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

Mark, Q and Fleddermann

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    In: Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts (Leuven, 1995), H.T.Fleddermann investigates all the texts in which there is overlap between Mark and Q . He
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In: "Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts" (Leuven, 1995),
      H.T.Fleddermann investigates all the texts in which there is overlap between
      Mark and 'Q'. He apparently accepts the view of Schenk that if Mark
      sometimes preserves a more original form than Q, then Mark cannot be
      dependent on Q. At the end of his investigation he asserts that Mark is
      everywhere secondary to Q, and therefore Mark must be dependent on Q.

      But there is surely a logical and/or semantic error in this reasoning. We do
      not have the text of Q. Therefore the question to be asked is whether Mark
      ever preserves a more original form than the form that appears to lie behind
      Matthew and Luke. Put in this way, it is obvious that on occasion Mark
      *might* preserve the more original text, and that if it does, then Mark
      could still be dependent on the sayings source, having preserved the sayings
      source more faithfully than Matthew or Luke in this particular case.

      Indeed I think Fleddermann's argument should in one respect be reversed. If
      all three synoptic writers had access to Q, then it would be amazing if
      there was *no* case in which Mark preserved the more original form than
      Matthew and Luke, even if we accept that Mark was *generally* more liberal
      in his use of the sayings source. 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").

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • gentile_dave@emc.com
      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.
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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]
      • Ron Price
        ... Dave, But there is no textual evidence for such a proto-Mark , nor is it attested by early Christians. Thus proto-Mark, like Q, is hypothetical and
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dave Gentile wrote:

          > ..... 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).

          Dave,

          But there is no textual evidence for such a 'proto-Mark', nor is it attested
          by early Christians. Thus proto-Mark, like Q, is hypothetical and
          unattested.

          > ..... 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.

          But Mark's habit of interleaving stories is well known. Crossan called it
          'Markan DNA'. He observed that a version of a Markan pericope appears in
          John together with its interleaving, and concluded that John must be
          dependent on Mark there.

          In other words, although Mk 3:23-30 (?!) looks somewhat like an
          interpolation, it is much more likely to be simply another example of the
          Markan literary habit highlighted by Crossan.

          > 2) This section contains material that could be later than the main
          > body of Mark, like reference to the Spirit.

          But the Spirit occurs also in Mk 1:8,10,12; 12:36; 13:11, so it is not
          unique to the passage under consideration.

          > 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.

          As Goulder points out ("Luke: A New Paradigm", p.502), this is one of the
          few passages which Luke has taken from Matthew and in the Matthean order. If
          Luke based his version on Matthew, then we wouldn't expect any Luke/Mark
          agreements against Matthew here.

          > There is no reason why Luke's behavior in #3 should be connected to his
          > behavior in #4,

          Ah but there is! The common factor is Luke's use of Matthew's gospel!

          > 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".

          Neither would I. Yet Mark appears to have versions of around 25 of the
          sayings attested in the Double Tradition (versions of around 35 of the
          sayings I attribute to the sayings source or 'logia'). I think this is too
          many to attribute to oral tradition. Also there are four places where Mark
          alone among the synoptic writers appears to have retained together (his
          adaptations of) an adjacent pair of logia sayings. This indicates a written
          source.

          The hypothesis that Mark also made use of the logia leads to consistent
          results. The overlaps between Mark and the sayings source underlying Matthew
          and Luke, reveal that Mark was very liberal in his treatment of this source.
          This is consistent with his omission of about half of the logia's sayings.
          In other words Mark was prepared to alter radically many of the sayings, and
          to reject any sayings he didn't like or didn't find useful. I can explain in
          most cases the reasons behind Mark's adaptations and omissions of the logia.
          I can also explain the difference in attitudes to the logia among the
          synoptic writers, in other words why Mark was the most critical logia editor
          and Matthew was the most faithful logia editor.

          Thus (to return to the subject heading) in essence I agree with
          Fleddermann's conclusion that Mark had access to the sayings source, but not
          with the logic behind his conclusion.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.