Vorkosigan

It works like this:

Matt and Luke are independent (axiom, unproven)
But Matt and Luke share material not in Mark (obvious)
This material must be written as overlap is very detailed (obvious)
But Mark also shares some of this material (obvious)
Therefore Mark knows Q. (inevitable)

Now, either Mark depends on Q, or Q depends on Mark. here I've shown that at least one pericope in the Mark-Q overlaps contains a clear indicator of Markan style. That would be an argument for Mark-Matt-Luke rather than Q-Mark and Q-Matt and Q-Luke.

Vorkosigan

PoodleLovinPessimist

Paint me as obtuse or slow, but aren't 2 and 4 mutually contradictory?

I assume that such a trivial contradiction has not escaped the notice of smarter and more educated people than me. So in what sense does Mark "share" material that Luke and Matt have that is not "in" Mark?

Am I right in assuming that this "overlap" refers to material that Luke and Matt share that's not in Mark proper? Otherwise there would be no need to compare styles; you could just point to the passage Mark and say it's in Mark. Therefore, are you asserting that Q might be something else written by the same author as Mark?

Chris Weimer

or it could be like John, i.e. a really good redaction from later writers.

yalla

Try this for size [sorry about the format].Gospel writer #1 [Mark 8.11] has the Pharisees ask AJC for a sign.He says no sign shall be given to this generation.The context is the cleansing of the temple.Gospel writer #2 [Matthew 12.38] has the Pharisees ask AJC for a sign.#2 copies #1 by having AJC tell them "no sign" and adds "except the sign of the prophet Jonah" [obviously from the Tanakh] and then puts his own little bit of creativity in by calling the generation "evil and adulterous".No need for a Q source.Gospel writer #3 [Luke 11.29] copies #2 almost verbatim.No need for a Q source.I submit that the dependence is obvious.There are many such examples.

Vorkosigan

Yup. But complex arguments from form and redaction criticism apparently show that even though the positions contradict, it's OK. And I have this really great bridge I can sell you too....

The boundary of Q is not clearly delineated. So naturally it invades Mark. Look at the list of items that are thought to overlap above. I don't know why it has invaded Mark....I mean, I have trouble explaining it to myself.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

Hi Vorkosigan
IMO you should distinguish between the particular problems of Fledderman's version of Q/Mark relations (which would not be accepted by all supporters of Q and is IMHO rather implausible) and the more basic problem for any form of Q.

The basic issue is that any form of Q as traditionally understood must
hold that the idea of Jesus as possessed by Beelzebub is older than Mark. It need not hold the detailed connections between the Markan references to Beelzebub and the Q references to Beelzebub which Fledderman suggests.

If one finds compelling the idea that the reference in Mark is a Markan invention to refer to the parallel in 2 Kings chapter 1 (IMHO I'm not convinced) then this is a good argument against any form of Q as traditionally understood. However if one regards the references to Beelxebub as 'prince of demons' in Mark as closer to the ideas in the 'Testament of Solomon'' than to anything in the OT then the argument is less convincing.

Andrew Criddle

the_cave

Is there any reason for this besides simplicity? That is, what if there really had been a Q, but it was smaller than the shared material between Matthew and Luke? Yes, this would eliminate the need for it--but it could still have happened that way. One way to find evidence for this would be to see if there are parts of Q that are not Markan (in style and vocabulary, I mean.) Of course, this might be impossible to do completely.

Vork, what do you think about the story of the Centurion? Did Mark write it?

PoodleLovinPessimist

To be honest, my eyes glaze over when I read the details of textual criticism. I pretty much accept the details of the evidence on the basis of expertise, of which I myself have none. I'm interested, however, in the logical structure of the argument.

I think I'm beginning to see, though...

There are passages in Matt and Luke that are literally similar (use the same words), that don't have any literally similar form in Mark. These statements are "Q". There are passages in Mark that are stylistically similar (use the same structure, but not the same words) to passages in Q. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that some passages in Mark that are literally similar in Matt and Luke might also have been in Q.

The question is, then, did Q come from Mark or did Mark come from Q? Perhaps Q is a part of Mark that has been subsequently lost? Perhaps Q is another work by the author of Mark? Perhaps the author of Mark himself copied the style of Q?

Am I closing in on this?

Vinnie

I think its like this: Matthew and Luke have a Marcan pericope but they have a longer form of it (or just additional material//phrases and so on) and they have verbatim agreements in that additional material. This goes not only for wording but also order sometimes I think. Even the pericope can be of the same size, if the agreements against Mark are verbatim and can't be explained as coincidental or as always stylisitc concerns, we have to posit an overlapp.

We must grant that MT and LK also have identical agreements against Mark in a number of spots that all can't be explained away as coincidence or language. Thus some of the Markan material must have been shared by Q with similar wording but not identical as Mt and Lk agree against Mark. But the problem is the more and more Mark//Q overlaps you posit, the larger Q becomes and the more probable some sort of literary dependence between these two documents becomes.

To put it paradoxically, the existence oif Mark//Q overlapps are more certain than is the existence of Q itself!

Vinnie

PoodleLovinPessimist

Ah. This makes sense. This would be a good argument for Q and for Q/Mark overlap. Is Vork's thesis then that the author of Mark also wrote Q or that Mark might have been originally longer and then redacted down?