Validity of Scripture question

[goldenchild17]

So I'm in a discussion and this came across to me.

"If you do wish to make an argument for traditional authorship, I suggest you start by explaining why these people refer to themselves in their stories but do not bother to identify themselves. This is unheard of."

I don't see why it is important, but for the sake of argument: is there any other historical work where the author is in the story but doesn't indicate that that character(himself) is the author of the work?

[goldenchild17]

Another question that might help my case.

How do we know that John is the "disciple whom Jesus loved" or can we not know?

[StColette]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:21 PM']Another question that might help my case.

How do we know that John is the "disciple whom Jesus loved" or can we not know?
[right][snapback]658540[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Jn:19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (DRV)


Now this disciple who was at the cross with Mary would have to have been a male of course, I've seen many people try to say that this was Mary Magdalen

And I thought this was interesting to add:

In Search of the Beloved Disciple

The author of John provides key details in chapter 21 to help us narrow the field of candidates for the Beloved Disciple. The author writes that he is the Beloved Disciple (Jn. 21:20-24). In this passage, he also notes that Peter is not the Beloved Disciple, and that the Beloved Disciple “had lain close to his breast at the [Last] supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’” (Jn. 21:20; cf. 13:23-25; 20:2). From this account, we know that the Beloved Disciple was at the Last Supper.

From the Gospels of Mark (14:17-26) and Matthew (26:20-30), we learn that only the 12 Apostles were with Jesus at the Last Supper. Even Luke 22:14 notes that it was just “the apostles” who gathered with Jesus for the Last Supper, as opposed to other disciples as well.

With the field narrowed to the apostles, we know we can immediately eliminate not only Peter but also Judas. We could also reasonably conclude that the Beloved Disciple would have a qualitatively different relationship with Jesus than most of the other disciples; i.e., we would expect closer collaboration between him and the Lord. In this light, we discover that three apostles¾Peter, John and his brother James¾spent more time with Christ than did the others. Jesus singles out this trio to accompany Him to the healing of Jairus’ daughter (Mk. 5:22-24; 35-43); the mount of Transfiguration (Mk. 9:2-10); and the Garden of Gethsemane on Holy Thursday evening (Mk. 14:32-33). In addition, in John 1:14, the Gospel author notes that “we have beheld his glory,” a reference perhaps not just to having seen the resurrected Christ, but also to having witnessed His glorious Transfiguration, something only Peter, James and John beheld.

James or John?

Because Peter is distinguished from the Beloved Disciple, we therefore narrow the field to the “Sons of Thunder” (Mk. 3:17), James and John. Biblical scholars date the writing of John anywhere from the late 60s to the first decade of the second century. Any year in that time period would necessarily exclude James, whom Herod Agrippa killed (Acts 12:2) during his reign in the early 40s.

This leaves us with John the Apostle as the only plausible choice as the Beloved Disciple. The Bible does not indicate anyone else and the Early Church only proposes John as the Gospel author and thus the Beloved Disciple. For example, in Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus writes about the authors of the various Gospels, noting that after Luke wrote his Gospel, “John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia”[5]

Finally, in a May 1907 response, the Pontifical Biblical Council (PBC) made a declaration on the matter, affirming that “prescinding from theological proof, it is demonstrated by such strong historical proof that John the Apostle and no other is to be recognized as the author of the fourth Gospel, that the reasons adduced by critics in opposition by no means weakens this tradition.”[6] It is important to note that the PBC still had Magisterial status[7] at the time of its 1907 response. By affirming the Beloved Disciple’s eyewitness authorship of the fourth Gospel (Jn. 19:35), Pope Benedict implicitly supports the PBC’s 1907 affirmation of John as the Beloved Disciple and the author of the fourth Gospel.

Some biblical scholars still say that the beloved disciple could not be John because of the prophecy foretold in Zecariah. 13:7: “Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered. . . .” Following the Last Supper, Jesus told His disciples that this prophecy would be fulfilled that same Holy Thursday evening: “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee” (Mt. 26:31-32; cf. Mk. 14:27-28; Jn. 16:32).

