Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: [GTh] A Mirror Symmetrical Schema

Expand Messages
• INTRODUCTION On July 13, I sent a post regarding a mirror symmetrical line schema for Lk 11:24-12:12. Since then, I have done more studying of it and have
Message 1 of 1 , Jul 28, 2005
INTRODUCTION

On July 13, I sent a post regarding a mirror symmetrical line schema for Lk
11:24-12:12.

Since then, I have done more studying of it and have found that it is even
more complex than I had envisoned in the earlier post.

More importantly, I have found, this mirror symmetrical line schema appears
to make the Q theory contradict itself. On the other hand, it is supportive
of the Mark and Thomas without Q theory--according to which Luke used Mk,
Mt, and Th as sources.

As a result, it provides important evidence indicating not only that the Q
theory is incorrect, but that Th was one of the sources utilized by Luke in
wring his gospel.

THE LINE SCHEMA FOR LK 11:24-12:12--A REVISED VERSION

When we have:
A = A group of three Lukan passages, the first of which has a parallel in
Mt, the second of which has a parallel in Th, and the third of which has a
parallel in Mt and and with the two Matthean parallels being in reverse
order
B = a Lukan passage with parallels in Mt, Mk, and Th and with a doublet in
Chapter 8 of Lk
C = a Lukan passage with a parallel in Mt
D = a Lukan passage with no parallels
E = A Lukan passage with a parallel in both Chapter 23 of Mt and Th
F = A group of three Lukan passages, each of which has a parallel in Chapter
23 of Mt
then this is how Lk 11:24-12:12 looks:

1 11:24-32 A
2 11:33 B
3 11:34-36 C
4 11:37-38 D
5 11:39-41 E
6 11:42-44 F
7 11:45 D----------mirror plane
6' 11:46-51 F
5' 11:52 E
4' 11:53-12:1a D
3' 12:1b C
2' 12:2 B
1' 12:3-12 A

1. For the first "A" unit, the first Lukan passage with a Matthean parallel
is Lk 11:24-26//Mt 12:43-45, the Lukan passage with a Thomas parallel is Lk
11:27-29//Th 79:1-2, and the second Lukan passage with a Matthean parallel
is Lk 11:29-32//Mt 12:28-32, so that the two Matthean parallels are in
reverse order: (1) Mt 12:43-35, (2) Mt 12:28-32.
2. For the second "A" unit, the first Lukan passage with a Matthean parallel
is Lk 12:3-9//Mt 10:27-33, the Lukan passage with a Thomas parallel is Lk
12:10//Th 44, and the second Lukan passage with a Matthean parallel is Lk
12:11-12//Mt 10:19-20, so that the two Matthean parallels are in reverse
order: (1) Mt 10:27-33, (2) Mt 10:19-20
3. For Lk 11:33, the first "B" unit, the three parallels are Mt 5:15//Mk
4:21//Th 33:2-3 and the doublet is Lk 8:16.
4. For Lk 12:2, the second "B" unit, the thee parallels are Mt 10:26//Mk
4:22//Th 6:5-6 and the doublet is Lk 8:17
5. For Lk 11:34-35, the first "C" unit, the two Matthean parallel is Mt
6:22-23
6. For Lk 12:1a, the second "C" unit, the Matthean parallel is Mt 16:11b
7. For Lk 11:39-41, the first "E" unit, the Matthean parallel in Mt 23 is Mt
23:25-26 and the Thomas parallel is Th 89
8. For Lk 11:52, the second "E" unit, the Matthean parallel iin Mt 23 is Mt
23:13 and the Thomas parallel is Th 39
9. For Lk 11:42-44, the first "F" unit, the three Lukan passages with
Matthean parallels in Mt 23 are Lk 11:42//Mt 32:23, Lk 11:43//Mt 23:6, and
Lk 11:44//Mt 23:27-28*
10. For Lk 11:46-51, the second "F" unit, the three Lukan passages with
Matthean parallels in Mt 23 are Lk 11:46//Mt 23:4, Lk 11:47-48//Mt 23:29-31,
and Lk 11:49-51//Mt 23:24-36

*Granted, it is a big stretch to deem Lk 11:44 and Mt 23:27-28 to be
parallel passages, but, as far as I can tell, most advocates of Q deem these
two passages to be the Matthean and Lukan versions of a single Q saying
despite them having some major differences.

A DELIBERATE DESIGN

The line schema appears to be of deliberate design.

First, it is symmetrical in design, which is a clear indication of
deliberate design.

Second, some of the unit criteria are elaborate, even baroque.. This is
particularly the case for the criteria of "A" and "B" units:
A = A group of three Lukan passages, the first of which has a parallel in
Mt, the second of which has a parallel in Th, and the third of which has a
parallel in Mt and with the two Matthean parallels being in reverse order
B = a Lukan passage with parallels in Mt, Mk, and Th and with a doublet in
Chapter 8 of Lk
Such elaborate, even baroque criteria, are a clear indication of deliberate
design.

