Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 12-11-2004, 05:08 AM

Hi! For my website I am preparing a set of Excursi on various topics at the end of each chapter. Here's the one for chapter 3 on the Mark-Q overlaps.

Excursus: Mark-Q Overlaps

For more than two centuries scholars have been aware that the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are closely related to each other. Sussing out the exact parameters of this relationship is known as the Synoptic Problem. In New Testament scholarship, especially North American, the prevailing model of the interrelationships between Mark, Matthew, and Luke has been termed the "Two-Source Theory." In this model Mark was the first gospel written and is held to be a source used by both Matthew and Luke, who also used a separate source for the sayings, not found in Mark, that they preserved in their gospels.Under this theory Matthew and Luke both know Mark, and they both know the Sayings Source, but neither knows the other. Because the wording of the sayings in Matthew and Luke is close, the Sayings Source must have been a written document. The designation "Q" (from German Quelle, "source") is given to this hypothetical document (it has never been found) containing sayings of Jesus that was used by Matthew and Luke in the construction of their gospels. There are numerous variations on this theory, and a minority of scholars, driven largely by conservative apologetics, continues to claim that Matthew was the first gospel written. Readers interested in exploring these ideas are urged to visit Mark Goodacre's New Testament Gateway, one of the best New Testament sites on the web, and explore the links there that relate to the Synoptic Problem. For more in-depth presentations than the Net is capable of, Christopher Tuckett's Q and the History of Early Christianity remains the strongest statement in favor of Q, while Goodacre's intelligent and accessible The Case Against Q represents a powerful attack on the whole idea.

One major problem faced by Q proponents is the question of the so-called Mark-Q Overlaps. These are major agreements between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in what most scholars believe to be sayings taken from Q. Although scholars disagree on the exact boundaries of this material, most scholars place the Temptation Narrative (Mk 1:12-13), the Beelzebul Controversy (Mk 3:20-30), the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mk 4:30-34), the mission charge (Mk 6:7-13), the request for a sign (Mk 8:11-12), along with some parts of Mk 13:1-31(Tuckett 1996, p29). Q proponents have argued that the overlaps are not a serious problem for them, since they believe that the Overlaps show that Mark is later than Q.

I have identified a stylistic feature of Markan usage that appears in all three Synoptic gospels that strongly suggests that the originator of the Ba'al-Zebub story is in fact the writer of Mark. In the Excursus on Markan Interreferences at the end of Mark 2 I pointed out a feature of the writer: he tends to cite passages that he parallels elsewhere in the Gospel. Here in Mark 3:20-30 is a good example of that.

Recall that the term "Be-el'zebul" occurs only once in the Old Testament, in 2 Kings 1. The complete sequence of 2 Kings 1:1-8 runs:

1: After Ahab's death, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2: Now Ahaziah had fallen through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria and injured himself. So he sent messengers, saying to them, "Go and consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, to see if I will recover from this injury." 3: But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, "Go up and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going off to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?' 4: Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'You will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!' " So Elijah went. 5: When the messengers returned to the king, he asked them, "Why have you come back?" 6: "A man came to meet us," they replied. "And he said to us, 'Go back to the king who sent you and tell him, "This is what the LORD says: Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending men to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!" 7: The king asked them, "What kind of man was it who came to meet you and told you this?" 8: They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite." (NIV)

There are numerous mentions of demons Old Testament, some more than once, in addition to the Jewish apocryphal literature such as 1 Enoch and texts like The Testament of Solomon. Why pick this one? The mention of Ba'al-Zebub is a like a flare launched out of the Old Testament to attract the reader back to 2 Kings. There are reader will discover that the writer of Mark has paralleled this passage twice before in his Gospel. First, in Mk 1:1-8, he uses it to describe John the Baptist:

2 Kings 1:8
8: They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite." (NIV)
Mark 1:6
6: Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.

Next, in the conflict story of Mk 2:1-12, the writer offers us a version of the death of King Ahaziah. The paralytic is lowered through the roof, while the King falls through a lattice. The paralytic is healed because he has faith in Jesus, while the King dies because he does not have faith in God. The writer is using the story in 2 Kings to comment on the story he is writing, a splendid example of his hypertextual skills. The mention of Ba'al-Zebub is there to make sure that we do what generations of readers have done, go back to 2 Kings and see what it says there, and then reflect back on the story of the writer of Mark. Note that in 2 Kings 1:8, it is the King himself who identifies Elijah. The writer of Mark probably wants the reader to go back and complete the quotation and thus find out who John is.

In sum, Mk 3:22 presents us with a textbook example of a Markan interreference, a stylistic feature that is a creation of the hand of Mark. That has certain implications for the Mark-Q overlaps.

Both of these passages, Mark 3:20-3:30 (Beelzebub Controversy) and Mark 2:1-12 (Healing of the Paralytic) are preserved in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, who got them from Mark. Matthew dropped the sequence about being the paralytic being lowered through the roof.

Mark 2:1-12
(NIV)
A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.�?

Matthew 9:1-2
(NIV)
9:1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2: Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.�?

Luke 5:17-19
(NIV)
5:17: One day as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law, who had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem, were sitting there. And the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick. 18: Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19: When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.

According to Fledderman (2001), the writer of Mark derived this from Q, based on the facts that (1) the material shared with Q is in the same order; (2) the Markan version has features derived from Q; and (3), the rhetorical question "How can Satan cast out Satan?" is derived from elements in the Q controversy; and, (4) the author of Mark combined two Q sayings. Fledderman notes three additional facts: that Mark's version is shorter, that the parts are scattered all over Q, and that there are no parts of Mark's text without a Q counterpart. Fledderman also observes that the Markan elements are scattered all over Q, and that there are no parts that do not have a Q counterpart. "Everything in Mark comes from Q" he tersely concludes (p27). Fledderman also claims that the charge that Jesus is possessed by Ba'al-Zebub comes from the claim in Q that John was possessed of a demon.

Let's examine these from the point of view of the typical behavior of the author of Mark. As the last shall be first, let's start with the claim that the writer of Mark derived his idea of Jesus' demon possession from Q. The Q-text Matt 11:18 (Luke 7:33) says:

16: “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17: “ ‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance; we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.’ 18: For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19: The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.�? ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.�?

Fledderman is claiming essentially that the writer of Mark saw this in a text that was later used by Matthew and Luke, and copied it over to Jesus. Recall that the Christology of the writer of Mark is Adoptionist. Let's envision two scenarios:

1. The writer of Mark needs a story to explain that the family was upset by their child's sudden imagining that he is the Adopted Son of God (see commentary on Mk 3:20-30 for further comments). He invents a story about people claiming that Ba'al-Zebub is possessing Jesus, selecting that particular demon out of the many in the Jewish literature and tradition of antiquity in the usual Markan style referring back to passages he has already paralleled. Further, the writer enjoys hiding ironic truths in errors of indentification by the characters in his gospel -- Jesus is in fact possessed, but by God, not by a demon. Later on Matthew picks up the story from Mark. Matthew's Christology is "higher" -- he thinks Jesus is God's Son from the beginning, so there can be no hint that Jesus is possessed by a demon. Therefore he transfers the demon to John, who after all is only a human and anyway a rival of Jesus. Not having any particular reason to prefer Ba'al-Zebub over other demons, Matthew does away with the name -- he has also eliminated the parallel to 2 Kings 1 in his story about the paralytic -- and simply refers to an unnamed "demon." Always willing to play Salieri to Mark's Mozart, Matthew also eliminates the dancing Markan irony in favor of lurching Matthean didacticism.

2. The writer of Q invents or preserves a story about people claiming John is possessed by a demon (why?). Matthew incorporates it into his Gospel. Meanwhile the writer of Mark discovers Q. Ignoring the rich vein of material in Q so much like the other sayings he preserves, he zeroes in on this offhand remark about John and realizes he can use it for his story about Jesus' family. What a coincidence, eh? He can even use the name 'Ba'al-Zebub' which by happy chance can refer back to two earlier episodes in the Gospel. What luck! And even better, Jesus possessed by a demon is richly ironic, given the writer's Adoptionist Christology.

In case 1, the inclusion of Ba'al-Zebub is the result of the writer of Mark's careful craftsmanship. In case 2, it is the result of a lucky discovery in Q.

The remaining items do not constitute an argument either for or against Markan dependence on Q. The fact that Markan elements are scattered all over Q, and that there are no parts that do not have a Q counterpart, is explainable in a more parimonious fashion through Matthew's dependence on Mark. One need only glance at the passage above to note that Matthew has yoked a charge of being a glutton, derived ultimately from Mk 2:13-17 and before that, perhaps from Galatians, to the charge that John has a demon from Q. No matter which way we opt, for Markan priority and no Q, or Q priority and Markan dependence on Q, we are still stuck with an author taking passages from all over sources and sticking them together to make new passages. "Scattered material" cannot be an argument against anything.

The remaining arguments of Fledderman are explainable under either interpretive framework. If the material shared with Q is in the same order, surely that reflects Matthean dependence on Mark, which we already know is a fact. If the Markan version has features derived from Q that can hardly be surprising, since Matthew copied Mark. This same fact also explains how the rhetorical question "How can Satan cast out Satan?" is derived from elements in the Q controversy. One might note that on p25 Fledderman states: "If we examine Mark's version of the Beelzebub controversy, we note a conscious design that bears Mark's imprint." I couldn't agree more.

A further problem with Fledderman's thesis is that "Beelzebub" pops up in all three versions of the controversy. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have it:

Mark 3:20-23 (NIV)
20: Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.21: When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.�?22: And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.�? 23: So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?

Matthew 12:22-26 (NIV)
22: Then they brought him a demonpossessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23: All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?�? 24: But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.�? 25: Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26: If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

Luke 11:14-18 (NIV)
14: Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. 15: But some of them said, “By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.�? 16: Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven. 17: Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. 18: If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?

The problem is plain. On Fledderman's thesis, Matthew and Luke derived these sequences from Q rather than from Mark. But if that is the case, what is Q doing with "Beelzebub" in it? In the Gospel of Mark "Beelzebub" fits into a rich system of allusions to the OT arranged by the writer of Mark, and is a Markan stylistic feature (interreference) like approximately a dozen similar features elsewhere in the Gospel. These allusions were not incorporated into Matthew (Matthew drops the story of the paralytic being lowered through the roof), so what is the name "Beelzebub" doing in Matthew? Any of several demons or an unnamed demon will do just as well. Unless it came to Matthew through Mark, there is no reason for it to be there at all. The word "Beelzebub" is a finger that points directly to the writer of Mark, and to Markan creativity in the heart of Q.

Vorkosigan

Dominus Paradoxum · 12-11-2004, 01:30 PM

You seem to have ignored the possibility that Q was written down after Mark and used it as a source. Or perhaps the writers of Q and Mark had a common source.

PoodleLovinPessimist · 12-11-2004, 02:55 PM

Given that your analytical method is correct, I'm still not sure how you're arriving at your conclusion.

It seems obvious that the commonalities between Mark, Matthew & Luke require an explanation. Even if we assume Markan priority and Matthew & Luke being independent, there are two possible alternatives:

Code:

Mark -> Matthew

Q -> Mark -> Matthew
|              ^
+---->---------|

How do you differentiate between the two alternatives?

It would also seem that if Matthew & Luke are just a straight derivation from Mark, there is no basis to assume Q.

PoodleLovinPessimist · 12-11-2004, 03:02 PM

I'm unclear on how Q is established in the first place. I could see it if there were similarities in both Matthew & Luke that were not in Mark (assuming, of course, that Matthew & Luke really are independent) then it would be obvious. But I'm unclear on how to discern that Mark borrows from Q and Matthew and Luke borrow both from Q and from Mark.

