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

Re: Mark, Q and Fleddermann

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.