Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

701Re: Mark, Q and Fleddermann

Expand Messages
  • gentile_dave@emc.com
    Sep 7, 2006
      Ron 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").



      Dave:



      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
      (primarily Matthew).



      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).

      http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Mark.html
      <http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Mark.html>



      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".



      Dave Gentile

      Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

      B.S./M.S. Physics

      M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)

      Riverside, IL













      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic