Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Critical Notes 321
counted by McIver and Carroll as a 21-word sequence) would be 39 or 40 words if not
for the omission (Matthew) or addition (Luke) of tassovmeno". (It should be noted that
the second 25-word sequence [which McIver and Carroll mistakenly count as a 28-word
sequence] omits the parallelism of tw'n at the end of the sequence. A coincidental use of
the definite article can scarcely be counted as a parallel when the article modifies two
different nouns.) The first 24-word sequence is separated by one Matthean word from a
conjoining sequence of 12 or 18 words (the first 12-word sequence in the chart)—thus
redaction accounts for the dissolution of a sequence of 36, 37, 42, or 43 words. The third
24-word sequence would be 31 words if not for a discrepancy between levgei (Matthew)
and ei\pen (Luke). The second 20-word sequence would be 23 words if not for the discrepancy
in word order: @O lao;" ou|to" (Matthew)/Ou|to" oJ laov" (Luke). The 18-word
(NA 27 )/17-word (Huck [9th ed. = Tischendorf]) sequence would be one of 31, 32, or 33
words if not for the addition (Matthew) or omission (Luke) of ejgwv. The second 16-word
sequence would be 19 or 20 words, if not for the omission (Matthew) or addition (Mark)
of ejavn. (Compare the third 16-word and the first 10-word sequences, which both
expand to 22-word sequences when counting the isogrammatical cognates ejavn
[Matthew, Mark] and a[n [Luke] as agreements.) The 8-word sequence (19 words long
when counting variant forms) would be 17 or 28 words if not for the word-order discrepancy
telwnw'n fivlo" (Matthew)/fivlo" telwnw'n (Luke). The first 6-word sequence in the
chart would be 13 words longer if not for the discrepancy kaiv (Mark)/dev (Luke), regardless
of whether one counts the initial sequence as a 6-, 10-, or 18-word sequential agreement.
Every one of these examples demonstrates how the potential for a longer
sequential agreement can be defeated by an evangelist’s redactional policy.
My point in showing that the sequences could often have been significantly longer
is simply to show that the brevity of these agreements is often due to a redactor’s hand.
Moreover, this same redactor’s hand can be seen in the 16-word sequences that never
were—that is, many more sequences would have made the chart if not for an ill-placed
redactional improvement. For example, if not for the discrepancy of oiJ katesqivonte"
(Mark)/oiJ katesqivousin (Luke)—a discrepancy that is not isogrammatical but is
nonetheless clearly redactional—a sequence of 28 words would be found in Mark
12:28.17–40.14/Luke 20:46.12–20:47.14. As it is, the resulting two sequences are too
short to make the chart. Similarly, a potential 27- or 28-word sequence in Matt 24:34.1–
35.13/Luke 21:32.1–33.13 is spoiled by the addition (Matthew) or omission (Luke) of
tau'ta in the middle of the sequence. These two examples hardly represent isolated
cases—this sort of thing can be observed throughout the Gospels. The absence of a 16word
sequence, therefore, does not mean that the patterns of verbal agreement between
two Gospels at a given point can be characterized as atomistic or that they represent “the
mechanisms of memory.” The evangelists’ redactional policies had the effect of chopping
longer sequences into shorter ones (although that was not their intent), while yet
preserving the marks of direct copying. The placement of their sporadic dictional
improvements should not be taken as an indication that they did not use written sources.
By dividing the evidence into opposing tendencies of scribality and orality, McIver
and Carroll repeat the basic error of Thomas Bergemann’s Q auf dem Prüfstand. 5
5 Thomas Bergemann, Q auf dem Prüfstand: Die Zuordnung des Mt/Lk-Stoffes zu Q am
Beispiel der Bergpredigt (FRLANT 158; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).