Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11034Re: [XTalk] Mark

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Oct 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Eric Eve wrote:

      > If aLk knew gMt it surely no longer makes much
      >sense to reconstruct Q largely on the basis of the double tradition,

      Eric,

      As I see it, Matthew's additions to Mark can be classified roughly as:
      (a) dozens of short authentic-looking aphorisms
      (b) a few long parables containing Matthean themes and terminology
      (c) narrative which looks like Matthean composition or incredible events
      or both.

      aMt could have composed much of (b) and (c) with minimal dependence on
      non-Markan sources.
      But where did (a) come from?
      Also, where there is an overlap with gMk, how is it that aMt's version
      of an aphorism often looks more primitive than aMk's version?
      Again, how is it that gMt has so many doublets? Many of them could be
      explained easily by aMt's use of two written sources.
      Finally, what did Papias' TA LOGIA refer to?
      It would surely be quite reasonable to postulate a sayings source to
      explain all these questions, and to reconstruct it largely (but not
      almost exclusively as with Q) on the basis of the double tradition
      because that's where most of the aphorisms appear.

      > ..... and even if aMt had access to other sources besides gMk
      > ..... how "Q-like" can we suppose it or they to have been?

      In general it would contain Q's short aphorisms but not its long
      parables or its narratives. Indeed it would look something like, if not
      exactly like, the set of sayings identified in tabular form on:

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQsQ.html

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic