Re[2]: Q and Papias

>On Thu, 27 Oct 1994, Larry Swain wrote:
>> That depends on whether you see the birth narrative as "tacked on" or as 
>> a piece of the whole cloth of the gospel.  I don't think we can seperate 
>> out the birth story as some sort of detachable prologue, and say that 
>> the "main" gospel to start with shared Markan material.
>What is to prevent us assuming precisely that as a hypothesis?  When I 
>first began textual study I was struck with two strange things--how the 
>main body of text in Matthew and Luke is essentially Markan, and how 
>greatly the chief portions not shared with Mark differ from one 
>another--i.e. the birth stories and the resurrection stories.  It is 
>difficult, in fact, not to think of Mark as the text proper, to which 
>Matthew and Luke have each added prologue and epilogue (as well as much 
>variation within the core text, which indicates an additional source or 
>sources).  This is, of course, an
>oversimplification, but even the mythic nature of the birth stories would 
>seem to argue for a period of elaboration later than that of Mark.
Another alternative is that Mark is a synthesist, a summarizer of gospel 
material.  That seems a much more reasonable approach to me.

Mike Thompson