Stephen Carlson wrote:
>It is standard dogma that doublets come (or more likely to come)
>from written sources, but part of what I am doing is questioning
>the basis for this dogma. Where's the evidence? Has any study
>been done? How many doublets does it take? How good do they
>have to be?
I don't know of any study along these lines.
>Furthermore, if we look at Matthew's doublets as identified by
>Hawkins, the 2ST can only explain about 1/3 of them. I assume
>that your 3ST is in the same quandry. I count: 7 M-Mark doublets,
>7 Q-Mark doubles, 4 M-Q doublets, 2 Mark-Mark doublets, and 2 M-M
>doublets. Thus, out of 22 doublets, Mark-Q accounts for only 7
>of them (I assume your proposal is to shift one double from the
>M-Mark to the Q-Mark category, but the general problem remains).
I don't have easy access to Hawkins.
But if we look at the more recent Davies & Allison _Matthew Vol I_,
pp.91-92, he lists 9 doublets as resulting from Mark/Q overlap and 10 as
due to Matthean redaction. I assign 'Hand/eye' and 'Last/first' to sQ,
so this would transfer two of the doublets and make 11 due to Mark/sQ
overlap, i.e. 58%, which is rather better than the 32% deduced from
However there are also several cases where I believe Mark has rather
freely adapted an sQ saying and this has given rise to what I would
argue is a Matthean doublet, e.g. Mk 13:31 // Mt 24:35 // Mt 5:18
(replacing the Mosaic law with the words of Jesus), Mk 13:10 // Mt 24:14
// Mt 10:23 (replacing the mission to Jews with the mission to Gentiles)
and Mk 10:29-30 // Mt 19:29 // Mt 19:28 (replacing a reward for the
twelve with a reward suitable for Gentiles). I believe this particular
set of replacements gives us an invaluable insight into Mark's editorial
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...