[XTalk] Re: Independent editing of Mark (was: Kingdom come)
- On 30 Sep 99, at 8:46, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
> First, a general observation: literary dependence of one author on theNote also, though, that in the transfiguration pericope as a whole there
> text of another cannot be proven simply by the fact that they mention the
> same detail. It can only be established by sustained similarities in
> structure & wording. This is not the case with the Matthean & Lukan
> transfiguration stories. The only non-Markan words that Matt & Luke share
> in parallel to Mark 9:2-3 are "his face" & these are not even in the same
> case [Matt: TON PROSWPON AUTOU (accusative), Luke: TON EIDOS (not in
> either Matt or Mark) TOU PROSWPOU AUTOU (genitive)]. The common detail of
> the altered facial appearance is therefore the result of oral recollection
> rather than textual dependence, as you rightly note.
are several interesting Minor Agreements. Goulder lists six (_Luke_,
pp. 442-445), none of which on their own are particularly impressive,
but cumulatively -- as so often -- tilt the balance in favour of the
theory that Luke is redacting Mark in the light of remeniscence of
Matthew's version of Mark.
There is a discussion of the MA above in the first Neirycnk
_Evangelica_ volume (1982).
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
The New Testament Gateway
Mark Without Q
Aseneth Home Page