JBL 108/ (1989) 51-71 THE GOSPEL OF MARK AND THE SAYINGS COLLECTION Q DIETER LUHRMANN Phihpps-Unnversitat, Marburg/Lahn, Federal Republic of Germany 1 The History of Research The two-document hypothesis, now known as a solution to the synoptic problem, was first recognized as an important answer to the challenge which David Fnednch Strauss posed for German theology Following the results of previous research, the task became that of finding the reliable sources upon which a historical reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus could be established, so that a historical basis for Chnstology could be achieved to counter Strauss’s picture of Jesus as only a speculative persomification of the idea of humankind’s divinity This becomes very clear from the mtroduction that Heinrich Julius Holtzmann wrote to his 1863 publication on the Synop- tic Gospels, in which the two-document hypothesis was presented in a comprehensive, definitive way’ Against Strauss, Holtzmann attempted to show that by means of historical criticism an answer can be given to the historical question, “an answer which 1s entirely certam and justified n every way”? The results are well known (1) a renunciation of the Gospel of John as the “speculative” Gospel, which had been preferred by Hegel and the Hegelians, (2) a combination of the theory that the Gospels are dependent ‘on each other with the theory of a pnmutve gospel from which the evan- gelsts got their material mdependently of each other, and therefore that (3) Mark and Q3 are the two sources or documents from which it could be established “who the founder of our religion was in himself, that 1s the true and hfe-hke picture of his character”! This picture, however, was quite ‘HJ Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelen Ihr Ursprung und ihr geachichtlicher Charakter (Leipng Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863) 1-9 ® Ibid, 9 “eine vollkommen gesicherte und nach allen Seiten gerechtfertigte Antwort” 2 ‘Thas sighm was first used by Johannes Weiss, see F Neurynck, “Once More—The Symbol Q ETL 55 (1979) 382f ‘« Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangglien, 1 “Das, was der Stifter unserer Rehgion an sich war, also das achte und naturgetreue Bild semes Wesens, herauszustellen unter Anwendung der allein legitimen Mittel einer gewissenhaften histonschen Kk =~ 5152 Journal of Biblical Literature diminished when compared to traditional Chnstology, which had begun manly with John and not with the Synoptics® So things had changed quite radically, as can be seen by going back only one generation before Holtzmann to Schlerermacher, who, though he has a place in the history of the two-document hypothesis, still used John’s Gospel in The Christian Fasth to present a vernfication of traditional Chnstology from Jesus’ own words* Such a program was, strictly spealang, no longer possible after the emergence of the two-document hypothesis “the true and hfe-lke picture” of Jesus could be found only m Mark and Q— though it could indeed stll be found there. At least in theory a histoncally verfiable Chnstology depended on these two sources, there were no others This made theology independent of metaphysics and Hegehan specula- tion, at the same time, however, it raised the problem of how historical statements about Jesus in the past tense were to relate to chnstological statements which had to be formulated in the present tense. If the histonans can show that Jesus was the Messiah or, in terms of the nineteenth century, that Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah, in which sense 1s he Our Savior? This problem appeared quite dramatically in the dilemma that Albert Schwertzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus left for theology in general and especially for NT exegesis 7 Jesus became a figure of the first century CE, a stranger for modern thinking, an apocalyptic figure, fleemg from modern theology back into his time, disappearing into the must of the Sea of Gahlee. It was a picture that otherwise was obtamed from the Gospel of Matthew, for Schweitzer never accepted the two-document hypothesis The same problem from another point of view can be seen in Adolf Har- nack’s (not yet “von Harnack” at that tme) What +s Christansty?, in which he describes —on the basis of the two-document hypothesis—the essence of Chnistianity (the German ttle Das Wesen des Christentums) as the gospel that Jesus taught This, by the way, was once again directed against Strauss In contrast to Albert Schweitzer, Harnack believed that Jesus, as he was (or as he was reconstructed by historical means), is now binding for Christan theology, not as the content of faith, however, but as its origin “Not the son, * So, eg, Martin Luther in his preface to the Gospel of John praises it, because here we get to know what Jesus said with regard to hus relationship with God * F DE Schletermacher, Der christliche Glaube (1821/22, ed Hermann Peiter, Berlin de Gruyter, 1984) §117-20; idem (2d ed, 1831, ed Martin Redeker, Berlin de Gruyter, 1960) §96-98, Eng The Christian Faith (ed H R MacKintosh and J 'S Stewart, Edinburgh Clark, 1928) §96-98 7 A Schwestzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1913, Ist ed , 1906 under the title Von ‘Reimarus zu Wrede, reprint, Gutersloher Taschenbiicher 77/78, Giitersloh Mohan, 1977), Eng The Quest of the Historical Jesus (London A. & C Black, 1910) * A von Hamack, Das Wesen des Christentums (1900; reprint, Gatersloher Taschenbiicher 227, Gitersloh Mohn, 1977), Eng ‘What 1s Christianity? (3d ed., New York Putnam, London. Willams & Norgate, 1904)Luhrmann Mark and Q 53 but the Father alone belongs to the gospel, as Jesus proclaimed 1; John’s Gospel notwithstanding Thus, in different ways Harnack as well as Schweitzer destroyed tradi- tional Chnstology Both books were translated into Enghsh quite rapidly, and it was against them that Bnitish scholars tned to establish a more moderate solution to the gulf between Chnstology and histoncal research on Jesus’® At least this seems to have been one motivation behind books hke Horae Synopticae of John C Hawhans or Oxford Studtes in the Synoptic Problem, edited by Wilham Sanday in 1911, which led to Burnett Hillman Streeter’s The Four Gospels in 1924, which extended the two-document hypothesis to four documents and favored proto-Luke Amencan scholarship seems to be silent at this early time, but perhaps I do not know enough about 1t So ever since Holtzmann, and largely in opposition to Strauss, to speak about “The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q” has in fact meant nothing less than to raise the question of Chnstology However, nowhere in his voluminous book does Holtzmann give a companson of the two sources and, in opposition to other scholars who held that Q was a source of Mark as well, he insists on ther mutual mdependence, thus making Q something lke the “primitive gospel” Not only in the courts but also particularly for the histonan, the evidence 1s better when it 1s established by the mouth of two witnesses However, the question of mutual dependence or independence remained, and a great deal of the hterature concerned with the relationship between Mark and Q keeps the focus on this question up to the present time?! A final chapter in the source-critical phase can be seen in the contro- versy of Harnack versus Wellhausen’® Both started with the two-document hypothesis and the principle of mutual independence, but disagreed over the alternatives whether Luke or Matthew offered the more onginal text of Q, whether Mark or Q was older than the other Wellhausen concluded that Luke had preserved the better text of Q and that Mark was older than Q, and Harnack argued the contrary Still in the background of the discussion, however, was the simple equation Mark plus Q equals the historical Jesus, the ongin and the content of Chnstiamty for the current day ® Ibid , 92 “Nicht der Sohn sondern allem der Vater gehort in das Evangelium, wie es Jesus verkindgt hat, hinemn” 10 See Robert Morgan, “Giinther Bornkamm m England; in Karche (Fest Gunther Born- kamm, ed Dieter Lahrmann and Georg Strecker; Tibmgen Mohr-Siebeck, 1980) 491-506. 41 Eg, Michel Devisch, “La relation entre lévangile de Marc et le document Q,” in LEvangile selon Mare Tradition et redaction (BETL 34, Leuven Leuven University, Gembloux Dueulot, 1974) 59-91, Wolfgang Schenk, “Der Emnfluss der Logienquelle auf das Markusevan- gehum? ZNW 70 (1978) 141-65 18 A. Hammack, Spriiche und Reden Jesu. Die z1weite Quelle des Matthaus und Lukas (Letpzg Hinrichs, 1907), Eng. The Sayings of Jesus (New York Putnam, London Willams & Norgate, 1908); Julius Wellhausen, Einleitung mn die dres ersten Evangelen (Berlin Reiner, 1905)