Jim West wrote and Mark Goodacre replied:
Jim West wrote:
> Peculiarly, Mark and Luke agree while Matthew goes his own way.
> question- what is the reason why Mark and Luke include the
> <gk> ef on oudeis oupw anqrwpwn ekaqisen</gk> (n.b.- Luke has
> pwpote </gk> for Matthew's <gk> oupw</gk>. Specifically, if
> and Luke include it as an OT citation, why does Matthew exclude
An interesting question, but what is the OT citation for EF hON
OUDEIS OUPW ANQRWPWN KEKAQIKEN? None is mentioned in
UBS3 or my RSV.
Wouldn't the obvious explanation for Matthew's omission of this
clause be the citation of Zech. 9.9 in Matt. 21.5? He seems to
trying so hard to get Jesus to fulfill this. He insists on ONOS
PWLOS (vv. 2, 5 and 7) in literal fulfilment of Zech. 9.9.
might therefore omit the clause you mention because of his focus
literal fulfilment of Zech. 9.9.
Aren't you both starting from an a priori assumption. If Luke
edited Matthew then all Mark did was follow Luke, as he usually
does for matters of wording. Matthew didn't have it because it
was not part of the tradition as he knew it.
Waukesha, WI 53186