Dr. Kloppenborg Verbin,
My next question is about Luke's ordering of the Q material.
In _Excavating Q_ you state that those cases where we can
establish Luke's ordering of Q as more original include "those
pericopae that Matthew conflated with a Markan passage" (p.
89) and you provide several examples. Further, you argue that
"we are _certain_ that Matthew's location of the text does not
represent Q, since these pericopae are made to function in a
_Markan_ context, i.e., in a context that they could not have
had in Q. All but two (Q 6:39 and 6:40) are found in the Lukan
Travel Narrative (Luke 9:51-18:14), whose organization is
rather loose and has in fact defied attempts to specify an
overarching structuring principle" (p. 90).
I note in at least five of theses cases (Q 12:10/Mk. 3:28-30; Q
12:11-12/Mk. 13:11; Q 13:18-19/Mk. 4.30-32; Q 13:30/Mk.
10.31; Q 17:1-2/Mk. 9:42) Luke has omitted or re-written the
Markan version in its Markan context so that he could use the
Q version in its Q context instead.
My questions is: why would Luke do this? By omitting the
doublets in Mark, Luke shows that he knows what the Markan
contexts of these pericopae are. Why did he not conflate the
Q version with the Markan version as Matthew did? Why did
he choose to place these pericopae in the Travel Narrative?
Your argument suggests that Luke would not have found Q's
context more appropriate than Mark's; yet he prefers it. Was
it simply easier, as a matter of composition, to keep his
sources separate and to leave the version he preferred in the
context he found it, rather than to try to harmonize his
Thank you again for your time,
Kenneth A. Olson
Graduate Teaching Assistant
Department of History
2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742 20
I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything -
This is the _Excavating Q_ Seminar (Oct. 23 -- Nov. 10 2000).
Please send your messages to Synoptic-S@...
Please send all other correspondence to Synoptic-S-Owner@...