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

Re: Mk 11:2

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... [snipped- seen already] ... Yes, indeed. My presumption is that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke, who also used Q. Your scenario requires this order:
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 23, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 02:07 PM 6/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
      >Jim West wrote and Mark Goodacre replied:
      >
      [snipped- seen already]
      >
      >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.
      >************
      >Lamar Cope
      >Carroll College
      >Waukesha, WI 53186
      >lcope@...
      >***********

      Yes, indeed. My presumption is that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke, who
      also used Q. Your scenario requires this order:

      Matthew > Luke > Mark.

      I find this virtually impossible. Such a truncated Mark, who abandoned a
      lot of tradition if he used Matt or Luke, raises more problems than it solves.

      Best,

      Jim

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Jim West, ThD
      Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
      Adjunct Professor of Bible,
      Quartz Hill School of Theology
      jwest@...
    • Lamar Cope
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 23, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim West wrote and Mark Goodacre replied:

        Jim West wrote:

        > Peculiarly, Mark and Luke agree while Matthew goes his own way.
        My
        > question- what is the reason why Mark and Luke include the
        phrase
        > <gk> ef on oudeis oupw anqrwpwn ekaqisen</gk> (n.b.- Luke has
        <gk>
        > pwpote </gk> for Matthew's <gk> oupw</gk>. Specifically, if
        Mark
        > and Luke include it as an OT citation, why does Matthew exclude
        it?

        An interesting question, but what is the OT citation for EF hON
        OUDEIS OUPW ANQRWPWN KEKAQIKEN? None is mentioned in
        Huck-Greeven or
        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
        be
        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.
        Matthew
        might therefore omit the clause you mention because of his focus
        on
        literal fulfilment of Zech. 9.9.

        Mark

        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.
        ************
        Lamar Cope
        Carroll College
        Waukesha, WI 53186
        lcope@...
        ***********
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.