Could you correct my submitted review. I incorrectly called Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff, "Dr. Longfellow". I'd like him to still talk to me. Thanks!

Beyond the Q Impasse is a collaborative effort that is very detailed and somewhat dry. This work was done by a group committed to one theory, the Two Gospel Hypothesis (2GH) - which I feel is correct in part anyway -, and so set out with that assumption in mind. As an exercise, it is probably necessary that a serious exploration of the idea that Luke used Canonical Matthew as it's primary source without knowledge of Mark, or more importantly the hypothetical Q document.

This book is an exhaustive analysis of how Luke could have been written to fit the 2GH assumption. It lacks a good introduction to the approach, and lacks examination of alternatives. As a result it is dry, and difficult reading not of much use to anyone other than a researcher into the subject. Of course I think that was the objective, simply to supply some material supporting Luke's use of Matthew. But overall it fails because of a lack of exploration, and instead becomes an uncritical narrative typical of group think. (ouch, this is from a strong supporter of Dr. Farmer and Dr. Longfellow here!)

About the Book's theory :

The presumption of 2GH, based upon the now Canonical Gospels of Matthew and Luke, made this exercise dubious. This created a need to have Luke open five scrolls of Matthew at once to create his Gospel, while theoretically possible, seems utterly ludicrous. The complexity of this approach, done without error, defies reasonable human work. A messy work like Acts seems more likely with all its' illogic and redundancy. What's more the movement of material into the Central section, such as the Lawyers' question (Luke 10:25-28), Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10), and the parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13:18-19), creates a resulting level of complexity for the author of Mark to conflate his account from Luke and Matthew which this book supports. Somehow Mark manages to extract material sequentially common with Matthew from the Central section of Luke, such as above, without showing any hint of the other content in that section. Another problem is shown in material, such as the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:1-4), that form and redactional criticism argue found its' way into Matthew from Luke (Matthew 6:9-13; note perhaps also Mark 11:25 was the textual basis for Matthew 6:14-15), breaking up his Blessings and Woes (Matthew 6:1-8, 16-21). Further no account is taken for the missing elements in what is likely an earlier form of that book, which the Marcionites called the "Gospel of the Lord." Simply put there are too many holes in this approach and the theory itself requires a too complex writing system by Luke.

What this book did show though, was that Q is not necessary for a solution to the Synoptic problem. Yet what I see emerging is a more complex history involved in the composition of the Synoptic Gospels than any of the three top theories (the 2SH or "Q", Farrar or "FH" and the 2GH) presents. I think the 2GH will hold, but not derived from the Canonical Luke or Matthew, rather from earlier prototype versions of these books, which were largely lacking all the missing material that cannot be found in Mark. That will be a Luke with no Central Section, and a Matthew lacking most of the common material with Luke. This exercise would look completely different if the Luke which Mark used lacked everything before 4:31 (some evidence exists that verses 4:16,22-24 may have existed in a different location paralleling Mark 6:1-6), Central section material 11:14-28, 12:10 and 8:19-21 in place of 6:20-8:3, with Luke 13:18-19 in place of Luke 8:19, no Central section from 9:51-18:14, Luke 10:25-28 placed before Luke 20:39-40 where it belongs, as well as the Marcionite version of the Ointment story (Luke 7:36-50 but much shorter) after Luke 22:2 where it belongs as well, and finally nothing after 24:11. Note, obvious later additions such as Jesus promising Simon Peter to the Devil in 22:31-33 also would not have been in this Luke. If you likewise follow Harold Riley's proposed proto-Matthew outline you have a better starting point.

In the end if this exercise were repeated on simpler basis, allowing the current compositions have been rearranged, and built up in a series of redactions, you can dispense with the cumbersome five scroll approach for Luke, as well as most of the need for Q. You can then actually apply sequential, redactional, form, and textual criticism to arrive at probable paths for many verses transmission from redaction to redaction. What this book proves is that a simpler model to explain step-wise the redactions is needed rather than a sweeping general theory such as the 2SH, 2GH ad FH give us. Only then can the Q impasse be truly broken.

I am sorry, but the above review is quite barmy and has no place on a site such as this. Why on earth can't people review the books they are meant to without engaging in such obvious madness ? Jesus lived to 90 ? Shame no one in the ancient world thought to tell us so. Pity the reality (the ignoble execution of a Jewish peasant healer - thought by his followers to be the Messiah - is such a boring, conventional story for all the mad people out there). This book is a work of serious scholarship and ought to be treated as such. It has important implications for anyone engaged in the study of the gospels and Christian origins and is quite refreshing in its critique of common assumptions about the relationships between the primary texts.

First of all, shame on the women who gave this book glowing reviews on the first few pages! I was completely shocked (had to re-read the passages several times) by the authors suggestion that a woman who was sexually approached by a co-worker basicallly overreacted by becoming angry, and that she should have instead interpreted the pass as his awkward attempt to "find some way to connect with her. Might she have deflected the pass but turned the attempt into something more suitable to a collegial work relationship?"(page126) Give me a break! I can't believe that this example of gaining influence over people ever made it past the editor. And if that wasn't bad enough, they again insulted women on page 226, when they explain that a women ponders her failure in a management role by saying "I still haven't figured out why they allowed a female - especially one without an engineering background - to manage the project". What?!? I had to check the front of the book to see if it was published in the 60s! Besides these profoundly ignorant examples, I found the book to be less than marginal in developing my ability to influence those around me. I'll look elsewhere.

This book covers how to use the natural human laws of reciprocity with others in your organization to achieve maximum productivity. More importantly the book also promotes the attitude of looking on everyone in your organization as allies (people you like) and potential allies (people you don't). Highly recommended.

This book is one of the worst business books I have ever read. The authors are clearly on the gravy train trying to sweep up some more consultancy dollars.

This book basically breaks leadership up into two schools, the heroic school and the post-heroic school. The way it works is really simple. Anything bad, belongs in the heroic school, and anything good is post-heroic! WOW! This book is very one-sided and does not even try to entertain the notion that the most effective style of leadership can vary depending upon the situation. It continuously hammers home a certain style of leadership never exploring the situations where different approaches are effective.

I strongly recommend that if one wants to learn and think about leadership, read about leaders!....and by the way, the kind of leaders that we all admire do not even fit into this post-heroic category! This idealistic kind of approach recommended by academics lacks practical real-world substance, and only has value in a classroom.

I am considering using this book to prop up my dining table!

The authors make the impossible seem very possible in this excellent book. The differences between heroic and post-heroic leadership is well defined through stories involving real people. Can an organization switch from heroic to post-heroic leadership, sure, but it is not easy. Somehow this book and its ideas make that ideal a bit more reasonable. Only for managers and leaders who are ready to go out on a limb and turn everything they thought they knew upside down. Good luck.