1
Unavoidable Uncertainties on Q and Mark
In this brief note a few considerations on Q and Mark are
brought together. The synoptic material can mainly be divided
into
the
following
four
categories
(sources):
the
triplex
traditio, the duplex tradition, the Matthean Sondergut and the
Lukan Sondergut. Of course, some verses (or parts of verses)
are purely redactional. Moreover, Mark has a few units which
were not taken over by Matthew or Luke, e.g., the Seed Growing
Secretly (4,26-29). In the triplex traditio there are twentynine overlap texts, that is texts which are found in Mark but
also in the duplex traditio; they constitute doublets. There
may perhaps also be some texts which are only present in Mark
but with clear indications that a duplex traditio source has
influenced those Markan texts. This brings us to the synoptic
problem and its uncertainties.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
According to most scripture scholars there must have been
a literary relation between the synoptic gospels. The most
acceptable solution for "the synoptic problem" is and remains
the
two
source
theory.
The
evangelists
Matthew
and
Luke,
independently from each other, have been employing the same
two
sources:
Mark
and
(for
the
duplex
traditio)
the
hypothetical Greek saying-source (= the Quelle, Q). As used by
the
two
later
evangelists,
Q
must
have
been
a
document,
2
written in Greek. Mark is thus the oldest gospel. Over against
Matthew and Luke the Markan priority cannot be negated. Yet
for all this absolute certainty cannot be claimed: a theory is
not a dogma.
THE Q-DOCUMENT
The Markan gospel exists. There is no valid reason to
suppose
that
Matthew
and/or
Luke
had
before
them
a
substantially different copy from the one we know today. But Q
must be reconstructed by careful comparison of the Matthean
and
Lukan
versions
of
the
duplex
traditio.
A
first
major
uncertainty remains: the content of Q. Is Q perhaps longer
than a strict reconstruction proposes? Is there maybe, hidden
in the triplex traditio and not by way of a overlap text, one
or more pericopes which also belong to Q? Two examples can be
offered.
a) There is no doubt that Q contains the Announcement of
the Coming One (3,7-9), John's Preaching (3,16-17) and the
Temptations of Jesus (4,1-13). The Baptism of Jesus is triplex
traditio (Mk 1,9-11). Yet in the Temptations the devil twice
addresses Jesus by the if-clause: "If you are the Son of God"
(Q 4,3 and 9). One is, as it were, forced to assume that Q
also contains the antecedent story of Jesus' baptism where a
voice from heaven proclaims: "You are my beloved Son" (Mk
1,11). The devil reacts to what the Father says to his Son. If
this hypothesis appears to be justified, then it can also be
admitted
that
the
Baptist
in
some
way
must
have
been
introduced in Q and why, then, not by means of a text as we
3
find in Mk 1,2-4 and 6? So Q at its beginning is most probably
longer than the duplex traditio strictly suggests1.
b)
In
Mk
12,18-27
we
read
the
pericope
of
the
Great
Commandment. Matthew presents his parallel text in 22,34-40.
At
Lk
20,40,
however,
the
pericope
is
absent,
but
a
very
similar text is present in Lk 10,25-28. It could be argued
that Luke anticipated the triplex traditio text and rewrote it
as
an
introduction
(10,29-37).
Yet
to
the
parable
there
are
some
of
minor
the
Good
Samaritan
agreements
between
Matthew and Luke against Mark which seem to indicate that Q
possesses its own version of the Great Commandment to be found
in
Lk
10,25-28
but
employed
by
Matthew
as
well
in
his
rewriting of Mk 12,18-27. A (too) severe Q-reconstruction on
the basis of the duplex tradition omits this pericope in Q.
But once again it looks as if the real Q that may have been
somewhat longer2.
MARK STILL A SOURCE?
These
two
examples
lead
to
a
further
very
important
question. If Mark depends on Q, can his gospel itself still be
considered as a source? Does the expanded Q not become the
only source? H.T. Fleddermann3 and others4 have shown that in
Cf. J. LAMBRECHT, "John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1,1-15: Markan
Redaction of Q?" in NTS 38 (1992) 357-384; reprinted in LAMBRECHT,
Understanding What One Reads I. New Testament Essays (1992-2002), Leuven,
2003, pp. 14-42.
2 J. LAMBRECHT, "The Great Commandment Pericope (Mark 12,28-34 and Q 10,2528), in R.A. PIPER (ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels. Current Studies on
Q, Leiden - New York - Köln, 1995, pp. 73-96; reprinted in LAMBRECHT,
Understanding What One Reads I. New Testament Essays (1992-2002), Leuven,
2003, pp. 80-101.
3 H.T. FLEDDERMANN, Mark and Q. A Study of the Overlap Texts. With an
Assessment by F. Neirynck (BETL, 122), Leuven, 1995.
1
4
the overlap texts Mark is always secondary and, moreover, that
Mark
is
often
dependent
verbatim
on
redactional
Q.
Those
overlap texts represent a substantial part of the Q-document.
What about the other Markan texts where minor agreements are
present?
Yet it would seem that exaggerations here must be avoided.
The length of Q, thought somewhat expanded, remains limited.
The importance of the minor agreements should not be overly
increased.
Many
can
be
explained
away
by
an
accidentally
similar Matthean and Lukan edition. On the other hand, the
dogmatic stand about the so-called literary independence of
the two sources, Mark and Q, cannot be retained. Mark must
have
been
acquainted
with
Q;
he
freely
employs
it
in
his
gospel. There is, moreover, no reason to state that, in case
of knowledge, the absence of great sections of Q cannot be
explained.
Mark
may
have
been
convinced,
otherwise
than
Matthew and Luke, that the existence and availability of a
text
in
his
community
justified
him
from
rendering
and
rewriting the whole of that document in his own writing.
CONCLUSIONS
Several
conclusions
can
be
drawn
from
the
insights
mentioned above.
(1) A final form of Q must have been older than Mark.
(2) In the sections where Mark depends on Q the Markan
text can be used to reconstruct Q, indeed. The fact that such
a
work
is
complex
and
sophisticated,
given
the
already
existing (provisional) reconstruction by comparing the texts
I may refer here to several of my studies and notes brought together in
the Canonical List at the end of LAMBRECHT, Understanding What One Reads
III. New Testament Essays (2011-2014), Leuven, 2014, pp.
4
5
of
Matthew
and
Luke,
is
and
Mark
not
a
reason
for
neglecting
this
possibility.
(3)
Both
Q
have
integrated
oral
and written
traditions. The evangelist Mark, moreover, has also taken up
different verses, expressions, words and data from Q. Together
with
other
traditions
he
composed
thus
creatively
a
great
number of sections of his gospel.
(4) A large margin of uncertainty remains with regard to
the Q-document, not only its exact reconstruction, but also
its length, structure and hypothetical layers.
(5) It would seem that methodologically in this search
"Occam's razor" must be applied. One should not too easily
postulate entia, be they qualified as "proto-" or "deutero-".
The existing Markan gospel and the unavoidably hypthetical Qdocument most probably constitute the solid bases for further
reasoning and analysis.
(6) And, of course, there is also the large amount of
Matthean and Lukan Sondergut.