Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS
§12.5
tells us two things. First that Jesus was remembered as speaking on the subject
on several occasions. And second, that an early reflex among the groups of his
followers and the early churches was to gather such sayings into an appropriate
sequence, no doubt as an aid to more effective teaching and apologetic. 351
1. Beelzebul
Theme
2. Finger/Spirit of God
3. Strong man
4. He who is not with me
5. Unforgivable sin
6. Return of the unclean spirit
Mark
3.22-26
3.27
3,28-29
Matt. 12.24-26
Matt. 12.27-28
Matt. 12.29
Matt. 12.30
Matt. 12.31-32
Matt. 12.43-45
Q
Luke 11.15, 17-18
Luke 11.19-20
Luke 11.21-22
Luke 11.23
Luke 12.10
Luke 11.24-26
Here are two sets of sayings, one with three sayings (Mark), the other with six
(Q/Luke), of which only two, (1) and (3), overlap in that sequence. Both the
groupings and their diversity typify the process of oral transmission. In particular
we might note that there was evidently a Q form of the first (1), as well as
the Markan form; the two versions were evidently very close, though not identical.
And Luke knows a version (Q?) of the strong man saying (3 — Luke
11.21-22) which has hardly any verbal contact with Mark 3.27 but makes the
same point; if Luke 11.21-22 did indeed follow Q, 352 then Matthew chose to
follow Mark. 353 At this stage we need consider only the first three items of the
sequence (1-3). 354
351. See also Schröter, Erinnerung 289-91. In arguing that Mark must have known and
edited Q, H. T. Fleddermann, 'Mark's Use of Q: The Beelezebul Controversy and the Cross
Saying', in M. Labahn and A. Schmidt, eds., Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus audits
Earliest Records (JSNTS 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), conceives the interrelations
of the traditions in too narrowly literary terms
352. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels 92; Robinson/Hoffmann/Kloppenborg, Critical Edition
234-35, but with little confidence. Meier argues that Mark's form is 'more primitive' (Marginal
Jew 2.417-18); the idea of 'binding' evil (Mark/Matthew) is certainly more traditionally Jewish
(see above, n. 79) than Luke's less distinctively Jewish version, but Luke's version is perhaps
modelled with allusion to Isa. 49.24-25; so here again we should probably be content to talk of
performance variants where only the theme itself has been held constant.
353. It is worth noting that Thomas has a version of only the third (3) in the above collection
and clearly reflects the Mark 3.27 version rather than Luke 11.21-22 {GTh 35).
354. On (5) see below, §16.4b(3).
456