I'm not saying you're wrong of course! I just don't quite follow your reasoning.

Vorkosigan · 12-11-2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

You seem to have ignored the possibility that Q was written down after Mark and used it as a source. Or perhaps the writers of Q and Mark had a common source.

Possibility one IS my case, Dom. Possibility 2 is the same as Mark used Q, more or less. Basically all cases collapse into 2, either Mark invented Q and was copied and expanded by M&L, or Mark got Q from a source that M&L used.

Quote:

It would also seem that if Matthew & Luke are just a straight derivation from Mark, there is no basis to assume Q.

That's really what I am proving here. If Q contains elements of Markan creativity and style, it must be descended from Mark. The simplest explanation, and the one I hew to, is that there is no Q and everything stems from Mark. However, I do not state out loud because it requires a more sweeping proof than I have available at the moment. Although I think when I rewrite that I can supply at least one more case.

Dominus Paradoxum · 12-11-2004, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Possibility one IS my case, Dom. Possibility 2 is the same as Mark used Q, more or less. Basically all cases collapse into 2, either Mark invented Q and was copied and expanded by M&L, or Mark got Q from a source that M&L used.

But you go on to say below:

Quote:

The simplest explanation, and the one I hew to, is that there is no Q and everything stems from Mark.

So you can't have it both ways. Is there a Q or not? What I was getting at was that Q, perhaps an independent oral tradition, was written down (or else redacted) after the appearence of Mark. There would still be the Lukan Matthean double tradition, it's just that part of it would be based on Mark (either directly, through Q, or in combination), and the rest not, i.e., solely on Q. I don't see any problems with that hypothesis, and in any case you have not brought any arguments to bear against it. But perhaps this issue is over the definition of "Q"?

PoodleLovinPessimist · 12-11-2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

That's really what I am proving here. If Q contains elements of Markan creativity and style, it must be descended from Mark.

Ah. I get it now.

But how would one justify Q in the first place, if Mark is conceived to "borrow" from Q?

yalla · 12-12-2004, 04:09 AM

I've been exploring this whole Christian stuff for about 4 years now. And there have been one or two shocks along the way.I originally presumed the gospels were written by eyewitness types prone to a little exaggeration.Nope, not so, all anonymous.Then I "discovered" the synoptic problem.Then the Markan Priority answer to that problem .Seems pretty obvious to me that "Mark" was the first of the four.And the implications of that for Christian apologists are pretty horrifying-the later 3 gospelers cannot be witnesses and yet they have no concerns amending the sacred story for their own agendas.Then I read about Q and that seemed to have some logic to it...where else could non-witnesses get their stuff from?Then it struck me just how terribly convenient Q is for apologists.It can be pushed back to a pre-Mark date thus providing a credibility of some sort to the saga.And it excuses considering either of gospel writer number 2 or 3 as yet another plagiarist/editor of his predecessors and it allows some apologists to construct wonderful stories about primitive Christian groups from nothing else but the assertion that Q existed and let's build on that.And lurking behind all of this is the fantastic "oral Tradition" story which says that all the gospel stuff is built up from remembered stories that go back to alleged JC and his mates.But when I look at the footnotes, thoughtfully provided by my RSV, I see that the source of most of the stuff contained in the the synoptics is clearly,obviously, the Jewish scriptures.And when I looked at the Jesus Seminar's version of Q they thoughtfully provided the Jewish sources of much, probably most,of the alleged Q gospel.They even included cross references to Mark which really muddies up the concept of Q [Q is stuff that is in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark except when it is].So it seems to me to be pretty obvious that Q NEVER existed.Mark made up his gospel mainly from the Jewish writings with a dose of creative fiction thrown in.Along comes Matthew - he copies Mark, adds some stuff he finds in Jewish scripture and embellishes, adapts and modifies as he goes.Up trots Luke,he clearly copies Mark,he adds stuff from various sources such as Greek poets,Jewish writings AND Matthew.We do not require a Q hypothesis.Goulder and Goodacre have convinced me that Luke copied not only Mark but Matthew also.I suggest that if it were not for the embarrassing impact on the credibility of the later gospellers and the inability of apologists to admit this the Q question would be a non issue.

Vorkosigan · 12-12-2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoodleLovinPessimist

Ah. I get it now.

But how would one justify Q in the first place, if Mark is conceived to "borrow" from Q?

Because, Matt and Luke share the same sayings, so closely that they must have had access to a written document. If you assume that Luke did not use Matthew, then you MUST postulate Q. Q scholars actually argue that the Mark-Q overlaps are strong evidence FOR Q, since they show that Q is older than Mark. This is probably the pre-eminent example of ju-jitsu in argument.

PoodleLovinPessimist · 12-12-2004, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Because, Matt and Luke share the same sayings, so closely that they must have had access to a written document. If you assume that Luke did not use Matthew, then you MUST postulate Q. Q scholars actually argue that the Mark-Q overlaps are strong evidence FOR Q, since they show that Q is older than Mark. This is probably the pre-eminent example of ju-jitsu in argument.

Matt & Luke share sayings that are not in Mark, right?

Let me get my brain around this...

I assume it's relatively settled that Matt & Luke/Acts are independent.

1) There is material "M" that is in Mark that's also in Matt and Luke.
2) There is material "Q" that is not in Mark that is in Matt/Luke.

If so, then it seems a no-brainer that material Q must exist, and must not be Canonical Mark itself (not Secret Mark either). Are you saying that Q was written by the same author as Mark? Or are you saying that what appears to be "Q" in Matt/Luke is Mark?

I'm still not quite getting the structure of the argument.

12-11-2004, 05:08 AM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Mark-Q Overlaps Hi! For my website I am preparing a set of Excursi on various topics at the end of each chapter. Here's the one for chapter 3 on the Mark-Q overlaps. Excursus: Mark-Q Overlaps For more than two centuries scholars have been aware that the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are closely related to each other. Sussing out the exact parameters of this relationship is known as the Synoptic Problem. In New Testament scholarship, especially North American, the prevailing model of the interrelationships between Mark, Matthew, and Luke has been termed the "Two-Source Theory." In this model Mark was the first gospel written and is held to be a source used by both Matthew and Luke, who also used a separate source for the sayings, not found in Mark, that they preserved in their gospels.Under this theory Matthew and Luke both know Mark, and they both know the Sayings Source, but neither knows the other. Because the wording of the sayings in Matthew and Luke is close, the Sayings Source must have been a written document. The designation "Q" (from German Quelle, "source") is given to this hypothetical document (it has never been found) containing sayings of Jesus that was used by Matthew and Luke in the construction of their gospels. There are numerous variations on this theory, and a minority of scholars, driven largely by conservative apologetics, continues to claim that Matthew was the first gospel written. Readers interested in exploring these ideas are urged to visit Mark Goodacre's New Testament Gateway, one of the best New Testament sites on the web, and explore the links there that relate to the Synoptic Problem. For more in-depth presentations than the Net is capable of, Christopher Tuckett's Q and the History of Early Christianity remains the strongest statement in favor of Q, while Goodacre's intelligent and accessible The Case Against Q represents a powerful attack on the whole idea. One major problem faced by Q proponents is the question of the so-called Mark-Q Overlaps. These are major agreements between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in what most scholars believe to be sayings taken from Q. Although scholars disagree on the exact boundaries of this material, most scholars place the Temptation Narrative (Mk 1:12-13), the Beelzebul Controversy (Mk 3:20-30), the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mk 4:30-34), the mission charge (Mk 6:7-13), the request for a sign (Mk 8:11-12), along with some parts of Mk 13:1-31(Tuckett 1996, p29). Q proponents have argued that the overlaps are not a serious problem for them, since they believe that the Overlaps show that Mark is later than Q. I have identified a stylistic feature of Markan usage that appears in all three Synoptic gospels that strongly suggests that the originator of the Ba'al-Zebub story is in fact the writer of Mark. In the Excursus on Markan Interreferences at the end of Mark 2 I pointed out a feature of the writer: he tends to cite passages that he parallels elsewhere in the Gospel. Here in Mark 3:20-30 is a good example of that. Recall that the term "Be-el'zebul" occurs only once in the Old Testament, in 2 Kings 1. The complete sequence of 2 Kings 1:1-8 runs: 1: After Ahab's death, Moab rebelled against Israel. 2: Now Ahaziah had fallen through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria and injured himself. So he sent messengers, saying to them, "Go and consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, to see if I will recover from this injury." 3: But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, "Go up and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going off to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?' 4: Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'You will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!' " So Elijah went. 5: When the messengers returned to the king, he asked them, "Why have you come back?" 6: "A man came to meet us," they replied. "And he said to us, 'Go back to the king who sent you and tell him, "This is what the LORD says: Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending men to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!" 7: The king asked them, "What kind of man was it who came to meet you and told you this?" 8: They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite." (NIV) There are numerous mentions of demons Old Testament, some more than once, in addition to the Jewish apocryphal literature such as 1 Enoch and texts like The Testament of Solomon. Why pick this one? The mention of Ba'al-Zebub is a like a flare launched out of the Old Testament to attract the reader back to 2 Kings. There are reader will discover that the writer of Mark has paralleled this passage twice before in his Gospel. First, in Mk 1:1-8, he uses it to describe John the Baptist: 2 Kings 1:8 8: They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite." (NIV) Mark 1:6 6: Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey. Next, in the conflict story of Mk 2:1-12, the writer offers us a version of the death of King Ahaziah. The paralytic is lowered through the roof, while the King falls through a lattice. The paralytic is healed because he has faith in Jesus, while the King dies because he does not have faith in God. The writer is using the story in 2 Kings to comment on the story he is writing, a splendid example of his hypertextual skills. The mention of Ba'al-Zebub is there to make sure that we do what generations of readers have done, go back to 2 Kings and see what it says there, and then reflect back on the story of the writer of Mark. Note that in 2 Kings 1:8, it is the King himself who identifies Elijah. The writer of Mark probably wants the reader to go back and complete the quotation and thus find out who John is. In sum, Mk 3:22 presents us with a textbook example of a Markan interreference, a stylistic feature that is a creation of the hand of Mark. That has certain implications for the Mark-Q overlaps. Both of these passages, Mark 3:20-3:30 (Beelzebub Controversy) and Mark 2:1-12 (Healing of the Paralytic) are preserved in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, who got them from Mark. Matthew dropped the sequence about being the paralytic being lowered through the roof. Mark 2:1-12 (NIV) A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.�? Matthew 9:1-2 (NIV) 9:1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2: Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.