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).
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 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
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