mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/14/85)
In article <1074@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >> Gad, the list of reasons one could give to account for the truncation of >> Mark is LONG. The author could have died before finishing it, or the end >> was torn off, or .... One can speculate endlessly, to little purpose. >Ah, but, Charles, it wasn't just stuff left off of the tail end, there was >stuff left off at all points! Can you imagine writing the document and >later saying "WHOOPS! I forgot all about the fact that Jesus' mother was >a virgin and the miracle of the virgin birth. Let me go back and put that >in... AAARRRGH!!!" I tend to doubt that he just forgot. I would tend to >think that he didn't put it in for a reason (didn't happen), and that later >authors of later works DID put it in for another reason (to spruce up the >story---the same way modern authors have to add a required amount of sex and >violence to get their books published, these guys had to add a little miracle >story to get people interested: good words and deeds was NOT enough!). How kind of you, Rich, to demonstrate my point about speculation. Biblical scholars have long noted that Matthew and Luke largely contain the text of Mark. There is also other material shared between Matthew and Luke which is not in Mark; the first modern scholars called this "Q". (I use modern here in the sense of the trend of mainstream scholarship.) This material consists almost entirely of teachings. Depending on how conservative you want to be, dates for Luke and Matthew range up to 80 CE; it is clear however, that the events in Acts all take place before 60 CE. A stylistic quirk in part of Acts indicates that Luke was eyewitness to much of what he tells. Now the curious thing about the birth narratives is that they are widely different, yet they fit together very well. The read, in fact, as if two people from varying perspectives wrote about the same event. The fact that Mark does not include them signifies nothing. The point at which Mark begins is the start of Jesus' ministry, which is a perfectly natural starting point. Again, one can speculate endlessly on why Mark chose to start there instead of at the birth, but it's just idle speculation. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe