I was recently reading Michael J. Cook, MARK'S TREATMENT OF THE
JEWISH LEADERS, (Suppl. Nov. Test. LI) (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978),
and was pleasantly surprised to find out that he endorsed the
On page 3, note 2, he writes "At this juncture, we indicate our
belief that Luke depended on Matthew as well as Mark. While
this matter is somewhat peripheral to our major concerns, it does
surface occasionally. The analysis penned several decades ago
by M. S. Enslin merits citation at length:" Cook went on to cite
A. M. Farrer (1955) and S. Petrie (1959).
Cook's monograph is devoted though to a redaction critical analysis
of Mark, finding at least three different sources based on how the
enemies of Jesus are titled. He noted that there were two mostly
disjoint sets of opponents: Chief priests+scribes+elders and
Pharisees+Herodians, and then proposes that this is due to the use
of different sources. I suppose this kind of theorizing goes
against Goulder's grains.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35