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991–92.Google Scholar
Herder, Johann Gottfried. “Vom Erlöser der Menschen: Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (1796).” Pages 135–252 in Herders sämmtliche Werke, Vol. 19. Edited by Suphan, Bernhard. Berlin: Weidmann, 1880.Google Scholar
Hill, Charles E. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Charles E. “What Papias Said About John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment.” JTS NS, 49.2 (October 1998): 582–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogeterp, Albert, and Denaux, Adelbert. Semitisms in Luke’s Greek: A Descriptive Analysis of Lexical and Syntactical Domains of Semitic Language Influence in Luke’s Gospel. WUNT 401. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmén, Tom. “Doubts about Double Dissimilarity: Restructuring the Main Criterion of Jesus-of-History Research.” Pages 47–80 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by Chilton, Bruce and Evans, Craig A.. NTTS 28.1. Leiden: Brill, 1999.Google Scholar
Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863.Google Scholar
Honoré, A. M. “A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem.” NovT 10.2–3 (July 1968): 95–147.Google Scholar
Horsley, Richard A. “Introduction.” Pages 1–22 in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Edited by Horsley, Richard A.. Semeia Studies 60. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.Google Scholar
Howard, George. The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Huggins, Ronald V. “Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal.” NovT 34.1 (1992): 1–22.Google Scholar
Iverson, Kelly R. “Orality and the Gospels: A Survey of Recent Research.” CurBR 8.1 (2009): 71–106.Google Scholar
Jameson, Hampden Gurney. The Origin of the Synoptic Gospels: A Revision of the Synoptic Problem. Oxford: Blackwell, 1922.Google Scholar
Jaroš, Karl, and Victor, Ulrich. Die synoptische Tradition: Die literarischen Beziehungen der drei ersten Evangelien und ihre Quellen. Cologne: Böhlau, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Part One: The Proclamation of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden. NTL. London: SCM, 1971.Google Scholar
Jeremias, Joachim. “Zur Hypothese einer schriftlichen Logienquelle Q.” ZNTW (= ZNW) 29 (1930): 147–49.Google Scholar
J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Edited by Orchard, Bernard and Longstaff, Thomas R. W.. SNTSMS 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Kähler, Martin. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ. Translated by Carl E. Braaten. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964.Google Scholar
Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012–15.Google Scholar
Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.Google Scholar
Kelber, Werner H. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. With a new introduction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, repr. 1997.Google Scholar
Kennedy, George. “Classical and Christian Source Criticism.” Pages 125–55 in The Relationships among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Edited by Walker, William O.. TUMSR 5. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, G. D. The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946.Google Scholar
Kirk, Alan. “Memory, Scribal Media, and the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 459–82 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett. Edited by Foster, P., Gregory, A., Kloppenborg, J. S., and Verheyden, J.. BETL 239. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.Google Scholar
Kirk, Alan. Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition. LNTS 564. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, John S. “Conflated Citations of the Synoptic Gospels: The Beginnings of Christian Doxographic Tradition?” Pages 45–80 in Gospels and Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Experiments in Reception. Edited by Schröter, Jens, Niklas, Tobias, and Verheyden, Joseph. In collaboration with Katharina Simunovic. BZNW 235. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, John S. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, John S. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. SAC. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, John S. “Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?” ETL 83.1 (2007): 53–80.Google Scholar
Knox, Wilfred L. The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels. Volume 2: St Luke and St Matthew. Edited by Chadwick, H.. Cambridge: University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Koester, Helmut. Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern. TU 65. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957.Google Scholar
Koppe, Johann Benjamin. Marcus non Epitomator Matthaei. Göttingen: J. C. Dieterich, 1782.Google Scholar
Körtner, Ulrich. Papias von Hierapolis: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frühen Christentums. FRLANT 133. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Translated by Kee, Howard Clark. London: SCM, 1975.Google Scholar
Kümmel, Werner Georg. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. Translated by S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972.Google Scholar
Kürzinger, Josef. Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments. Eichstätter Materialen 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1983.Google Scholar
Kürzinger, Josef. “Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthäus Evangeliums.” BZ n.f. 4.1 (November 1960): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachmann, Karl. “De ordine narrationum in Evangeliis Synopticis.” TSK 8 (1835): 570–90.Google Scholar
Lemcio, Eugene E. The Past of Jesus in the Gospels. SNTSMS 68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessing, G. E. “Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als bloss menschliche Geschichtsschreiber betrachtet.” Pages 45–72 in Lessing’s theologischer Nachlass. Berlin: Voss, 1784.Google Scholar
Lessing, G. E. “New Hypothesis on the Evangelists as Merely Human Historians (1778).” Pages 148–71 in Philosophical and Theological Writings. Translated and edited by Nisbet, H. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licona, Michael R. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 1865; repr. Lynn, MA: Hendrickson, 1981.Google Scholar
