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

Mk 11:25-26

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Back in 2001 on Synoptic-L Mark Goodacre asked the following question: Does anyone happen to know of an account of why Mark omitted the Lord s Prayer on the
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 6, 2013

      Back in 2001 on Synoptic-L Mark Goodacre asked the following question: “Does anyone happen to know of an account of why Mark omitted the Lord's Prayer on the assumption of the Griesbach hypothesis?” I can see a reply from Brian Wilson, but nothing else. As I’m not quite sure that ‘omitted’ is the correct word here (I see Mk 11:25a and 11:25b-26 as the ‘bookends’ into which the rest of the LP in Mt was inserted) can I please ask whether we have any more answers to the question today. A related question is: Why does Mt contain a parallel to Mk 11:25b-26, but Lk does not? Any thoughts much appreciated.

       

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

       

      P.S. Still finding my way around Yahoo’s new format. Hope you are all making progress too.

    • David Mealand
      If assumption 1 is Griesbach, and Mat & Lk both have LP, then why is its absence in Mark not to be classified as omission by a Griesbachian? What is the status
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 8, 2013
        If assumption 1 is Griesbach, and Mat & Lk
        both have LP, then why is its absence in Mark
        not to be classified as omission by a Griesbachian?

        What is the status of the mss. variation at Mk 11.26?
        Is it still thought that its absence from several text-types
        makes it likely to be a slightly loose assimilation to
        Matthew?

        Can't offer any fresh info on any defences of Griesbach
        on this issue. Has Synoptic actually got a resident
        Griesbachian?

        What is wrong with the view that Matthew arranges
        much of this kind of material topically, and if he has
        two versions he conflates them, whereas Luke tends not to
        conflate two versions but to omit one in one place, and
        use the other in the other sequence? Neither of these
        is an absolute rule, but each does seem to be a tendency
        of the given author/editor. Would such a view not fit with
        what Mat & Lk do with LP and with Mk 11.25? But perhaps
        asking such a question might open the floodgates ...

        David M.


        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.