Re: Mark, Q and Fleddermann
- 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").
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]
- Dave Gentile wrote:
> ..... suppose, as I would argue, most "Mark/Q overlaps" are nothingDave,
> 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).
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
> ..... in the case of the text of Mark 3:22-3:30 I think a good caseBut Mark's habit of interleaving stories is well known. Crossan called it
> 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.
'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 mainBut the Spirit occurs also in Mk 1:8,10,12; 12:36; 13:11, so it is not
> body of Mark, like reference to the Spirit.
unique to the passage under consideration.
> 3) Luke/Mark agreements against Matthew are absent in this section.As Goulder points out ("Luke: A New Paradigm", p.502), this is one of the
> 4) Luke places this text not in the order of Mark's text (or
> Matthew's) but with his other "Q" material.
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 hisAh but there is! The common factor is Luke's use of Matthew's gospel!
> behavior in #4,
> So, in short, even though I would accept that Mark is usually secondary toNeither would I. Yet Mark appears to have versions of around 25 of the
> Matthew/Luke in the "Q" sections, I would not take this as evidence of Mark's
> use of "Q".
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
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.
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm