![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
SUMMARY
On the basis of the reconstructed Q-text it is now possible to conduct a thorough study of Mk. 3, 20–35 in the third chapter of this essay (for the first two reference is made to this year's Bijdragen, pp. 114–150). As a preliminary, in order to establish sufficient confidence in the Q-text, the parameter in our process, we discuss the question whether Luke might not have used the Markan text after all. For this would imperil our reconstruction. Although the evidence is not absolute, the answer is rather conclusively in the negative.
Then, in the first part of the chapter a comparison of the subject matter of the Markan text and the Q-source follows. But the principal concern will be to confront each verse of Mk. 3, 20–35 with the Q-text. In the eight paragraphs of the second part the verses 23a. 22. 20–21. 31–35. 28–29. 30. 23b-26 and 27 are dealt with consecutively.
The third part is a comprehensive evaluation of Mark's editing of the text. Time after time, upon analysis of each separate verse, it appears that it was unnecessary to postulate any other source for Mk. 3, 20–35 than the one more or less offered by the reconstructed Q-text, except the vv. 28–29 and perhaps some data of tradition in the vv. 20–21 and 31–35. Whatever is typical for Mark and wherever he departs from the Q-text may be explained satisfactorily as an intervention of Mark as editor, reorganizing and rewriting, altering and abridging. Larger parts of the source-material (cf. Lk. 11, 19–20. 23–26) are omitted altogether while the logion on the pardon of sins (Mk. 3, 28–29) is added by him. Moreover, he is not afraid to create on his own: the short summary in v. 20, the introductory v. 23a and probably a larger part of the pericope on the relatives (3, 21. 31–35).