Re: Q and Papias

> That does not seem likely in view of the crudity of Mark's language and
> the implications of some of his terms--one has to explain why Mark would
> choose less elegant and in some cases more embarassing language; but it makes
> sense if one views it as Matthew's "upgrading" of Mark.
> David

But according to the other theory that is just the point-Mark's lack of 
Greek ability is not indicative of his priority.  Your statement assumes 
that the abilities of the authors are evenly matched, and therefore it 
makes no sense.  But if we use Farmer (and personally I don't), then the 
abilities of the authors is not equal, and so if Mark is using Matthew, 
his use of Matthew is going to be conditioned on his ability to cut and 
paste into his own work.  If that ability is puerile, then the result is 


Follow-Ups: References: