701Re: Mark, Q and Fleddermann
- Sep 7, 2006Ron Price wrote:
Thus Fleddermann's finding that Mark is
everywhere secondary to Q should be viewed with suspicion. There has to be
something wrong here. Perhaps this odd (statistically very unlikely) result
came about primarily because Mark was ignored by those who claim to have
determined the text of Q. Perhaps it is also because Fleddermann could not
accept that in the salt saying, Mark's ANALON GENHTAI ("loses its saltiness"
is more original than Matt/Luke's MWRANQH ("becomes foolish").
I would add that there are other ways that it could come about that Mark was
mostly/always secondary to "Q".
For example, suppose, as I would argue, most "Mark/Q overlaps" are nothing
of the sort. Instead, they represent places where we have lost the original
text of Mark, and what we have in our reconstructions of Mark are examples
of Mark's assimilation to/dependence on the text of Matthew and/or Luke
That is -
Original Mark + "Q" => Matthew
Original Mark + "Q" + Matthew => Luke
Original Mark + influence from later gospels => canonical Mark. (This
produces most "Mark/Q overlaps").
This hypothesis would naturally account for Mark being less original in
almost all Mark/Q overlaps.
(Although, as you know, I do think Mark has the most original version of the
salt sayings, and both Matthew and Luke had motivation to do a re-write).
For example, in the case of the text of Mark 3:22-3:30 I think a good case
can be made that Luke's version of Mark lacked this text.
1) This text seems to be an interpolation. The references to Jesus's
family are separated by the text.
2) This section contains material that could be later than the main
body of Mark, like reference to the Spirit.
3) Luke/Mark agreements against Matthew are absent in this section.
4) Luke places this text not in the order of Mark's text (or
Matthew's) but with his other "Q" material.
There is no reason why Luke's behavior in #3 should be connected to his
behavior in #4, he easily could have done one without doing the other. But
in both behaviors, he acts as if this text in Mark does not exist for him,
so maybe that was in fact the case, and his text of Mark lacked this.
It seems quite a coincidence otherwise. Why else should 2 sorts of evidence
of interpolation in Mark, line up with two sorts of evidence of Luke's lack
of knowledge of this text? The one answer that explains all the facts at
once is that Luke's Mark lacked the text, and canonical Mark later suffered
assimilation to the text of Matthew.
So, in short, even though I would accept that Mark is usually secondary to
Matthew/Luke in the "Q" sections,
I would not take this as evidence of Mark's use of "Q".
Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician
M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>