Some scholars argue that, if all the apostles fell away or abandoned Jesus to fulfill Zechariah 13:7 (Mt. 26:56), none of them could have been around to stand by Our Lord at the foot of His cross. However, the disciples’ scattering does not preclude that some of them could have come back later. Peter is later described as following Christ “at a distance” (Mk. 14:54). In addition, John 18:15 identifies another disciple near Christ after the scattering, one “known to the high priest,” who “entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside the door.” This other disciple was likely the Apostle John. In his Ecclesiastical History, eminent early Church historian Eusebius noted that John came from a priestly family. In addition, the author of the fourth Gospel demonstrates an extensive knowledge of Jewish liturgy and Jerusalem, the city in which Jewish liturgy (i.e., the sacrificial aspects) took place.[8] Finally, as we have learned from previous analysis of the Gospels, the beloved disciple was not only at the cross but also had to be one of the 12 Apostles.

Conclusion

When the Bible itself or its particular books and passage are called into question, we turn to the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ founded (Mt. 16:18). He commissioned the Church to teach everything that Christ had commanded (Mt. 28:20). He established the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). It is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the bishops in union with him, who alone have been given authority to authentically interpret the Word of God, whether written down in Scripture or handed down via Tradition (Catechism, no. 85). In submitting to the Church, we demonstrate faithfulness to Christ (cf. Lk. 10:16), Who promised to be with His Church until the end of time (Mt. 28:20; cf. Jn. 16:13).

The Church clearly teaches that the Gospels are historically true and that the Beloved Disciple was really at the foot of the cross during Christ’s crucifixion. We should not be surprised that such a Beloved Disciple would be with Christ in His time of greatest trial. Such is the nature of true love (1 Cor. 13:4-13).

[url="http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=84"]http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=84[/url]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:08 PM']So I'm in a discussion and this came across to me.

"If you do wish to make an argument for traditional authorship, I suggest you start by explaining why these people refer to themselves in their stories but do not bother to identify themselves. This is unheard of."

I don't see why it is important, but for the sake of argument: is there any other historical work where the author is in the story but doesn't indicate that that character(himself) is the author of the work?
[right][snapback]658523[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
tell him to prove that "this is unheard of." are we just supposed to take his word for it?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

St. Papias knew St. John the Apostle and wrote about the writing of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew:
[quote]"And the presbyter said this. [b]Mark[/b] having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.  [b]Matthew[/b] put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
[i]Fragments, circa A.D. 120[/i]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm[/url][/quote]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 25 2005, 07:34 PM']tell him to prove that "this is unheard of." are we just supposed to take his word for it?
[right][snapback]658860[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Problem with that I think is that he would need to go through ALL historical works of the time to show that the author identifies himself, whereas I would only need to point out one instance. Any suggestions as to one instance where the author of an historical work is mentioned in the work but not identified as the author?

[phatcatholic]

its his argument. if he can't prove it, or if he would soon not bother, then he should drop it.

[phatcatholic]

btw, does Paul give his name in all of his letters?

[StColette]

goldenchild,

Did that info on John the Beloved help out? Let me know so I will either have to look again or not lol

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 26 2005, 03:35 AM']btw, does Paul give his name in all of his letters?
[right][snapback]659304[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'll check but yeah I think so.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StColette' date='Jul 26 2005, 09:38 AM']goldenchild,

Did that info on John the Beloved help out? Let me know so I will either have to look again or not lol
[right][snapback]659432[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah it did. It seems to show that the author was indeed one of the apostles, but I'm still not sure we can prove w/out a doubt that the apostle was John. But thanks. The reason I started the thread was based on that passage in John 21. I saw there that the author was the beloved disciple. That's why I wanted to check and see if we could determine whether John was Scripturally this disciple or not.

[StColette]

___________________________

beloved disciple

Question from on 11-25-2003:

how do we know that john is the beloved disciple? some people object by saying he would have included the transfiguration scene in his gospel since he was there, so there is no way he could have written the gospel of john. But then again if he was not the beloved disciple who is. What would it mean for certain religios orders that are named after St. John? Thanks

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 11-25-2003:

The association of the "Beloved Disciple" of the Gospel of Saint John has a VERY STRONG ancient tradition to support it, and also is consistent with details in the Gospel itself, most especially the close association of this figure with Saint Peter in the Gospel, which two figures are often linked in the Lukan writings as well. The absence of a particular event in a Gospel in no way argues against such an identification, for the Evangelist himself concludes his Gospel that it contains only a small part of all that our Lord said and did--the whole of it could not be contained by all the books in the world.

Thanks, John

Father Echert

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=384016&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=beloved+disciple&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=2&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]Beloved Disciple[/url]
___________________________

Is Lazarus the Beloved Disciple

Question from on 04-02-2003:

Dear Father, thank you so very much for your ministry on EWTN. May God Bless your work and reward you for your charity.

I was at a Bible seminar a month ago, the priest told us that the Beloved Disciple mentioned in St. John's gospel is not St John himself, but rather Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. He directed us to the gospel verse saying that Jesus wept for Lazarus because He loved him and Lazarus' sisters called him Jesus' beloved also.

Then he continued to correct us on what we had held to be true. Since Lazarus is the Beloved disciple who was present at the Last Supper, so other people, in addition to the 12 apotles were there. According to Jewish tradition, a widow mother would eat the Passover meal with her eldest son; so naturally the Blessed Mother had to be there. So, we have at least 14 people there with Jesus at the Last Supper. He just short of telling us that Jesus ordained the Blessed Mother and Lazarus with the 12 apotles. To my mind, this is serious interpretation.

Who is the Beloved Disciple in St. John's gospel? Do we have an official interpretation from the Church on this question?

Thank You,
Mary

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 04-03-2003:

Based upon both the external evidence (written testimony from the early Church) and based upon internal evidence (the Scriptures themselves) there is compelling reason to identify the Beloved Disciple who is the witness behind the Fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. There is a strong chain of connection in this regard which is based upon the testimony of St. Irenaeus (180 AD) who provided written testimony based upon what he learned directly from St. Polycarp (155 AD) who was himself a friend and follower of John the Apostle. The chain of connection looks like this:

Jesus----John----Polycarp----Irenaeus

And here is what St. Irenaeus wrote about the authorship of the 4th Gospel:

“John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia”

He learned this from Polycarp, about which experience he wrote:

“I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycar sat as he spoke, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his conversations with John and with others who had seen the Lord.”

This is solid testimony and a strong chain of connection. Of course, skeptics for the past couple hundred years have attacked this, primarily by suggesting that Irenaeus was young and may not have remembered things well. I respond to this that it is clear from Irenaeus’ own testimony that he had a vivid recollection, and that the association of St. John with this Gospel is not entirely dependent upon only this particular piece of testimony; it just so happens that this is an early piece that has survived to the present. Everything else from the early Church supports Johannine authorship, from the association of the name with the Gospel to what has been written about the Gospel by others.

And not only does external testimony support John as author, but internal evidence based upon the text corroborates this. Namely, in the Gospel of John, the figure of the Beloved Disciple (the unnamed author) is quite often associated with Peter. If we examine the other Gospels and Acts, we discover that the apostle most often associated with Peter is none other than John.

For those who are not prepared to entirely dismiss Johannine authorship, they sometimes propose that St. John may have been a distant figure behind the text but was not the actual author. They suggest a Johannine school or disciples later wrote the Gospel. This theory was put forward by Fr. Raymond Brown in his later works, though in his Anchor Bible Commentary of the ‘60’s he argued for the ancient tradition of St. John as author.

Another candidate that has been proposed as the Beloved Disciple is Lazarus, in light of the fact that it is said that Jesus loved Lazarus, as well as his sisters, Martha and Mary. A couple of things that would argue against this is that it would be inconsistent for the Gospel to refer to this anonymous figure as the disciple whom Jesus loved, but then also identify him by name. Secondly, there is no basis in ancient tradition for this association, which is significant in determining such matters. Finally, Lazarus was not an apostle and neither would there be reason to associate him so closely with Saint Peter, which can properly be said of Saint John the Apostle. The closest we come to an official position of the Church is the strong and ancient tradition.

Thanks, Mary
Father Echert

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=290675&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=beloved+disciple&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=15&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]Beloved Disciple[/url]
___________________________

John as Beloved Disciple

Question from on 01-21-2002:

I was discussing with someone recently the identity of the beloved disciple of John's Gospel. Could you provide me with the complete answer as to why it is that the identity of the beloved disciple is St. John? This individual has been bouncing around lately between churches (ie. Anglican etc.) and seems to trying to answer his questions/difficulties about the Catholic Church. Thanks.

Answer by Catholic Answers on 01-22-2002:

The identification of John as the beloved disciple is based on two factors:

1) The early Church Fathers consistently attribute the authorship of the Gospel of John to John.

It therefore appears that he humbly adopted the term "the beloved disciple" when referring to himself in his narrative rather than making himself sound more important by using his own name. He keeps reminding himself of the importance of Jesus' love rather than his own importance.

2) In addition to the "external" tradition of authorship, there's also an internal set of considerations that lead to the conclusion that John is the one intended. It is clear that the beloved disciple is one of Jesus' closest associates among the apostles, which we know from the other gospels to be Peter, Andrew, James, and John.

However, Andrew and Peter are both named in the gospel, meaning that they aren't the one referred to as "the beloved disciple." We also know that James was killed by Herod Agrippa I in the early years of the Church (see Acts 8), before the gospel was written (it appears to have been written by an old man if you consider the implications of John 21:20-24). This leaves us with only John among the Lord's closest disciples as a plausible candidate.

James Akin

Catholic Answers

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=324597&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=beloved+disciple&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=30&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_"]Beloved Disciple[/url]
___________________________

[goldenchild17]

I'm bringing this thread back up because I'm starting up my research for my work in this area. I came a cross a bibliography of different books for and against the "Q" hypothesis. Any of them any good?

Annotated Bibliography
This list of recommended books and articles is compiled for those wishing to read more about the synoptic problem and related topics. A more comprehensive but unannotated list is found at the Synoptic Problem Bibliography.

Introductory Materials
Tuckett, C. M., "Synoptic Problem" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 6:263-70.

Tuckett's article is a good place to start for an introductory description of the Synoptic Problem and the best brief argument for the Two-Source Hypothesis, the most widely held solution to the Synoptic Problem.

Goodacre, Mark, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (London: Sheffield, 2001) 175pp.

Goodacre presents a readable introduction, suitable for students, to the data and perplexities of the Synoptic Problem. It lays out the modern case for Markan priority and, unlike many other introductory treatments, presents the evidence for both sides of the Q hypothesis.
Stein, Robert H., The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1987) 292pp.

Stein's work is a basic and lucid introduction into the Synoptic Problem and the major arguments in support of the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis. This book is also a good introduction to form and redaction criticism.

Throckmorton, Burton H., Jr., Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels (5th ed., Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson Pub., 1992) 212pp.

This accessible English-language synopsis is well-organized and detailed with alternative readings from manuscripts and parallels from noncanonical works, including the Gospel of Thomas. The section numbers are the same as Huck, so this book can be a convenient supplement to the Greek synopsis. The only criticism I would have is that the NRSV is chosen for the translation. A synopsis really requires a more literal translation, so that certain phenomena, such as agreements between gospels, are not obscured even if the translation is a bit wooden.
General
Aland, Kurt, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorm et patrum adhibitis edidit (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1964; 3d ed., 1965).

This synopsis presents the texts of the synoptics in their original language (Greek) as well as numerous non-synoptic parallels, including the Gospel of Thomas.

Bellinzoni, Arthur J., Jr., ed., The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1985) 486pp.

This out-of-print book collection of essays is divided into four sections: arguments for and against the priority of Mark and the existence of Q. As such, it is a valuable resource collecting some of the key articles and book chapters written by Streeter, Butler, Farmer, and Farrer among others. It does not attempt to resolve the Synoptic Problem, but it presents some of the best arguments on all sides.

Longstaff, Thomas Richmond Willis & Thomas, Page A., The Synoptic Problem: A Bibliography, 1716-1988 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988).

Longstaff's & Thomas's bibliography on the synoptic problem references over a thousand books and articles as of 1988. There is an extensive topic index to help the serious researcher find pertinent materials.

Sanders, E. P. & Davies, Margaret, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press, 1989) 374pp.

Sanders & Davies's textbook presents a good, solid introduction to the Synoptic Problem and its difficulties. They conclude that the Two-Source Hypothesis is too simple and cannot explain all the evidence, especially the amount and substantiality of the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, and the inevitable questions (and difficulties) of the literary relationship between Mark and Q. They note that most scholars who hold to the 2SH, actually complicate it by suggesting additional hypothetical documents, e.g. proto-Mark or different recensions of Q.

The Two-Source Hypothesis
Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924) (2d ed., 1926) 624pp.

