Must the Synoptics Remain a Problem? elaborates MacDonald’s methodology for solving the conundrum of Gospel intertextuality: the Q+/Papias Hypothesis and the reconstruction of the Logoi of Jesus. He argues that the reconstruction of Q by advocates of the Two-Document Hypothesis have committed themselves to two flawed presuppositions: (1) that Luke did not know Matthew, and (2) that Mark did not know Q. MacDonald, however, insists that Luke knew Matthew and, more importantly, that Mark not only knew Q but was its earliest imitator and a crucial third witness for its restoration. In his opinion, the most important criterion for reconstructing the lost Gospel is evidence of ‘reversed priority,’ that is, when a Gospel written later contains older wording that the equivalent in his sources. His reconstruction of the Logoi of Jesus is not merely a larger conventional Q (whence Q+); it is a radically different kind of book, an imitation of the Book of Deuteronomy for presenting Jesus as the promised prophet like Moses.
What makes MacDonald’s proposal most revolutionary is his integration of the quest for the lost Gospel within Mark’s mimesis of the Homeric epics to rival Vergil’s Aeneid. By stripping away the evangelist’s indebtedness to classical Greek poetry, Mimesis Criticism unearths a coherent literary work by a Jewish admirer of Jesus. In other words, Homer the most influential of all Greek poets, indirectly contributes to the recovery of the long-lost Gospel and the source informing all three Synoptics. If MacDonald is right, the Synoptics should no longer be a problem.
https://www.amazon.com/Must-Synoptics-R ... textuality