Kata Markon

["Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

----- 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
not
> 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
Gospels
> 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
composition.
>
> 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
is
> why it was rejected by Mark rather than unknown to Mark? Any suggestions
for
> 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 3:23-26
Mark 3:27 *
Mark 3:28-29 *
Mark 4:21*
Mark 4:22*
Mark 4:23,24,25*
Mark 4:30-32*
Mark 6:8-11*
Mark 8:10-13
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
Mark 9:39
Mark 9:42
Mark 9:50
Mark 10:10-11
Mark 10:31*
Mark 11:23*
Mark 11:25
Mark 12:38-39
Mark 13:11

Those pericopae with an asterisk are also Thomas parallels and there are
many more
Thomas parallels in Mark that lead some to believe that Mark used GThomas.
I have
another view, however.

Keep with me here, Harry, I'll get to the point eventually.  Let's look at
the Markan parallels
in John:

John                    Mark
1:35-39               1:16-20
1:40-42               1:16-20
1:43-51               1:16-20
2:13-17               11:15-17
3:3-8                  10:13-16
4:44                    6:4
5:1-18                2:1-12
6:1-15                6:35-44
6:16-21               6:47-52
12:1-8                14:3-9
12:27-28            14:32-42
13:36-38            14:27-31
18:1-11              14:43-50
18:33-37            15:2

As is obvious, the Markan parallels in John are IN ORDER causing one to
believe that
John (supposedly composed around 95ish CE) used Mark (supposed composed
around
70 CE) but is that true?  Is it possible that Mark used JOHN?  How about the
Q
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
ben Halfa
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
in Historia
Ecclesis III, xxxix, 16 in the "Hebrew Language" (Aramaic).  This Aramaic
Anthology was
translated into Greek and eventually became Q.  There were, therefore two
versions of
Q floating around. One Aramaic, one Greek.  The Syrian Scribe responsible
for the
Gospel of Matthew was so-named because he used the Greek version of Q known
to
have been originally set down by the disciple Matthew but Luke, on the other
hand, was
competent in Aramaic and used the Aramaic version.  The Aramaic "Logia"
(AramQ)
stands behind  Thomas and GreekQ.  The John parallels in Mark were not taken
from
Mark by the Johannine scribe but were taken from "proto-John" by Mark who
also has
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
unredacted John....
first layer, so to speak.

Mark 8:11-12 as a separate version to the Q form may be an indication of a
separate
source (Peter?) and the Q parallels may also be of Petrine origin from
Peter's
independent reminiscences rather than Matthew's Logia.  This brings us to
several
possibilities for the Thomas parallels in Mark.  Thomas either rose from a Q
stemma
or a Petrine/Markan stemma independent of Q.  Clement of Alexandria tells
us,
in the letter to Theodosius (Secret Mark) that Mark took his notes to Egypt
(Alexandria)
and certainly among these notes were Pater's reminiscences of "Jesus
saids....." which
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>.

Jack