This leaves only the story of the rich man, which is the most interesting of the five because (1) GHeb’s
reading is in many ways more primitive than Mark’s; (2) Matthew seems to reflect the GHeb reading at a few points; and (3) Luke’s arrangement of his material may suggest his awareness that Q contained this story. Let us consider these points in order. First, looking at the handout [last page of this pdf], we can see that the GHeb version is shorter than the Markan version and is missing several secondary elements that are found in the Gospel of Mark.
1. In Line B, whereas in Matthew, Mark, and Luke the man addresses Jesus as “teacher” or “good teacher,” in GHeb he addresses him as Lord. This difference is exactly what we would expect if Matthew and Luke are following Mark here but there is a parallel in Q. In Mark, Jesus is addressed with the vocative διδάσκαλε ten times (4:38; 9:17, 38; 10:17, 20, 35; 12:14, 19, 32; 13:1) but with the vocative κύριεonly once (7:28). In CritEd, we never see the vocative διδάσκαλε, but κύριε is used nine times (Q 6:46 [2x]; 7:6; 9:59; 10:21; 13:25; 19:16, 18, 20).
2. In Line D, Mark and Luke have Jesus respond to the man calling him good, and Matthew even preserves this line but rewords it since Matthew did not have Jesus addressed as “good teacher.” GHeb omits this entirely.
3. Line E: Whereas Mark has, “You know the commandments,” GHeb has, “Man, do the Law and the Prophets.” The word ἐντολή occurs six times in Mark and never in the double tradition, whereas the expression “the Law and the Prophets” occurs in Q 16:16, but never in Mark. The word ποιέω, found here in GHeb but not in Mark, is also a characteristic Q word. So we are seeing that the differences between the GHeb version and the Markan version are characteristic differences between Q and Mark.
4. GHeb does not list the commandments as Matthew, Mark, and Luke did (Line F).
5. GHeb and Mark are similar on Jesus’ response to the man in Lines I–L, but Mark includes the
words “you will have treasure in heaven,” whereas GHeb does not (Line K). The fact that there is a separate saying about storing up treasures in heaven in Q 12:33 suggests that Mark has merged together two sayings that were originally separate, whereas GHeb preserves these two sayings as being distinct.
6.At Line N, we find a place where Mark is more primitive than GHeb. Interestingly the language here is very Q-like. “Sons of Abraham” recalls Q 3:8 and several Lukan verses that are in my more expansive Q (Luke 13:16; 16:19-30; 19:9), and the condemnation of the rich man is similar to that in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which is also in my more expansive Q.
7. Jesus “turning” to Simon (Line O) is significant, for we see this in the Lukan version of three double tradition passages, where Jesus addresses one audience, we find the word στραφεíς, and then Jesus addresses another audience (Luke 7:9; 10:23; 14:25).
8. In Line Q we see the amazement of the disciples in Mark but not in GHeb. This is, of course, a Markan theme (Mark 1:27; 2:12; 5:20, 42; 6:51; 9:15; 10:24, 32; 12:17; 15:5), and so it would not be surprising if Mark has added it to his tradition. Once again, GHeb is more primitive than Mark.
9. In Line S, GHeb is also more primitive than Mark in using the Semitic expression “kingdom of heaven” rather than “kingdom of God.” Matthew surprisingly agrees with Mark on the latter expression here, so it cannot be said that GHeb has picked this up from Matthew.
10. GHeb appears to be missing the equivalent of Mark 10:26-31 (Lines T–W), which Collins argues is Markan elaboration on the original saying that ended with verse 25, where GHeb appears to end. This is striking evidence that GHeb gives us an independent version of this story, and we have already seen that some of the language in this version represents the language of Q. We should also note that some of the ways Matthew edits Mark’s text suggests his awareness of this version.
1. In Line B, Matthew agrees with GHeb against Mark and Luke in speaking of doing good rather than in referring to Jesus as “good” and in omitting the word “inherit.”
2. In Line E Matthew may have been influenced to change Mark’s “You know the commandments”to “Keep the commandments” on the basis of GHeb, which says, “Man, do the law and the prophets.”
3. Most importantly, in Line F, Matthew adds the love command to Mark’s list of commandments.Matthew may be influenced here by the presence of this command in Line N of GHeb (this is the only commandment given in the GHeb version). It is more likely that Matthew has moved the commandment up to Line F to place it with the list of commandments in Mark’s version than that the author of GHeb has seen Matthew’s version, decided to remove from Matthew theMarkan list, but kept Matthew’s one redactional commandment and moved it to a different location in the passage. Matthew here is merging Mark and GHeb.
So we have seen that the GHeb version is independent of Mark. We have also seen evidence that Matthew’s changes to Mark were inspired by the GHeb version. Unlike Matthew, Luke does not tend to conflate his sources, so it is not surprising that GHeb leaves less of a trace on Luke, but in the longer version of my paper I argue that Luke’s switching of sources here suggests his knowledge of this Mark-Q overlap and that there is good reason based on the outline of Q to think that Q contained this story here.
So having considered the five triple tradition passages in GHeb, we have seen that there is no reason to think they could not have been in Q, and there is very much reason to think that in the story of Jesus’ encounter with the rich man we have a Mark-Q overlap.
https://www.academia.edu/34193339/What_ ... rews_Was_Q