Third, there is evidence that its symmetrical structure is reflected, to a
certain extent, in the narrative flow:
1. In 5-6, Jesus castigates the Pharisees and pronounces three woes on them.
In 6'-5', Jesus castigates the scribes/lawyers and pronounces three woes on
them.
2. In 4, Jesus enters the house of Pharisee. In 4', he leaves the house of
the Pharisee.
3. In 2, Jesus speaks about how a lit lamp, rather than hid under a bushel,
is placed on a stand. In 2', Jesus speaks about how what is covered up and
hidden will be revealed and made known.
4. 1 opens with Jesus speaking of the return of an unclean spirit to a
hapless human being. 1' closes with Jesus telling his disciples that, when
they are brought before the authorities, the Holy Spirit will come to their
assistance.
Again, this is a clear indication of deliberate design.

Fourth, the "D" units act as dividers between separate audiences addressed
by Jesus
1-3 Jesus addresses a crowd that grows into crowds as he speaks
4 a "D" unit
5-6 Jesus addresses Pharisees
7 a "D" unit
6'-5' Jesus addresses lawyers/scribes
4' a "D" unit
3'-1' Jesus addresses his disciples
Again, this is a clear indication of deliberate design.

DOES THIS LEAD THE Q THEORY TO CONTRADICT ITSELF?

According to most advocates of the Q theory, Lk 11:24-12 is basically a
block of material from Q to which Luke has added a few sentences and
phrases.

See, for example, this division of it into ten Q units by John S.
Kloppenborg in Q Parallels (pp. 95-127):
S30 = Lk 11:24-26
S31 = Lk 11:27-28
S32 = Lk 11:29-32
S33 = Lk 11:33-36
S34 = Lk 11:39b-44, 46-53
S35 = Lk 12:2-3
S36 = Lk 12:4-7
S37 = Lk 12:8-9
S38 = Lk 12:10
S39 = Lk 12:11-12.
All that is excluded from Q in this list and assigned to Luke is Lk
11:37-39a, 11:45, and 11:54-12:1. These roughly correspond to the three "D"
units of 11:37-38, 11:45, and 11:53-12:1a.

Indeed, the only significant difference is 12:1b, which Kloppenborg assigns
to Luke, but which is a "C" unit in the line schema.

However, as he notes (p. 118), a minority of Q proponents do assign 12:1 to
Q. Further, as respects 12:1b, he appears to at least be open to the
suggestion that it belongs to Q, stating (ibid.), "Matthew's designation of
the Pharisees as 'hypocrites' in his woes against the Pharisees (--> S34) is
a reminiscence of hypokrisis in Q/Luke 12:1b."

The bottom line: If Q ever existed, one block of the Q text likely was Lk
11:24-12:12 minus the three "D" units--which are Lukan creations.

This appears to create a difficult situation for the Q theory.

The key point is that the mirror symmetry line structure to Lk 11:24-12:12
is maintained even when the three "D" units are removed:
1 11:24-32 A
2 11:33 B
3 11:34-36 C
4 11:39-41 E
5 11:42-44 F
----------mirror plane-----------------
5' 11:46-51 F
4' 11:52 E
3' 12:1b C
2' 12:2 B
1' 12:3-12 A

So, since the Q text, if it ever existed, likely contained Lk 11:24-12:12
(minus the three "D" units), then the mirror symmetry line schema (minus the
"D" units) likely was originated by the author of Q.

Since this mirror symmetry line schema probably is of deliberate design,
this means that, in this case, the author of Q deliberately designed this
part of Q by utilizing passages from Mt and Th in mirror symmetrical
arrangements.

That is to say, in this case, the author of Q used Mt and Th as sources in
writing Q11:24-12:12.

However, by the same token, it is a basic premise of the Q theory that Q was
one of the sources utilized by Matthew.

So, the Q theory appears to contradict itself by (1) indicating that, in
the part of Q utilized by Luke in writing Lk 11:24-12:12, the author of Q
apparently used Mt as a source, yet (2) insisting that Matthew used Q as a
source for writing Mt.

As a result, at least as respects Lk 11:24-12:12, there appears to be a
fundamental, perhaps even fatal, flaw to the Q theory.

THE MARK AND THOMAS WITHOUT Q THEORY

On the other hand, the Mark and Thomas without Q theory does not have a
difficulty explaining the line schema in Lk 11:24-12:12. This is because:
1. the author of this line schema appears to have utilized both Mt and Th as
sources
and because:
2. according to the Mark and Thomas without Q theory, two of the sources
utilized by Luke were Mt and Th.
Therefore, the Mark and Thomas without Q theory provides a ready explanation
for the line schema in Lk 11:24-12:12, i.e., it is the creation of Luke and,
in creating it, Luke did not use Q as a source but, rather, used Mt and Th
as sources.

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.