DID MARK ALSO USE Q?
In the introduction to his _Beginnings of Gospel History_, Bacon remarks
that the "dependence of Mark upon Q can be demonstrated." Wellhausen says
that "independence [between Mark and Q] is not to be thot of." Streeter,
in _Oxford Studies_, has made the most recent and thoro study of the
relation of Mark and Q, and some of his results have already been utilized
and acknowledged. Even Dr. Sanday, in the introduction to _Oxford
Studies_, confesses himself an unwilling convert to the theory that Mark
was acquainted with, and made some use of, Q. Wellhausen alone, so far as
I know, maintains the apparently untenable position that Q is later than
Mark, and that where the two overlap, Q has used Mark instead of Mark
using Q. His acceptance of this position is partially explained by the
fact that he makes no distinction between the original Q and the
recensions of it in the hands of Matthew and Luke; he also allows to Q
much material (e.g., the conversation between John and Jesus at the
baptism) which other scholars, without the hypothesis of QMt and QLk,
ascribe to the hand of Matthew or Luke. Harnack and Wernle maintain the
priority of Q to Mark. Wernle concedes some small use of Q by Mark, and
Harnack thinks Mark was at least "acquainted with" Q.
The discrimination between QMt and QLk and the original Q makes
unnecessary a good deal of the work that has heretofore been done toward
determining the primary and secondary traits in Mark and Q respectively.
Assuming that Mark used either the original Q, or as near to the original
of that document as we can yet get, the recensions used by Matthew and
Luke would be perhaps thirty, certainly twenty, years later than that used
by Mark. In the fifty or more verses of Mark that appear to have stood
also in Q, there is nothing that can be shown to be later than the year 70
(the date generally assigned to Mark). There is nothing to suggest that
the author had witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, or the events
immediately leading up to it. The presence of the same material in Mark
and Q is demonstrated by the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark,
or by the deviations of the one or the other of them from the Marcan form
of a saying, in such way as not to admit of explanation except by the
assumption of two sources (Mark and Q) in the hands of Matthew and Luke.
In other words, if Mark did use Q, but if he used the same text of it as
was used by Matthew and Luke, and if the three followed Q with equal
faithfulness, in all such instances Q would fail to appear, since both
Matthew and Luke would appear to be following only Mark. It is therefore
where there are deviations of either Matthew or Luke from Mark in sections
where the other follows Mark closely, or where there are agreements of
Matthew and Luke against Mark in sayings-material, that the presence of Q
behind Mark can be detected.
Upon the hypothesis of Q without QMt or QLk, the argument by which the use
of Q by Mark, as against the use of Mark by Q, was proven, consisted of
picking out the primary and secondary traits in Mark and Q respectively,
and of showing that the primary traits were in Q and the secondary in
Mark. But this was very difficult to do, so long as, e.g., the Peter
incidents peculiar to Matthew, or the conversation during the baptism,
were attributed to Q. For these were indisputably secondary. If the
priority of Mark was to be maintained, all such traits had to be removed
from Q and assigned to the evangelist or to some special source.
Upon the theory now advocated by the writer, these secondary traits are
practically all assigned, not to the original Q, but to QMt or QLk.[132]
But if Mark used any form of Q, it was not QMt or QLk, but some much
simpler, more primary, and doubtless less extended, form. The presence of
secondary traits in QMt and QLk therefore does nothing toward proving the
secondary character of Q in its original form, or in such an early form as
would have been used by Mark. Since nothing can be found in Q which is
either demonstrably or probably later than the date of Mark, the
assumption that Mark used Q may be permitted to stand; and with the
removal of the secondary traits to the recensions, it does not require the
minute analysis which earlier hypotheses made necessary, since there are
no longer any indications militating against Mark's use of Q. What now
remains therefore is to determine as nearly as possible what material
stood in Mark and Q.
WHAT MATERIAL DID MARK TAKE FROM Q?
In the attempt to determine what material Mark has taken from Q, an effort
will also be made to decide whether Matthew and Luke took the same
material directly from Q, or indirectly from Q thru Mark. The verses which
one or both of them appear to have taken directly from Q (tho these verses
stand also in Mark) will be added to the number of verses already
attributed to Q (or QMt and QLk). We shall thus have before us the
largest possible sum-total of Q material. The tables of contents already
made out for the Q material, as it now stands in Matthew and Luke
respectively,[133] will throw further light upon the propriety or
impropriety of regarding QMt and QLk as recensions of one original
document. The same tables will serve to indicate the probable order of Q,
and the investigation now following will then be used to determine what
acquaintance, if any, Mark had with Q, and what use, if any, he made of
that document.
THE MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BAPTIST
(Mk i, 7-8)
Matthew and Luke are close to Mark in their wording here, but agree
against him in putting his verses in reverse order and in the addition of
[Greek: kai pyri]. They then each add a verse (Mt iii, 12; Lk iii, 17)
which has already been assigned to Q. In each Gospel this verse develops
the idea introduced by the [Greek: kai pyri]. The order of Matthew and
Luke is here necessarily, and apparently originally, different from that
of Mark, since the relative clause which begins the additional matter of
Matthew and Luke depends upon the order of sentences in these two Gospels
and will not fit Mark's arrangement. In spite therefore of the close
agreement of Matthew's vs. 11 and Luke's vs. 16 with Mark, these verses
must be assigned to Q. In other words, it is probable that here Matthew
and Luke are depending directly upon Q, and not merely indirectly upon him
thru Mark.
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
(Mk i, 9-11)
This section is added to Q by many critics, on the ground of its position
between the preaching of the Baptist and the temptation of Jesus, both
related in Q. The agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are
not, however, frequent or important enough by themselves to suggest this
assignment. On the other hand, the addition in Matthew of the conversation
between Jesus and John points to a source in that respect different from
that of either Mark or Luke. Matthew also represents the voice from heaven
as directed to the crowd, and not to Jesus alone, as do Mark and Luke. In
both these deviations Matthew has an apparently later tradition, and has
preferred to follow his recension of Q. Either Luke's recension here
agreed substantially with Mark's, or else Luke has followed Mark more
closely than Q.
THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS
(Mk i, 12-13)
The very brief account in Mark is followed in Matthew and Luke by nine and
eleven verses respectively, which have been already assigned to Q. The
question here is whether Matthew and Luke followed Mark in the first two
verses of their narratives, and after that forsook him for Q, or whether
they followed Q thruout. Matthew and Luke agree in substituting [Greek:
diabolos] for Mark's [Greek: satanas], in the omission of the clause "and
was with the wild beasts," and in placing the temptation in the period of
hunger following the forty days' fast. They apparently followed Q rather
than Mark, but each introduced some changes out of deference to the
latter. Mark's account is similar enough to that of Matthew and Luke to be
a brief extract from Q.
THE BEELZEBUL CONTROVERSY
(Mk iii, 20-29)
This Marcan section is duplicated in Mt xii, 24-32, and Lk xi, 15-23; xii,
10. Of these Matthean and Lucan accounts, Mt xii, 26-28, and Lk xi,
18-20, are practically identical, but not paralleled in Mark. In xii, 29,
Matthew follows Mk iii, 27, almost word for word. At the same place Luke
forsakes Mark and deviates widely, tho agreeing closely with Matthew in
the three preceding verses. Matthew's xii, 30, and Luke's xi, 23, are
again unparalleled in Mark, and are evidently from Q. Matthew's vs. 31
again goes back to Mark's vs. 28, but is influenced by his own Q material
in the following verses. The derivation of Mark from Q in this passage is
rendered doubly sure by the facts that the verses seriously interrupt the
connection in Mark, and that the passage here consecutive in Matthew and
Mark is separated in Luke. Matthew is a conflation of Mark and Q. Luke is
apparently Q thruout. Matthew's Marcan and Q material being mixed, it is
impossible to tell whether Matthew's Q was here identical with Luke's or
not. Out of this section there should be added to Q the passages Mt xii,
25, and Lk xi, 17, 21.
FIVE DETACHED SAYINGS
(Mk iv, 21-25)
Such detached sayings, unconnected with Mark's narrative, create at once a
presumption of their having been taken from Q. Luke has the first saying
(about the lamp) in two places (viii, 16; xi, 33), indicating that he
found it both in Mark and Q. He also has a duplicate for the second
saying, while the fifth is repeated twice in both Matthew and Luke. Mk iv,
23, is the proverbial saying used twice in both Mark and Luke and three
times in Matthew. There is thus only one of Mark's sayings (iv, 24) which
is not given twice by Matthew or Luke or both. An additional indication of
the occurrence of these verses in Q, and Mark's derivation of them from
that source, is the fact that they are part of a section in Mark which
seriously interrupts his narrative, interposing a private conversation of
Jesus with his disciples between the teaching in the boat and the storm on
the lake. The verses are also given by Matthew in four different chapters,
and by Luke in two, and by both in different order from each other and
from Mark. All five of these Marcan verses, therefore, and their parallels
in Matthew and Luke, should be assigned to Q.
THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED
(Mk iv, 30-32)
This parable has a strong resemblance to those already assigned to Q.
Matthew's connection is the same as Mark's; Luke's is different. Luke
agrees with Mark in beginning with a question, tho he omits the second
half of the double question in Mark. Matthew follows Mark, or is strongly
influenced by him in Mt xiii, 32. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in
the words [Greek: hon labôn anthrôpos]. According to a suggestion of
Wellhausen's, [Greek: ebalen eis kêpon] and [Greek: espeiren en tô agrô]
may be translation variants. In the conclusion Matthew and Luke agree much
more closely with each other than with Mark. Except for the influence of
Mark at the beginning, Luke seems to be following Q, while Matthew's
parable is a conflation of Q and Mark. If Mark here rests upon Q, then
Matthew is conflating a parable which Mark drew from Q with the same
parable as he (Matthew) found it in his recension of Q. Complicated as
this may seem, Mark's parable is too closely similar to Luke's to have had
any but a Q origin. To Q in Luke should be added Lk xiii, 18-19; and to Q
in Matthew, Mt xiii, 31-32.
THE SENDING OUT OF THE TWELVE
(Mk vi, 7-11)
This passage is to be compared with Mt x, 1, 7-8, 9-16, and Lk ix, 1-5; x,
1, 3, 4-7, 9-12 (with considerable rearrangement of order in the verses).
The Marcan material, as it reappears in both Matthew and Luke, is mixed
with much other material from Q. Luke's addition of a mission of seventy
and his division of this Marcan material between that mission and the
mission of the twelve add to the confusion. Matthew (x, 14) and Luke (ix,
5) agree in six words against Mark. In the verb [Greek: ektinaxete],
Matthew (x, 14) follows Mark against Luke. Matthew and Luke agree against
Mark in saying [Greek: mête rhabdon] instead of [Greek: ei mê rhabdon]. In
those parts of Matthew's and Luke's narratives that are not paralleled in
Mark there is probably an oral tradition mingled with the Q material.
Mark's version might be considered an excerpt, rather than a copy, of Q.
To Q in Matthew may be added Mt x, 1, 9, 10_ab_, 14; and to Q in Luke, Lk
ix, 1, 3, 5; x, 4, 10.
A SIGN REFUSED
(Mk viii, 12)
On the ground of Matthew's having doublets for this saying (Mt xii, 39;
xvi, 4) and Luke a parallel to it (Lk xi, 29), it may without further
consideration be assigned to Q. The agreement of Matthew and Luke, and the
agreement of Matthew's doublets, in adding "Except the sign of Jonah," may
be taken to indicate the difference here between Mark's Q and the later
recensions.
"WHOSOEVER WILL FOLLOW ME"
(Mk viii, 34-35)
Matthew has doublets for this saying in x, 38-39; xvi, 24-25; Luke in ix,
23-24; xiv, 27; xvii, 33. Matthew and Luke copy the Marcan version with
unusual fidelity thru about forty words. They agree against him in saying
[Greek: ei tis] for Mark's [Greek: hostis], in the substitution of a form
(tho not the same form) of the verb [Greek: erchomai] for [Greek:
akolouthein], and in the employment of a subjunctive in place of an
indicative of the verb [Greek: apollymi]. Luke adds the phrase "day by
day." Considering the remarkably close verbal agreement as well as the
agreement in order, there can be no doubt that Matthew in xvi, 24-25, and
Luke in ix, 23-24, are following Mark; their agreements against him may be
explained partly by a desire to correct his style, and partly by
assimilation. The resemblances between the other member of the doublet in
each case, and the saying as here reported in Mark (i.e., between Mt x,
38-39; Lk xiv, 27; xvii, 33, and Mk viii, 34-35), are sufficiently close
to suggest, if not to prove, that Mark's saying was derived by him from Q.
Since these verses have already been assigned to Q in the examination of
the double tradition, they yield no new Q material here.
"WHOEVER IS ASHAMED OF ME"
(Mk viii, 38)
Matthew has a parallel of this saying, and Luke has doublets for it (Mt x,
33; Lk ix, 26; xii, 9). The verse may be assigned to Q.
ABOUT OFFENSES
(Mk ix, 42-48)
Matthew here follows Mark rather closely, except that he adds "Woe to the
world because of offenses," and conflates Mark's two sayings about the
hand and the foot into one. Matthew has doublets for Mk ix, 43, 45-47, in
Mt v, 29-30, and xviii, 8-9. Luke has avoided the doublet, but has a
parallel to Mark's verses in Lk xvii, 1-2. The section may be assigned to
Mark and Q.
ABOUT SALT
(Mk ix, 49-50)
The little saying in vs. 49 is unduplicated in either of the other
Gospels. If any source be suggested for it, nothing more likely than Q
could be suggested. If the saying be assigned to Q, it will be the only Q
saying in Mark not taken over by either Matthew or Luke. Luke agrees in
xiv, 34, with Mark as against Matthew (v, 13), and with Matthew against
Mark in [Greek: môranthê], but shows the influence of Mark again in
[Greek: artythêsetai]. Either Mark follows Q very loosely, perhaps from
memory, or Matthew and Luke have a different recension.
ABOUT DIVORCE
(Mk x, 11-12)
Matthew has doublets for this saying (Mt v, 32; xix, 9). In the latter
occurrence of the saying in Matthew, the connection is the same as that of
Mark's. It is omitted in that instance by Luke, presumably because it is
part of a controversy with the Pharisees. But doubt is thrown upon the
presence of the saying in Q by the fact that it occurs twice in Mark also,
and may have been taken from him by Matthew in both instances.
THE FIRST WHO SHALL BE LAST
(Mk x, 31)
This saying is paralleled in Luke (xiii, 30) and has doublets in Matthew
(xix, 30; xx, 16). It apparently stood in both Mark and Q.
TRUE GREATNESS
(Mk x, 43-44)
There are doublets for this saying in Mt xx, 26-27, and xxiii, 11, and in
Lk xxii, 26; ix, 48. It probably stood in both Mark and Q, but this again
cannot be proved, since Mark also has the saying twice (ix, 35).
ABOUT FAITH
(Mk xi, 23)
There is a parallel for this saying in Lk xvii, 6, and there are doublets
for it in Mt xvii, 20, and xxi, 21. It stood in Mark and Q.
AGAINST THE PHARISEES
(Mk xii, 38-40)
This section is listed by Mr. Streeter as from Q, because it "looks like a
reminiscence from a long denunciation in Q." This is probably correct, but
the doublets to establish it are lacking.
THE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING IN THE DISCIPLES
(Mk xiii, 11)
This saying is paralleled in Mt x, 19, and has doublets in Lk xii, 11-12,
and xxi, 14-15.
OTHER MARCAN PASSAGES CONSIDERED, BUT REJECTED
In addition to the passages assigned to Q in the preceding investigation,
several are suggested by Streeter and Wernle. Streeter suggests Mk xiii,
15-16; but the doublets in Luke are apparently taken in both instances
from Mark. Streeter thinks that xiii, 28-32, "has a genuine sound"; but
there is nothing more specific to prove its presence in Q. Streeter's
suggestion that Mk i, 2-3, is from Q seems unjustifiable. Vs. 3 is an Old
Testament quotation which Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have in common. If
it stood originally in Mark and is not to be regarded as a later addition,
there is no occasion for the assumption of Q. Vs. 2 could hardly have
stood in its present place when Matthew and Luke used Mark. It occurs in
another connection in Matthew and Luke (Mt xi, 10; Lk vii, 27), and was
probably copied from there into its present place by a later hand.
Wernle's additions to the above Q material in Mark do not seem to be
justified. Some of them, e.g., Mk xi, 14, rest upon making doublets (in
this case Mt xxi, 19, and vii, 7-8) where the wording is not close enough
to warrant them. Others rest upon the general character of the sayings.
The latter is a tempting criterion, and in Matthew and Luke, who
demonstrably make such extensive use of Q, it is more justifiable and has
been used to some extent in the preceding analyses. But in Mark, where Q
is so sparingly and loosely used, it cannot be safely employed aside from
other indications, especially the occurrence of doublets.
The writer believes that the matter listed in the above tabulation is
about all that can at present safely be assigned to Q in Mark. It yields
us, as new Q material in Matthew, sixteen verses, and as new Q material in
Luke, seventeen. This would bring the totals for Q material in Matthew and
Luke up to two hundred and eighty-three in Matthew and to two hundred and
fifty-five in Luke.[134] The number of verses in Mark which can be traced
to Q are about fifty. All but sixteen of these verses in Matthew and all
but seventeen in Luke had already been assigned to Q. Only one stands in
Mark alone.
TABLE VI
CONTENTS FOR Q MATERIAL IN MARK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.|Chap.| Verse | Subject |Source
----|-----|-------|---------------------------------------------|------
1 | i,| 7-8 |Messianic announcement of the Baptist | Q
2 | i,| 12-13 |The temptation | Q
3 | iii,| 22-29 |The Beelzebul controversy | Q
4 | iv,| 21 |The light and the bushel | Q
5 | iv,| 22 |Things hidden and revealed | Q
6 | iv,| 24 |With what measure (about judging) | Q
7 | iv,| 25 |Whoever has, to him shall be given | Q
8 | iv,| 30-32 |Parable of the Mustard Seed | Q
9 | vi,| 7-11 |Mission of the twelve, what to take, conduct |
| | |by the way, if any place does not receive you| Q
10 |viii,| 12 |A sign refused | Q
11 |viii,| 34,38 |Conditions of discipleship | Q
12 | ix,| 42 |About offenses | Q
13 | ix,| 49-50 |Salt is good. If the salt has lost, etc. | Q
14 | x,| 11-12 |About divorce | Q
15 | x,| 31 |First last and last first | Q
16 | x,| 43-44 |Whoso would be great among you | Q
17 | xi,| 23 |About faith | Q
18 | xii,| 38-40 |Against Pharisaism | Q
19 |xiii,| 11 |Take no thot what ye shall say | Q
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above content being made out for the material common to Mark and Q,
the use of Q by Mark may be permitted to rest upon its general
probability, there being nothing to contradict it or to substantiate the
opposite hypothesis. How closely Mark used Q, whether actually copying
certain passages from him, or merely recalling what he had read or heard
read from Q, cannot be determined, since what stood in the text of Q used
by Mark is only an inference from what stood in the recensions used by
Matthew and Luke.
DO THE VOCABULARY AND STYLE OF MARK AND Q, RESPECTIVELY, THROW ANY LIGHT
UPON THEIR LITERARY RELATIONSHIP?
The inquiry might perhaps be carried a step farther by a comparison of the
vocabularies of Mark and Q. Hawkins, between the first and second
editions of his _Horae Synopticae_, made a second and more diligent search
for linguistic peculiarities in Q, and declares himself unable to find
any. Harnack, on the contrary, believes he finds some such.
Sentences in Q, according to Harnack, are generally connected by [Greek:
kai, de] being used but seldom. The same is true of Mark. But this only
indicates the comparative nearness of both Mark and Q to the Semitic. The
same may be said of the preponderance of simple verbs in distinction from
compound in both Mark and Q. [Greek: Ean] is used twice as frequently as
[Greek: ei]; Mark also appears to use the former thirty-six times and the
latter but fifteen. This fact seems to have more significance by reason of
the other, that Luke uses one word thirty-two and the other thirty-three
times. Matthew, however, uses [Greek: ean] exactly twice as often as
[Greek: ei]. When we remember that all we have of Q is contained in
Matthew and Luke, and only a small portion of it in Mark, these facts do
seem to indicate a preference for [Greek: ean] over [Greek: ei] as between
Mark and Q on the one side and Luke on the other, but between Mark and Q
on the one side and Matthew on the other no such contrast appears. Mark
and Q are here no nearer to each other, or very little, than either of
them is to Matthew.
The particle [Greek: te] is never found in Q.[135] It occurs five times in
Mt and seven times in Lk, and but once in Mk. [Greek: Hôs] in temporal
clauses seems to be absent; it is also absent from Matthew, while Luke
uses it nineteen times and Mark but once. Clauses with [Greek: ginomai],
frequent in Matthew and Luke, are absent from Q; they also occur in Mark;
but their absence from Q may be due simply to Q's lack of historical
matter. [Greek: Para] and [Greek: syn] are absent; the first is used about
evenly by Mark and Matthew, and more frequently by Luke; the second, three
times by Matthew, five times by Mark, and twenty-four times by Luke.
CONCLUSION AS TO MARK'S DEPENDENCE UPON Q
These facts do not all point in the same direction. They seem sometimes to
indicate a linguistic affinity between Q and Mark, but this affinity
usually extends to Matthew also. What seems to be proved by them is that
Mark and Q and Matthew all stand nearer to the Semitic than does Luke. But
this is only the obverse of the statement that Luke is the best Grecist.
It throws no light upon the literary relation of Mark and Q. Such literary
relation, in fact, cannot in the strict sense be "proved." It can only be
rendered probable, tho perhaps extremely probable, by the unlikelihood
that Mark and Q should have fifty verses in common without any literary
relationship. Such relationship being assumed, the dependence is on the
side of Mark.