Lindsey, R. L. A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Dugith, 1973.Google Scholar
Lindsey, R. L. “A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence.” NovT 6.4 (November 1963): 239–63.Google Scholar
Linnemann, Eta. Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels. Translated by Robert W. Yarbrough. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992.Google Scholar
Lord, Albert B. The Singer of Tales. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Lord, Albert C. “The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature.” Pages 33–91 in The Relationships among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Edited by Walker, William O.. TUMSR 5. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Luz, Ulrich. “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew.” Pages 571–89 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett. Edited by Foster, P., Gregory, A., Kloppenborg, J. S., and Verheyden, J.. BETL 239. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Dennis R. Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia About the Lord. Early Christianity and Its Literature 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacEwen, Robert K. Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.Google Scholar
Mack, Burton. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco: Harper, 1993.Google Scholar
Manson, T. W. “The Foundation of the Synoptic Tradition: The Gospel of Mark (1944).” Pages 28–45 in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Edited by Black, Matthew. With a memoir of T. W. Manson by H. H. Rowley. Manchester: University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke Arranged with Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM, 1949 [orig. 1937].Google Scholar
Marsh, Herbert. “Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of Our Three First Canonical Gospels.” Pages 161–409 in Introduction to the New Testament: Vol. 3, Part 2. 4th ed. Translated and edited from the 4th ed. of the German by Herbert Marsh by Michaelis, John (Johann) David. London: Rivington, 1823.Google Scholar
Martin, Raymond A. Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 10. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1987.Google Scholar
McNamara, Martin. “The Language Situation in First-Century Palestine: Aramaic and Greek.” Pages 180–208 in Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays. WUNT 279. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeile, Alan Hugh. The Gospel according to St. Matthew. London / New York: Macmillan / St Martin’s, 1913; repr. 1965.Google Scholar
Mealand, David. “Is There Stylometric Evidence for Q?” NTS 57 (2011): 483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, John P. “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus’ Public Ministry?” JBL 116.4 (1997): 635–72.Google Scholar
Meier, John P. Companions and Competitors. Vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 2001.Google Scholar
Meredith, Anthony. “The Evidence of Papias for the Priority of Matthew.” Pages 187–96 in Synoptic Studies: The Ampleforth Conferences of 1982 and 1983. Edited by Tuckett, C. M.. JSNTSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Merkel, Helmut. “Die Überlieferung der Alten Kirche über das Verhältnis der Evangelien.” Pages 566–90 in The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard, W. R. Farmer, F. Neirynck, Jerusalem 1984. Edited by Dungan, David L.. BETL 95. Leuven: University Press / Peeters, 1990.Google Scholar
Meye, Robert P. Jesus and the Twelve: Discipleship and Revelation in Mark’s Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968.Google Scholar
Michaelis, John (Johann) David. Introduction to the New Testament: Vol. 3, Part 1. 4th ed. Translated and edited from the 4th ed. of the German by Marsh, Herbert. London: Rivington, 1823.Google Scholar
Millard, Alan. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. Washington Square: New York University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Moeser, Marion C. The Anecdote in Mark, the Classical World and the Rabbis. LNTS/JSNTSup 227. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002.Google Scholar
Moss, Candida. “Fashioning Mark: Early Christian Discussions about the Scribe and Status of the Second Gospel.” NTS 67 (2021): 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosse, Martin. The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007.Google Scholar
Moulton, J. H., and Howard, W. F.. Accidence and Word-Formation. Vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928.Google Scholar
Mournet, Terence C. Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q. WUNT, 2. Reihe 195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.Google Scholar
Müller, Mogens, and Omerzu, Heicke, eds. Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis. ISCO LNTS 573. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018.Google Scholar
Neill, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. In The Pelican History of the Church. Vol. 6. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1964.Google Scholar
Neirynck, Frans, ed. The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, with a Cumulative List. In collaboration with Theo Hansen and Segbroeck. Frans Van. BETL 37. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Neville, David J. Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique. New Gospel Studies 7. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1994.Google Scholar
New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Conference and Beyond. Edited by Farmer, William R.. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Niederwimmer, Kurt. “Johannes Markus und die Frage nach dem Verfasser des zweiten Evangeliums.” ZNW 58 (1967): 172–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orchard, Bernard. “The Historical Tradition.” Pages 111–226 in The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? By Orchard, Bernard and Riley, Harold. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Palmer, Humphrey. The Logic of Gospel Criticism: An Account of the Methods and Arguments Used by Textual, Documentary, Source, and Form Critics of the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1968.Google Scholar
Peabody, David Barrett. “Two Gospel Hypothesis Response.” Pages 139–50 in The Synoptic Problem: Four Views. Edited by Porter, Stanley E. and Dyer, Bryan R.. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.Google Scholar
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 Farmer, William R.. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Petersen, William L. Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship. Supplements to VC 25. Leiden: Brill, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, William L. “Textual Traditions Examined: What the Text of the Apostolic Fathers Tells Us about the Text of the New Testament in the Second Century.” Pages 30–46 in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Gregory, Andrew and Tuckett, Christopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Pixner, Bargil. “Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion.” BAR 16 (May–June 1990): 16–35.Google Scholar
Poirier, John C. “The Roll, the Codex, the Wax Tablet and the Synoptic Problem.” JSNT 35.1 (2012): 3–30.Google Scholar
Poirier, John C. “Statistical Studies of the Verbal Agreements and Their Impact on the Synoptic Problem.” CurBR 7.1 (October 2008): 68–123.Google Scholar
Polag, Athanasius. “The Theological Center of the Sayings Source.” Pages 97–105 in The Gospel and the Gospels. Edited by Stuhlmacher, Peter. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.Google Scholar
Porter, Stanley E. “The Use of Greek in First-Century Palestine: A Diachronic and Synchronic Examination.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 12 (2016): 203–28.Google Scholar
Rabin, Ch. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century.” Pages 1107–39 in Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. In Section I, Volume 2. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions. Edited by Safrai, S. and Stern, M.. In co-operation with D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik. Assen / Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976.Google Scholar
Rainbow, Paul A. Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014.Google Scholar
Rainbow, Paul A. The Way of Salvation: The Role of Christian Obedience in Justification. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005.Google Scholar
Reicke, Bo. “Griesbach’s Answer to the Synoptic Question.” Pages 50–67 in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text Critical Studies, 1776–1976. Edited by Orchard, Bernard and Longstaff, Thomas R. W.. SNTSMS 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Resch, Alfred. Textkritische und quellenkritische Grundlegungen. Vol. 1 of Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien. 5 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893.Google Scholar
Richardson, Cyril C. Early Christian Fathers. In collaboration with Eugene R. Fairweather, Edward Rochie Hardy, and Massey Hamilton Shepherd. LCC 1. New York: Macmillan, 1970.Google Scholar
Richardson, Peter. “First-Century Houses and Q’s Setting.” Pages 63–83 in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole. Edited by Horrell, David G. and Tuckett, Christopher M.. NovTSup 99. Leiden: Brill, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riesenfeld, H. “The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings.” Pages 131–53 in The Gospels Reconsidered: A Selection of Papers Read at the International Congress on the Four Gospels in 1957. Oxford: Blackwell, 1960.Google Scholar
Riesner, Rainer. “Galilee.” Pages 297–99 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013.Google Scholar
Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Jesus-Überlieferung. WUNT 2. Reihe 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981.Google Scholar
Riesner, Rainer. “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher.” Pages 185–210 in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Edited by Wansbrough, Henry. JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Riesner, Rainer. “The Orality and Memory Hypothesis.” Pages 89–111 in The Synoptic Problem: Four Views. Edited by Porter, Stanley E. and Dyer, Bryan R.. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.Google Scholar
Rist, John M. On the Independence of Matthew and Mark. SNTSMS 32. Cambridge: University Press, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, Vernon. “The Chreia.” Pages 1–23 in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament. Edited by Aune, David E.. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Roberts, Colin H., and Skeat, T. C.. The Birth of the Codex. London: For the British Academy, by Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Robinson, James M. “LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q.” Pages 71–113 in Trajectories through Early Christianity. Edited by Robinson, James M. and Koester, Helmut. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 [orig. essay, 1964].Google Scholar
Rothschild, Clare K. Baptist Traditions and Q. WUNT 190. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.Google Scholar
Sanday, W. “The Conditions under Which the Gospels Were Written, in Their Bearing upon Some Difficulties of the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 1–26 in Studies in the Synoptic Problem: By Members of the University of Oxford. Edited by Sanday, W.. Oxford: Clarendon, 1911.Google Scholar
Sanday, W., ed. Studies in the Synoptic Problem: By Members of the University of Oxford. Oxford: Clarendon, 1911.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. P. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. P., and Davies, Margaret. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London: SCM, 1989.Google Scholar
Sato, Migaku. Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q. WUNT, 2. Reihe 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Über die Schriften des Lukas: Ein kritischer Versuch. Berlin: Reimer, 1817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. “Über die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten Evangelien.” TSK 5.4 (1832): 735–68.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1919.Google Scholar