The magnus opus of B. H. Streeter, this book is responsible for firmly establishing the 2SH in the English speaking world. A must-read for its influence and rhetoric, even if its main arguments have been shown to be fallacious.

Hawkins, Sir John C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898) (2d ed., 1909) 223pp.

Hawkins lays out in meticulous detail the linguistic and literary data that supports the Two-Source Hypothesis. It is virtually indispensible for any serious analysis of the 2SH and is still current despite its date.
Tuckett, Christopher M., "The Existence of Q," Q & the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Ltd. 1996) 492pp.

Tuckett's initial chapter argues for the exitence of Q; however, its main thrust is to expose the weaknesses of the contrary view that Luke knew Matthew.

Kloppenborg, John S., Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, & Concordance (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988).

Serious study of Q is greatly impaired without this indispensible synopsis of Q.

Kloppenborg, John S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 377pp.

In this difficult but important book, Kloppenborg considers the genre of Q. He finds that it was composed in stages. The earliest stage was a wisdom collection but it was later augmented with apocalyptic material.[Summary] For advanced students.

Kloppenborg Verbin, John S., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) 545pp.

Kloppenborg Verbin provides a state-of-the-art explanation of where Q research has been, is, and will be going.

The Two Gospel (Griesbach) Hypothesis
Farmer, William R., The Synoptic Problem (Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1964) (2d ed. 1976) 308pp.

Farmer's ground-breaking work is almost singlehandedly responsible for the revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis. It has two major theses: (1) that the reasons for switching from the Griesbach hypothesis to the Two-Source Hypothesis in the first place were fallacious (Lachmann's Fallacy and theological commitments), and (2) a fresh argument for the Griesbach Hypothesis that greatly disparages hypothetical sources.

McNicol, Allan J., et al. eds., Beyond the Q Impasse -- Luke's Use of Matthew: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press Int'l, 1996) 333pp.

Attempting to show how Luke could have used Matthew only and directly, this book suffer from the weakness in not explaining why the direct and sole use of Matthew is a better explanation for Luke than Luke's use of Mark. Accordingly, its arguments mainly stand or fall with the thesis that Mark is posterior to both Matthew and Luke, having conflated them. A sequel is planned to explore this issue (central to the 2GH).

Orchard, Bernard J. & Riley, Harold, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987) 294pp.

Orchard & Riley's book has three parts. The first, by Riley, explains how Matthew can be viewed as an original composition on its own, and how the Griesbach Hypothesis explains Mark's order. The second part, by Orchard, is a very useful collection of the external evidence by the Patristics on the authorship and order of the synoptics. The last part is a "tentative reconstruction" of the Sitz im Leben of the creation of Mark's gospel.

The Farrer Hypothesis
Farrer, Austin M., "On Dispensing with Q," Studies in the Gospels: Essays in the Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955) 55-88.

Farrer's essay essentially reopened the issue of whether Luke also used Matthew directly, as well as Mark, in process making Q unnecessary.

On-line version, ed. Mark Goodacre, at [url="http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/farrer.htm"]http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/farrer.htm[/url].

Goulder, Michael D., Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSS 20, 1989) 813pp.

Goulder defends Luke's use of Matthew as well as Mark in detail.

Goodacre, Mark, The Case Against Q (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2002) 219pp.

This book is Goodacre's masterful case against Q. Any defender of Q from now on who fails to engage Goodacre's argument is guilty of dereliction of duty.

The Traditional Augustinian Hypothesis
Butler, B. C., The Originality of St. Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1951) 179pp.

Bulter essentially reopened the Synoptic Problem by exposing the Lachmann fallacy. However, Butler fell short of his goal of disproving the 2SH, because he did not regard conflation as a possible method to make a third document the middle term (the 2SH argues that Matthew at times conflated Mark and Q).

Wenham, John, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 319pp.

Although Wenham acknowledges the literary successive dependence of the gospels in the Augustinian Order (Mt-Mk-Lk), he also argues for a great use of oral sources. His comments on dating are part of the web of evidence for his synoptic theory.

[phatcatholic]

ya know, i honestly couldn't tell ya. but, it looks like some helpful descriptions of each work have been given, so u may be able to use those to determine where you need to start. i also find it helpful to search for a work at amazon and see what kind of comments people leave about it.

[goldenchild17]

Yeah, I've got a whole bunch of stuff coming from the library so that'll keep me busy for awhile.