Mark without Q
jkilmon at historian.net
Fri Jan 4 11:06:59 EST 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: <HStaiti at aol.com>
To: "Kata Markon" <gmark at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: [gmark] Mark without Q
> I am curious as to why Mark did not include the Q material we observe in
> Matthew and Luke. Most scholars write with the assumption that Mark did
> use the Q material because it was not available to him. But what if it was
> available to Mark and what if he rejected it?
> There are the obvious distinctions between the Gospel of Mark and the
> of Matthew and Luke that may be of note.
> Matthew and Luke are positive about Peter and the Disciples
> Matthew and Like include the Q Material in their compositions.
> Mark is very pessimistic about the disciples from Galilee
> Mark does not include the Q community's writings in his
> Is there a connection? Maybe Q is a compostion of sayings from one of the
> Galilean communities that were founded on one of the disciples? Maybe that
> why it was rejected by Mark rather than unknown to Mark? Any suggestions
> pursuit of this line of thought of Q being a Galilean document and or Mark
> rejecting Galilean thought and/or the Galilean community from the Galilean
> disciples? Any suggestions for why Mark did not use Q?
Let me take a stab at this Harry.
Markan parallels to Q are found at:
Mark 3:27 *
Mark 3:28-29 *
Mark 8:11-12 is another version of Q (Mt 12:38-40/Lk 11:29-30) duplicated
by Matthew from Mark 8:11-12. Separate traditions
Mark 8:34*, 35, 36, 37, 38
Those pericopae with an asterisk are also Thomas parallels and there are
Thomas parallels in Mark that lead some to believe that Mark used GThomas.
another view, however.
Keep with me here, Harry, I'll get to the point eventually. Let's look at
the Markan parallels
As is obvious, the Markan parallels in John are IN ORDER causing one to
John (supposedly composed around 95ish CE) used Mark (supposed composed
70 CE) but is that true? Is it possible that Mark used JOHN? How about the
and Thomas parallels in Mark?
In the mood for a maverick reconstruction? Here we go:
During the lifetime of Jesus/Yeshua in his public ministry, one of the
disciples, an "ear-witness,"
took reed and papyrus in hand and set down what he considered the "good
stuff" from Jesus'
sayings. We have a tendency to call them "sermons" but for the most part,
MOST of the
Jesus material comes from "Table Talk." This disciple was probably Mattaya
or who we know in translation as "Matthew, the tax collector" who was
actually a cousin
of Jesus. This is the "Logia" referred to by Papias as quoted by Eusebius
Ecclesis III, xxxix, 16 in the "Hebrew Language" (Aramaic). This Aramaic
translated into Greek and eventually became Q. There were, therefore two
Q floating around. One Aramaic, one Greek. The Syrian Scribe responsible
Gospel of Matthew was so-named because he used the Greek version of Q known
have been originally set down by the disciple Matthew but Luke, on the other
competent in Aramaic and used the Aramaic version. The Aramaic "Logia"
stands behind Thomas and GreekQ. The John parallels in Mark were not taken
Mark by the Johannine scribe but were taken from "proto-John" by Mark who
an agenda to respond to "proto-John" to which Mark is inimical, the first
edition of Mark
being pro-Peter and "proto-John" being polemical to Peter. I cannot help
but notice that
the Johannine parallels in Mark are from an unglossed, unedited and
first layer, so to speak.
Mark 8:11-12 as a separate version to the Q form may be an indication of a
source (Peter?) and the Q parallels may also be of Petrine origin from
independent reminiscences rather than Matthew's Logia. This brings us to
possibilities for the Thomas parallels in Mark. Thomas either rose from a Q
or a Petrine/Markan stemma independent of Q. Clement of Alexandria tells
in the letter to Theodosius (Secret Mark) that Mark took his notes to Egypt
and certainly among these notes were Pater's reminiscences of "Jesus
may have taken on an editorial life of its own (Gospel of Thomas).
This should be sufficiient to get me in hot water with some<g>.
More information about the GMark