�? Luke 5:17-19 (NIV) 5:17: One day as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law, who had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem, were sitting there. And the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick. 18: Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19: When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. According to Fledderman (2001), the writer of Mark derived this from Q, based on the facts that (1) the material shared with Q is in the same order; (2) the Markan version has features derived from Q; and (3), the rhetorical question "How can Satan cast out Satan?" is derived from elements in the Q controversy; and, (4) the author of Mark combined two Q sayings. Fledderman notes three additional facts: that Mark's version is shorter, that the parts are scattered all over Q, and that there are no parts of Mark's text without a Q counterpart. Fledderman also observes that the Markan elements are scattered all over Q, and that there are no parts that do not have a Q counterpart. "Everything in Mark comes from Q" he tersely concludes (p27). Fledderman also claims that the charge that Jesus is possessed by Ba'al-Zebub comes from the claim in Q that John was possessed of a demon. Let's examine these from the point of view of the typical behavior of the author of Mark. As the last shall be first, let's start with the claim that the writer of Mark derived his idea of Jesus' demon possession from Q. The Q-text Matt 11:18 (Luke 7:33) says: 16: “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17: “ ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge and you did not mourn.’ 18: For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19: The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.�? ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.�? Fledderman is claiming essentially that the writer of Mark saw this in a text that was later used by Matthew and Luke, and copied it over to Jesus. Recall that the Christology of the writer of Mark is Adoptionist. Let's envision two scenarios: 1. The writer of Mark needs a story to explain that the family was upset by their child's sudden imagining that he is the Adopted Son of God (see commentary on Mk 3:20-30 for further comments). He invents a story about people claiming that Ba'al-Zebub is possessing Jesus, selecting that particular demon out of the many in the Jewish literature and tradition of antiquity in the usual Markan style referring back to passages he has already paralleled. Further, the writer enjoys hiding ironic truths in errors of indentification by the characters in his gospel -- Jesus is in fact possessed, but by God, not by a demon. Later on Matthew picks up the story from Mark. Matthew's Christology is "higher" -- he thinks Jesus is God's Son from the beginning, so there can be no hint that Jesus is possessed by a demon. Therefore he transfers the demon to John, who after all is only a human and anyway a rival of Jesus. Not having any particular reason to prefer Ba'al-Zebub over other demons, Matthew does away with the name -- he has also eliminated the parallel to 2 Kings 1 in his story about the paralytic -- and simply refers to an unnamed "demon." Always willing to play Salieri to Mark's Mozart, Matthew also eliminates the dancing Markan irony in favor of lurching Matthean didacticism. 2. The writer of Q invents or preserves a story about people claiming John is possessed by a demon (why?). Matthew incorporates it into his Gospel. Meanwhile the writer of Mark discovers Q. Ignoring the rich vein of material in Q so much like the other sayings he preserves, he zeroes in on this offhand remark about John and realizes he can use it for his story about Jesus' family. What a coincidence, eh? He can even use the name 'Ba'al-Zebub' which by happy chance can refer back to two earlier episodes in the Gospel. What luck! And even better, Jesus possessed by a demon is richly ironic, given the writer's Adoptionist Christology. In case 1, the inclusion of Ba'al-Zebub is the result of the writer of Mark's careful craftsmanship. In case 2, it is the result of a lucky discovery in Q. The remaining items do not constitute an argument either for or against Markan dependence on Q. The fact that Markan elements are scattered all over Q, and that there are no parts that do not have a Q counterpart, is explainable in a more parimonious fashion through Matthew's dependence on Mark. One need only glance at the passage above to note that Matthew has yoked a charge of being a glutton, derived ultimately from Mk 2:13-17 and before that, perhaps from Galatians, to the charge that John has a demon from Q. No matter which way we opt, for Markan priority and no Q, or Q priority and Markan dependence on Q, we are still stuck with an author taking passages from all over sources and sticking them together to make new passages. "Scattered material" cannot be an argument against anything. The remaining arguments of Fledderman are explainable under either interpretive framework. If the material shared with Q is in the same order, surely that reflects Matthean dependence on Mark, which we already know is a fact. If the Markan version has features derived from Q that can hardly be surprising, since Matthew copied Mark. This same fact also explains how the rhetorical question "How can Satan cast out Satan?" is derived from elements in the Q controversy. One might note that on p25 Fledderman states: "If we examine Mark's version of the Beelzebub controversy, we note a conscious design that bears Mark's imprint." I couldn't agree more. A further problem with Fledderman's thesis is that "Beelzebub" pops up in all three versions of the controversy. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have it: Mark 3:20-23 (NIV) 20: Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.21: When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.�?22: And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.�? 23: So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? Matthew 12:22-26 (NIV) 22: Then they brought him a demonpossessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23: All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?�? 24: But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.�? 25: Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26: If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? Luke 11:14-18 (NIV) 14: Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. 15: But some of them said, “By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.�? 16: Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven. 17: Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. 18: If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? The problem is plain. On Fledderman's thesis, Matthew and Luke derived these sequences from Q rather than from Mark. But if that is the case, what is Q doing with "Beelzebub" in it? In the Gospel of Mark "Beelzebub" fits into a rich system of allusions to the OT arranged by the writer of Mark, and is a Markan stylistic feature (interreference) like approximately a dozen similar features elsewhere in the Gospel. These allusions were not incorporated into Matthew (Matthew drops the story of the paralytic being lowered through the roof), so what is the name "Beelzebub" doing in Matthew? Any of several demons or an unnamed demon will do just as well. Unless it came to Matthew through Mark, there is no reason for it to be there at all. The word "Beelzebub" is a finger that points directly to the writer of Mark, and to Markan creativity in the heart of Q. Vorkosigan

