Q materials in Mark (was Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew)
- Thanks, Jack. Examples are helpful.
Now, let's take any of them (perhaps the first two).
What makes you say that the Beelzebul section is Q? Is it that this section is also in Mt. and Lk.? (but that can't be sufficient... there is much more in common). Is it some stylistic feature? Why did you start your "Mk-Q" material at verse 23?.... I really would like to see your methodology.
Similiarly, in Mark 4:21-22 it gets even more interesting. Here you have strong similarities with Luke, but not as much with Mt. So you must be seeing some patterns here that are not just similarity across gospels. And yet you drop out verse 23 from your "Mk-Q" material. Why? (this seems so "traditional" and thus possible to fit in your Aramaic source material).
You have me very intriqued.
I also would like to know how you define Q.
Mark A. Matson
From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jack Kilmon
Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.
How about Mark 3:23-29; 4:21-22, 24-25, 30-32; 6:8-11; 8:34-35, 38; 9:39-40,
42, 50; 10:10-12, 31; 11:23, 25; 12:38-39; 13:11.
San Antonio, TX
> Jack:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> What "Q" sayings are in Mark? The definition of Q is usually material in
> Matthew and Luke not in Mark.
> Or, put another way, how do you recognize "Q" material in Mark? How do
> you define it?
> Mark A. Matson
> Academic Dean
> Milligan College