¹ Catchpole, D. R., ‘The Beginning of Q: A Proposal’, NTS 38 (1992) 205–21 (republished in a slightly revised form in his The Quest for Q [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993], 60–78; in this paper, citations refer to the NTS article); J. Lambrecht, ‘John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1.1–15: A Marcan Redaction of Q?’, NTS 38 (1992) 357–84.Google Scholar

² However, the beginning of Q has been much discussed in recent studies; cf. H. Fleddermann, ‘The Beginning of Q’, SBL 1985 Seminar Papers (SBLSPS 24; Chico, Cal., 1985) 153–9; J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘City and the Wasteland: Narrative World and the Beginning of the Sayings Gospel (Q)’, Semeia 52 (1990) 145–60; J. M. Robinson, ‘The Sayings Gospel Q’, The Four Gospels 1992 (FS Frans Neirynck; ed. Segbroeck, F. et al. ii; BETL 100; Leuven: Peeters/University, 1992) 1.361–88; R. Uro, ‘John the Baptist and the Jesus Movement: What Does Q Tell Us?’, forthcoming in R. A. Piper, ed., Current Issues in Q Research (Leiden: Brill, 1995); N. Walter, ‘Mk 1,1–8 und die “Agreements” von Mt 3 und Lk 3: Stand die Predigt Johannes des Täufers in Q?’, The Four Gospels 1992 (see above) 1.457–78.Google Scholar

³ Cf. the exhaustive list by Laufen, R., Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (Diss. Bonn, 1978; also published as BBB 54) 70–1; see further, e.g., B. L. Mack, ‘Q and the Gospel of Mark: Revising Christian Origins’, Semeia 55 (1991) 15–39; R. Syx, ‘Jesus and the Unclean Spirit: The Literary Relation between Mark and Q in the Beelzebul Controversy’, LouvSt 17 (1992) 166–80.Google Scholar

⁴ Mack, , ‘Origins’, 25. However, even this cannot be regarded as certain any longer. Recently some scholars have dated the latest redactional layer of Q as late as ca. 70 AD or even later. Cf. P. Hoffmann, ‘QR und der Menschensohn. Eine vorläufige Skizze’, The Four Gospels 1992 (see above n. 2) 1.421–56 (here p. 456); M. Myllykoski, ‘Dating Q’ (forthcoming); R. Uro, Sheep among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q (AASF Diss. 47; Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1987) 238–40.Google Scholar

⁵ Thus recently Goulder, M., Luke: A New Paradigm 1–2 (JSNTSS 20; Sheffield: Academic, 1989).Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. the list by F.Neirynck, ‘Recent Developments in the Study of Q’, ibid., Evangelica II: 1982–1991. Collected Essays (BETL 99; Leuven: University/Peeters, 1991) 409–64: 433.

⁷ E.g. Hoffmann, P., Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTA NF 8; Münster: Aschendorff, 2nd ed. 1975) 17–18; J. S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 102 n. 1; Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 95; S. Schulz, Q—Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer, 1972) 365; Uro, ‘Baptist’. Also Catchpole, ‘Beginning’, 216 considers the participle όήρχόμενος to be ‘the original Q term’.Google Scholar

⁸ The appearance of ό έρχόμενος in Q 13.35 as such cannot support the Q redaction, because the wording of this passage derives from the OT quotation (Ps 117.26 LXX). The use of this title in Q can be regarded as ‘an important organizing factor in the overall plan of the document’ (thus Uro, ‘Baptist’) only if the use of this title in Q 3.16 can be assured.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Wernle, P., Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg im Breisgau: Mohr, 1899) 210 (quoted at length by Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 71): ‘Das ist die Hypothese eines Epigonen, der die Balken des Gebäudes, auf dem er sitzt, meint abbrechen zu können, um damit in der Luft einen Neubau zu beginnen.’ See further Walter, ‘Agreements’, 463.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Catchpole, , ‘Beginning’, 218.Google Scholar

¹¹ Lambrecht, , ‘Baptist’, 364.Google Scholar

¹² Catchpole, ‘Beginning’, 218; Lambrecht, ‘Baptist’, 366; also A. D. Jacobson, The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Foundation & Facets; Sonoma, Cal.: Polebridge, 1992) 80 reconstructs the beginning of Q in the same way, but notwithstanding the Markan dependence on Q (ibid. 62 n.2): ‘In those days, John came preaching in all the region of the Jordan, as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “A voice crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the lord, make his paths straight.”’

¹³ Cf. Schulz, , Spruchquelle, 367. In my opinion, the proposal by Catchpole would make better sense as an introduction to John's preaching in Q 3.7–9.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Lambrecht, , ‘Baptist’, 363.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Catchpole, , ‘Beginning’, 217.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See, e.g., the Pauline use of the formula (Rom 1.17; 3.4, 10; 4.17; 8.36; 9.13, 33; 10.15; 11.8, 26; 15.3, 9, 21; 1 Cor 1.31; 2.9; 10.7; 2 Cor 8.15; 9.9); cf. R. A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas, Texas: Word, 1989) 7. Reversed order occurs in Rom 2.24.Google Scholar

¹⁷ On the interpretation of the Markan text cf. below pp. 510–11.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Against Jacobson, Gospel, 80: ‘The main argument for the existence of Q in this pericope [= Luke: 3.1–6//Matt 3.1–6] rests on the order of the Q material.’Google Scholar

¹⁹ Otherwise, however, Walter, ‘Agreements’, 469: ‘Es ist kaum denkbar, daß Mt und Lk unabhängig voneinander die gleiche Umstellung und Zitat-Korrektur vorgenommen hätten.’Google Scholar

²⁰ Lambrecht, , ‘Baptist’, 363.Google Scholar

²¹ According to Walter, ‘Agreements’, 467–8 John's sermon did not stem from Q, but from ‘Mk¹’.Google Scholar

²² Even Catchpole, ‘Beginning’, 218 n. 49 admits that the minor agreements of the baptism story ‘are not sufficient in themselves as evidence of non-Marcan source material’. In his opinion, however, they ‘can play a small part in conjunction with other arguments’ (italics ID).Google Scholar

²³ Cf. the reconstruction of the International Q Project; see further e.g. Catchpole, ‘Beginning’, 217; Robinson, ‘Sayings Gospel’, 375–6.Google Scholar

²⁴ The possibility that Matthew and Luke have independently been influenced by Gen 13.10 has been discussed, too; cf. F.Neirynck, ‘Une nouvelle the'orie synoptique (Á propos de Mc., 1,2–6 et par)’, ETL 44 (1968) 141–53; reprinted in: id., Jean et les Synoptiques. Examen critique de l'exégése de M.-É. Boismard (BETL 49; Leuven: University, 1979) 299–311, but even here the common source of Matthew and Luke is preferred (ibid. 308).

²⁵ Cf. Kloppenborg, , ‘City’, 150.Google Scholar

²⁶ Here also, as mentioned above, Lambrecht and Catchpole disagree.Google Scholar

²⁷ Catchpole, , ‘Beginning’, 207; cf. e.g. D. Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969) 27 n.4; Kloppenborg, Formation, 117; M. Sato, Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2. Reihe 29; Tübingen: Mohr, 1988) 35; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 232 (with a survey of the older literature, n. 367).Google Scholar

²⁸ Catchpole, , ‘Beginning’, 210.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. Jacobson, , Gospel, 115.Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. Schulz, , Spruchquelle, 232: ‘Worin dieses “Mehr” des Täufers bestand, ist im ursprünglichen Apophthegma nicht gesagt…’ (italics ID).Google Scholar

³¹ Catchpole, , ‘Beginning’, 211.Google Scholar

³² Thus Kloppenborg, , Formation, 247–8; Jacobson, Gospel, 94–5,126–7; Sato, Prophetie, 35.Google Scholar

³³ The formula is not only frequently used by Paul (cf. above p. 506 n. 16), but it is attested in Qumran texts, 70 (4 Kings 14.6), and in Greek inscriptions as well; cf. D.-A Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHTh 69; Tübingen: Mohr, 1986) 29–30.Google Scholar

³⁴ Catchpole, , ‘Beginning’, 210.Google Scholar

³⁵ Catchpole, , ‘Beginning’, 210.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Baumgartner, L. Koehler-W., Lexicon in Veteris Testamentis libros (Leiden: Brill, 1958) 765.Google Scholar

³⁷ E.g., the verb occurs in the works of Josephus more than 200 times.Google Scholar

³⁸ The edition followed here is that of Ziegler, J., Duodecim Prophetae (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Societas Litterarum Gottingensis 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1943).Google Scholar

³⁹ Catchpole, , ‘Beginning’, 214.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See e.g. Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus 1 (EKK 2.1; Zürich—Einsiedeln—Köln: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978) 41. For the same reason V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St Mark. The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London: Macmillan, 1952) 153 even regards Mark 1.2b as a later gloss. Walter, ‘Agreements’, 470 argues that Mark 1.2b followed v. 4 in the previous edition of Mark used by Matthew and Luke.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Cf. Guelich, , Mark, 7.Google Scholar

⁴² Only after having submitted this paper to NTS did I get access to C. Tuckett's important article ‘Mark and Q’, The Synoptic Gospels. Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism (ed. C.Focant; BETL 110; Leuven: University/Peeters, 1993) 149–75, which contains not only a similar conclusion to this paper, but also many similar observations concerning, above all, the methodological issues (see e.g. ibid. 150—1, with a reference to M. Devisch's seminal paper ‘La relation entre l'éVangile de Marc et le document Q’, L'évangile selon Marc. Tradition et rédaction [ed. M. Sabbe; BETL 34; Leuven: University/Peeters, 2nd ed. 988, 59–91:63–4]) and the redaction history of Q 7.24–8 (ibid. 163–8).