Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:34:57.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

R. G. Heard on Q and Mark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

C. F. D. Moule  and
A. M. G. Stephenson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , November 1955 , pp. 114 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. ‘The άπομνημονεύματα in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus’, posthumously published in New Testament Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 122 ff.

1 Here Heard is reviving a theory condemned in the strongest terms by Westcott (The Canon, pp. 74f.). But his account of how the tradition of Marcan authorship arose remains worthy of consideration. Cf. the article cited above, p. 115 n. I.

2 Heard discusses the problems attaching to the passage in Trypho. But in any case, is there any reason to assume that merely because the incident alluded to by Justin occurs only in our Mark, it was by Justin's time already attributed to Mark?

3 The Four Gospels, pp. 286, 292.Google Scholar

4 The Sayings of Jesus, p. 228.Google Scholar

1 Note that, whereas Heard holds (with the Proto-Luke theory) that Luke does not conflate Q with Mark, Creed's St Luke makes out a case to the contrary, in regard to Luke's account of the Baptism (pp. lviii, 47) and his introduction to the Temptation narrative (p. 61).