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

11037Re: Re: [XTalk] Mark

Expand Messages
  • DaGoi@aol.com
    Oct 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/07/2 12:28:44 PM, Eric wrote:

      I broadly agree with you in relation to gMt and gLk, but I do have one
      problem with this. Once you propose (quite rightly, IMHO) that aLk knew gMt,
      the problem is not why Q disappeared but why we should think it ever existed
      in the first place. Or this that what you're intending to express by the
      phrase "or Q-like document"? If aLk knew gMt it surely no longer makes much
      sense to reconstruct Q largely on the basis of the double tradition, and
      even if aMt had access to other sources besides gMk (and I would agree with
      you that he probably did), how "Q-like" can we suppose it or they to have

      We still have the problem of the relative dearth of teaching material in
      Mark, that gMk is not at all what it should be, given the amount of teaching
      material (most of which I suppose he would have little problem with) that
      should be around him - suggesting to me that he writes a rider tracate to Q.

      Bill Foley
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic