tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post9157547100073461869..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Mark Q Overlaps I: TerminologyMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-66325877518424063302007-11-06T17:29:00.000-05:002007-11-06T17:29:00.000-05:00Rather whimsically I agree with the methodological...Rather <A HREF="http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/11/q-and-data-and-mark-too/" REL="nofollow">whimsically I agree</A> with the methodological point.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10326403777027937887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-21302780986586429122007-11-04T18:48:00.000-05:002007-11-04T18:48:00.000-05:00Thanks for your comments, Frank. You write, "I do...Thanks for your comments, Frank. You write, "I don't see anything wrong with using the phrase, "Mark Q Overlaps" as long as one believes in Q." But I don't believe in Q, and perhaps there lies the problem. I think the difficulty, more broadly, relates to labelling a data set with one proposed solution to the problem posed by that data set.<BR/><BR/>Your points about the importance of looking at John (and Thomas) too are well taken.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-50899408869700089502007-11-04T12:29:00.000-05:002007-11-04T12:29:00.000-05:00I don't see anything wrong with using the phrase, ...I don't see anything wrong with using the phrase, "Mark Q Overlaps" as long as one believes in Q. Perhaps one who does not believe in Q should respond by qualifying the phrase, e.g., perhaps exapanding it to, "theorized Mark Q Overlaps"?<BR/><BR/>I am more bothered by the phrase, "the Synoptic Problem". I think the usage of this phrase marginalizes John and Thomas and, thereby, fosters an atmosphere in which each is held to either be independent of the Synoptics or else later than them and dependent upon one or more of them. The result: Neither John nor Thomas tends to be seriously treated as a possible source utilized by Matthew and/or Luke, even when there is a clear Johannine and/or Thomasine parallel to the Synoptic material.<BR/><BR/>For example, your paper regards Matthew 3:7-12 // Mark 1:7-8 // Luke 3:7-9, 15-17. Conspicuous by its absence is John 1:26-27, 33.<BR/><BR/>This is no small matter, e.g., Mt 3:11/Lk 3:16 agree with John 1:26-27 against Mk 1:7-8a that John spoke of baptizing with water before speaking about a coming one mightier than he. This suggests that Matthew modified the order in Mk 1:7-8a in light of the order in John 1:26-27 and that Luke then used Mt 3:11 as his source for Lk 3:16. <BR/><BR/>Again, in Mt 3:11, John is addressing Jewish religious authorities. However, in Mark 1:7-8a he apparently is addressing all the people who went out to see him and the same is the case in Luke 3:16. Even the IQP version of Q has John addressing crowds coming to be baptized. It is only John 1:26-27 that also has John addressing Jewish religious authorities. This suggests that, in this respect, Matthew is following John.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sold on the idea that Matthew utilized John as one of his sources when writing 3:11, but I do think that this idea should be seriously discussed. However, due to the fixation on "the Synoptic Problem", discussion seems to be pretty well limited to the two options of either Mt 3:11 and Lk 3:16 follow the order in Q 3:16 or else Matthew reversed the order in Mk 1:7-8a on his own and Luke followed him in this. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, due to this fixation on "the Synoptic Problem", while the phrase, "Mark Q Overlaps", gets bantered around with regularity regarding Matthew 3:7-12 // Mark 1:7-8 // Luke 3:7-9, 15-17, the phrase, "Mark John Overlaps", apparently isn't heard at all or, at best, only on rare occasions. Isn't this odd?Frank McCoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16977985447972987579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-73088470011371699222007-11-03T16:14:00.000-04:002007-11-03T16:14:00.000-04:00For what my two cents is worth, you're going to ha...For what my two cents is worth, you're going to have a hard time selling "triple tradition pericopae where Mark is not the middle term," over "Mark-Q overlaps." I'd agree with your general sentiment, insofar as our wording often reflects our own biases (is anything truly free from rhetorical ploys though, intentional or otherwise?). It's just that, IMO, such a verbose terminology is unlikely to win the day.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, I can't think of anything more succinct.Rick Sumnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284073533968750655noreply@blogger.com