"Stephen C. Carlson" wrote:
> The variance of reports about Lummis indicates to me
> that Lummis did not squarely address or was non-committal
> on the relationship between Matt. and Mark (much like
> Griesbach's COMMENTATIO's never touching on the relationship
> between Matt. and Luke). I will, however, defer to anyone
> on this list who actually has access to Lummis and can quote
> a definitive statement.

Lummis is clearer on Marcan priority than Neirynck and Hobbs allow, if a
bit diffuse in his exposition; in any case he is wrongly characterized
as Griesbachian or Augustinian. His point of departure is the
"Two-document Theory" as represented by Harnack, Hawkins, and the OXFORD
STUDIES. His preface opens with an approving reference to the
nineteenth-century "[c]ritics who . . . perceived that the phenomena
indicated by F. C. Baur [as evidence of Marcan conflation] could be more
easily explained by regarding Mark as a source for both Matthew and Luke
. . ." (p. v), a conclusion which he judges "a striking success" (vi).
He then proceeds to take issue with 2ST only in regard to the postulate
of Q, summarizing the argument of the book as that "the phenomena of the
non-Marcan coincidences of Matthew and Luke can be explained _only_ on
the assumption that Luke was acquainted with Matthew, and that he
derived his knowledge of the common matter, with slight exceptions, if
any, directly from Matthew, and from Matthew alone" (vii).

His clearest affirmation of Marcan priority: "An attempt must now be
made to discover in the disposition of the Matthaean matter in Lk. some
indication of the method on which it has been selected and connected.
Since the Marcan scheme has provided the general framework both in Mt.
and Lk., we may enquire, in the first place, whether any phenomena can
be found in the arrangement of the Lucan Logia which bring it into
relation with the Marcan framework in Lk" (p. 34).

The passage that Farmer quotes is from pp. 45-46 of Lummis (not 25), and
in context argues not for the Griesbach hypothesis generally but for
Lummis's version of Ur-Marcus, evidence for which is found in the
absence from Luke of some passages extant in our "Corrected Mark." The
suggestion is that the Griesbachian assessment _of such passages_ as
secondary in the extant version of Mark may deserve reconsideration, not
that Griesbach's hypothesis as a whole should be rehabilitated.

In addition to thus complicating his hypothesis with two editions
of Mark, he also posits a two-stage redaction of Luke (first a revision
of Mark and Matthew, later the incorporation of Luke's special material)
and Luke's use of a damaged exemplar of Matthew. He was clearly a
scholar of the documentary era, and to that extent Mark G's
characterization of him as a weaker precursor to Farrer may perhaps be
justified. Nonetheless, his observations concerning order in the Double
Tradition are acute and suggestive, and within the framework of the
scissors-and-paste model he shared with Hawkins, Streeter, et al. his
achievement seems remarkable to me. Regardlesss, his basic postulates of
Marcan priority and Luke's use of both Matthew and Mark distinguish
Lummis as Farrer's clearest precursor.

Jeff