Re: Mk 11:2
- At 02:07 PM 6/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Jim West wrote and Mark Goodacre replied:[snipped- seen already]
>Yes, indeed. My presumption is that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke, who
>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
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.
Jim West, ThD
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
Adjunct Professor of Bible,
Quartz Hill School of Theology
- 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 thephrase
> <gk> ef on oudeis oupw anqrwpwn ekaqisen</gk> (n.b.- Luke has<gk>
> pwpote </gk> for Matthew's <gk> oupw</gk>. Specifically, ifMark
> and Luke include it as an OT citation, why does Matthew excludeit?
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