Q Books

Ch2 Arguments for the priority of Mark. His strongest argument is the argument from fatigue. Where Matthew or Luke alter Mark, they sometimes fail to incorporate the change throughout the passage being redacted leaving it incoherent.

Ch3 Answers some arguments for Luke's independence from Matt. According to Burton Mack, Matt was written in the late 80's and Luke around 120, yet Luke had a copy of Q, but not Matt. Goodacre argues that if Luke was written that late, he would be more likely to have a copy of Matt than Q because Q was waning in popularity and Matt was gaining in popularity. Fitzmyer argued that Luke is ignorant of Matt's additions to Mark, but Goodacre shows that Luke agrees with Matt's additions to Mark.

Ch4 Explains why Luke follows Mark's order, but not Matt's. If Luke follows Mark's order but not Matt's, so the argument goes, because he's following Q, and not Matt. Goodacre thinks the claim is overstated because Luke somtimes DOES diverge from Mark's order. Since Matt was written later than Mark, Luke was likely more familiar with Mark. Mark became his primary source and Matt was suplementary. Goodacres shows that Luke breaks up long discourse in Mark 4 which makes it understandable that he would break up Matt's sermon on the mount. Sermon on the mount is very Mathean, so it's reasonable to think Luke would alter it.

Ch5 How narrative criticism could shed light on redaction criticism. Fitzmyer said, "Why would so literary an artist as Luke want to destroy the Matthean masterpiece of the Sermon on the Mount?" Goodacre replies, "It is the thesis of this chapter that it is precisely because Luke is 'so literary an artist' that he would have wanted creatively to rework the Sermon on the Mount." He points out that Luke's purpose was to write an orderly account, so Luke was able to take from Matt's long discourses and weave them into a more plausible historical biography.

Ch6 How Jesus films can shed light on the synoptic problem--analogy of film makers working with their sources. JESUS OF NAZARETH has no Sermon the Mount, but distibutes the material. Film makers abreviate, omit, relocate, and redistrubute to add dramatic effect and biographical plausibility, especially with the Sermon on the Mount, yet they know Matt and aren't cranks for changing it. On the other hand, some of these reworkings were probably inspired by Luke's reworking. But that shows Matt's sermon is not superior to Luke since film makers choose Luke over Matt. Goodacre refutes the argument that Luke wouldn't have altered Matt's masterpeice unless he was a crank because Matt's version is superior to Luke's.

Ch7 Discusses the beatitude, blessed are the poor (in spirit). Matt has "in spirit" but not Luke or Thomas, so it is argued that the version without "in spirit" is more primitive, and therefore reflects Q, explaining why Luke doesn't use Matt's "in spirit." Goodacre explains why Luke would change Matt's version by pointing out that 1) Luke is concerned with the poor, 2) reversals in Luke (blessings and woes) would not work with "in the spirit," for it would have to be contrasted with "woe to the rich in flesh" or "woe to the rich in spirit" which doesn't make sense, and 3) beatitude was addressed to disciples who had left worldly posessions to follow Jesus and were actually poor. Goodacre also says that Luke and Thomas probably agree because Thomas relied on Luke. To explain why, in the beatitudes, Thomas changed "kingdom of God" to "kingdom of heaven" while Luke has "kingdom of heaven" and Matt has "kingdom of God," Goodacre points out that nowhere in Thomas do you find "kingdom of heaven."

Ch8 Argues that Luke used Matt, which is evident in the minor agreements between Luke and Matt against Mark in triple tradition. Against the argument that the minor agreements are too minor to prove anything, Goodacre points out that there's a sliding scale from minor agreements to major agreements (called Mark-Q overlap by Q theorists) to double traditions, and these categories are artificial.

Ch9 Discusses the relevence of Thomas on the synoptic problem, since Thomas seems to give precedence to the genre of "sayings gospel." He argues that they really aren't the same genre since Q has a narrative sequence containing chronology and biography not found in Thomas, especially in the first 1/3 of Q. He explains the other 2/3 and how it is explicable on the assumption that Luke used Matt.

Goodacre is an outstanding teacher. He took a tedius subject and explained it in a way that was easy to follow. His arguments are sharp and well-articulated. He uses footnotes instead of endnotes so you don't have to flip back and forth to read them. The only bad things I have to say about the book is that the vast majority of it answers objections to Luke's use of Matthew, and only a small percentage of the book makes the case that Luke used Matt. He does a great job of tearing down one point of view, but doesn't do much in the way of building up his own case. Ch8 seemed to be the only chapter that really argued positively for his case, and I think more should've been said about the major and minor agreements between Matt and Luke against Mark. The book is way over-priced. There are 17 pages of bibliography, but there are only 189 pages of text.

I suppose it is inevitable that, as the post-war boomers approach the big six-zero over the next decade, we will see a tidal flood of tender, soul-searching narratives. Boomers want to understand rather than simply experience life, and most have been frustrated by life's refusal to obey our expectations.

John Barth seems to have made such soul searching his life work, and I seem to have followed him book for book, life experience by life experience over the years. A clever "academic" writer (read: "he writes like a dream but his wit sometimes overwhelms the story"), Barth has addressed boomer experience and frailty .

Seeming to be five to ten years ahead of boomers, his books have ranged from the tragedy resulting from a terribly botched abortion (long before we openly spoke of this horror), through the visionary and usually misguided quest of the idealist (Sot-Weed Factor and Giles Goatboy), the terrible pain of realizing one is an adult (the clever but exhausting Letters), to more leisurely and accessible mid-life reassessment as protagonists take "voyages" on the emotional seascape of middle age (Sabbatical, Tidewater Tales, Last Voyage of Somebody the Sailor, Once upon a Time...).

Each five years or so, I eagerly await his newest offering, devour it, and then feel frustrated when his literary games seem to detract from his story.

But, then, each time I realize (as if for the first time), the essential nature of his writing. Like the age-old games from which his writings spring (the quest/redemption stories of the Iliad and Oddessy, the "doomed" prophet stories of the Old and New Testaments, the mistaken identity games of Shakespeare and thousands of authors since, and the metaphor of story as voyage and voyage as growth from Chaucer, 1001 Nights, etc), Barth plays his games to remind us that the act of story telling *is* the experience, it *is* the reason we read: the experience of hearing ghost stories around the camp fire remains with us long long after we have forgotten the actual story.

And then I remember that, as a reader, I have no more "right" to expect neatness and closure in a Barth story than I have the right to expect neatness and closure in my own life. Try as we might, our own work, our own story is always in progress. And like Barth's beloved Tidewater, the ebb and flow of our own story defies our attempt to capture to master it.

In the end, life and Barth's stories remain as delightfully cleansing as the tide itself.

KRH www.umeais.maine.edu/~hayward