Re: Re[2]: Q and Papias

• To: Michael_Thompson@housing.ucsd.edu
• Subject: Re: Re[2]: Q and Papias
• From: David Coomler <davidco@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us>
• Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 16:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
• Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
• In-Reply-To: <CC1869875@CCMail.UCSD.Edu>

On Thu, 27 Oct 1994 Michael_Thompson@housing.ucsd.edu wrote:

>      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.


I find that unconvincing in view of how much of Mark is repeated in
Matthew.  There seems no logical reason for leaving out the birth or
resurrection stories, which form major sections of Matthew and Luke.  But
one can easily imagine motives for adding them as Christianity moved
farther away from Judaism and into the Greco-Roman fold.

Davidl

• Re[2]: Q and Papias
• From: Michael_Thompson@housing.ucsd.edu

• Prev: Q and oral tradition
• Next: Re: Q and Papias
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread