Re: Q and Papias
Alternatively, Mark may have seen no need to repeat what Matthew had
already written. One of Mark's objectives seems to have been brevity
so a LOT of material was left out. I don't think the fact that
because a pericope of group of pericopes is in or out of a particular
gospel is a sign of anything other than that the author carefully
chose his material to fit his own particular purpose.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Q and Papias
Author: firstname.lastname@example.org at @UCSD
Date: 10/27/94 11:31 AM
On Thu, 27 Oct 1994 Michael_Thompson@housing.ucsd.edu wrote:
> I agree and go a step further. I may be naive, but I feel that
> assumption of a Matthean priority in the writing of the gospels goes a
> long way to plugging a lot of the Q holes (as it were). I believe
> that is Farmer's position isn't it?
Does no one have a problem with the "birth story" tacked on to the
beginning of Matthew? The "core" text of Matthew begins exactly where
Mark begins--with the appearance of John the Baptist. Whatever one's view of
the nature of Q, the lack of such a birth story in Mark would seem further
evidence of Mark's priority--as is, possibly, the lack of a genuine
"resurrection" postscript in Mark.
>-- Saved internet headers (useful for debugging)
>Received: from nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us by ucsd.edu; id LAA16111 sendmail 8.
>Received: by nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us (4.1/1.34) id AA29382; Thu, 27 Oct 94
>Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 11:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
>From: David Coomler <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Q and Papias
>Cc: B-Greek@virginia.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>X-CCaddr: To: michael thompson AT housing
>X-CCaddr: *Cc: B-Greek@virginia.edu at @UCSD