Schramm, Tim. Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas. SNTSMS 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schürmann, Heinz. “Die vorösterlichen Anfänge der Logientradition: Versuch eines formgeschichtlichen Zugangs zum Leben Jesu.” Pages 342–70 in Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus: Beiträge zum Christusverständnis in Forschung und Verkündigung. Edited by Ristow, Helmut and Matthiae, Karl. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsantalt, 1960.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Günther. “Und Jesus sprach”: Untersuchungen zur aramäischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu. 2nd ed. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 18. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987.Google Scholar
Siegert, Folker. “Unbeachtete Papiaszitate bei Armenischen Schriftstellern.” NTS 27.5 (October 1981): 605–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, H. W. Greek Grammar. Revised by G. M. Messing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920.Google Scholar
Sparks, H. F. D. “The Semitisms of St. Luke’s Gospel.” JTS 44.175/176 (July/October 1943): 129–38.Google Scholar
Stanton, G. N., and Perrin, N.. “Q.” Pages 711–18 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987.Google Scholar
Stoldt, Hans-Herbert. History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis. Translated by Donald L. Niewyk, with an introduction by William R. Farmer. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Storr, Gottlob Christian. Ueber den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis. Tübingen: Heerbrandt, 1786.Google Scholar
Styler, G. M. “The Priority of Mark.” Excursus IV. Pages 223–32 in The Birth of the New Testament. Edited by Moule, C. F. D.. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1962Google Scholar
Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum: locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis. 7th ed. Edited by Aland, Kurt. Stuttgart: Wúrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1971.Google Scholar
Taylor, Vincent. Behind the Third Gospel: A Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis. Oxford: Clarendon, 1926.Google Scholar
Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel according to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan (St. Martin’s), 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Vincent. “The Original Order of Q.” Pages 95–118 in New Testament Essays. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972 [orig. 1959].Google Scholar
Theissen, Gerd. Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. L. “Discerning Synoptic Gospel Origins: An Inductive Approach (Part One of Two).” Master’s Seminary Journal 15 (2004): 3–38.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. L. “Discerning Synoptic Gospel Origins: An Inductive Approach (Part Two).” Master’s Seminary Journal 16 (2005): 7–47.Google Scholar
Torrey, C. C. Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence. New York / London: Harper, 1936.Google Scholar
Tödt, H. E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by D. M. Barton. Philadephia: Westminster, 1965.Google Scholar
Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Current State of the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 9–50 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett. Edited by Foster, P., Gregory, A., Kloppenborg, J. S., and Verheyden, J.. BETL 239. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.Google Scholar
Tuckett, Christopher M. Q and the History of Early Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.Google Scholar
Turner, N. Style. Vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976.Google Scholar
Turner, N. Syntax. Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963.Google Scholar
Vaganay, L. Le problème synoptique: une hypothèse de travail. Bibliothèque de Théologie, Série III: Théologie Biblique 1. Tournai: Desclée, 1954.Google Scholar
Van Belle, Gilbert. The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis. Translated by Peter J. Judge. BETL 116. Leuven: Peeters, 1994.Google Scholar
Vansina, Jan. Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Verheyden, Joseph. “Proto-Luke, and What Can Possibly Be Made of It.” Pages 617–54 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford Conference, April 2008: Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett. Edited by Foster, P., Gregory, A., Kloppenborg, J. S., and Verheyden, J.. BETL 239. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.Google Scholar
Watson, Francis. Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013.Google Scholar
Weiss, Johannes. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892. 67 p.Google Scholar
Weizsäcker, Carl. Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung. 2nd ed. Tübingen / Leipzig: Mohr Siebeck, 1901.Google Scholar
Wenham, David. From Good News to Gospels: What Did the First Christians Say about Jesus? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018.Google Scholar
Wenham, David. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.Google Scholar
Wenham, David. The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse. Vol. 4 of Gospel Perspectives. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.Google Scholar
Westcott, B. F. An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. 6th ed. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881.Google Scholar
Wiefel, Wolfgang. “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity.” Pages 85–101 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Donfried, Karl P.. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977.Google Scholar
Wilke, Christian Gottlob. Der Urevangelist, oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältniss der drei ersten Evangelien. Dresden / Leipzig: G. Fleischer, 1838.Google Scholar
Winter, Bruce, series ed. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993–2004.Google Scholar
Woods, F. H. “The Origin and Mutual Relation of the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 59–104 in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica: Essays Chiefly in Biblical and Patristic Criticism. Volume II. Edited by Driver, S. R., Cheyne, T. K., and Sanday, W.. Oxford: Clarendon, 1890.Google Scholar
Young, Stephen E. Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers: Their Explicit Appeals to the Words of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies. WUNT, 2. Reihe, 311. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament. 3 vols. Translated by John Moore Trout and others. New York: Scribners, 1909.Google Scholar