12-11-2004, 02:55 PM	#3
PoodleLovinPessimist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 5,826	Given that your analytical method is correct, I'm still not sure how you're arriving at your conclusion. It seems obvious that the commonalities between Mark, Matthew & Luke require an explanation. Even if we assume Markan priority and Matthew & Luke being independent, there are two possible alternatives: Code: Mark -> Matthew Q -> Mark -> Matthew \| ^ +---->---------\| How do you differentiate between the two alternatives? It would also seem that if Matthew & Luke are just a straight derivation from Mark, there is no basis to assume Q.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2004, 01:30 PM	#2
Dominus Paradoxum Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California Posts: 1,000	You seem to have ignored the possibility that Q was written down after Mark and used it as a source. Or perhaps the writers of Q and Mark had a common source.

12-11-2004, 03:02 PM	#4
PoodleLovinPessimist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 5,826	I'm unclear on how Q is established in the first place. I could see it if there were similarities in both Matthew & Luke that were not in Mark (assuming, of course, that Matthew & Luke really are independent) then it would be obvious. But I'm unclear on how to discern that Mark borrows from Q and Matthew and Luke borrow both from Q and from Mark. I'm not saying you're wrong of course! I just don't quite follow your reasoning.

12-12-2004, 04:09 AM	#8
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	I've been exploring this whole Christian stuff for about 4 years now. And there have been one or two shocks along the way.I originally presumed the gospels were written by eyewitness types prone to a little exaggeration.Nope, not so, all anonymous.Then I "discovered" the synoptic problem.Then the Markan Priority answer to that problem .Seems pretty obvious to me that "Mark" was the first of the four.And the implications of that for Christian apologists are pretty horrifying-the later 3 gospelers cannot be witnesses and yet they have no concerns amending the sacred story for their own agendas.Then I read about Q and that seemed to have some logic to it...where else could non-witnesses get their stuff from?Then it struck me just how terribly convenient Q is for apologists.It can be pushed back to a pre-Mark date thus providing a credibility of some sort to the saga.And it excuses considering either of gospel writer number 2 or 3 as yet another plagiarist/editor of his predecessors and it allows some apologists to construct wonderful stories about primitive Christian groups from nothing else but the assertion that Q existed and let's build on that.And lurking behind all of this is the fantastic "oral Tradition" story which says that all the gospel stuff is built up from remembered stories that go back to alleged JC and his mates.But when I look at the footnotes, thoughtfully provided by my RSV, I see that the source of most of the stuff contained in the the synoptics is clearly,obviously, the Jewish scriptures.And when I looked at the Jesus Seminar's version of Q they thoughtfully provided the Jewish sources of much, probably most,of the alleged Q gospel.They even included cross references to Mark which really muddies up the concept of Q [Q is stuff that is in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark except when it is].So it seems to me to be pretty obvious that Q NEVER existed.Mark made up his gospel mainly from the Jewish writings with a dose of creative fiction thrown in.Along comes Matthew - he copies Mark, adds some stuff he finds in Jewish scripture and embellishes, adapts and modifies as he goes.Up trots Luke,he clearly copies Mark,he adds stuff from various sources such as Greek poets,Jewish writings AND Matthew.We do not require a Q hypothesis.Goulder and Goodacre have convinced me that Luke copied not only Mark but Matthew also.I suggest that if it were not for the embarrassing impact on the credibility of the later gospellers and the inability of apologists to admit this the Q question would be a non issue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.