Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark & Q -- Separated at Birth?
- Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
What is curious to me, however, is that the same evidence is used
by some scholars, e.g. Streeter (1924), Ehrman (199), and also
Kloppenborg Verbin (2000) [I'm sure I can line up more], to argue
for Markan priority. I'm having a hard time seeing it.
I guess I would start by looking at a simpler case.
1) Matthew and Luke contained exact copies of Mark, in Mark's order.
2) And suppose both contained additions to Mark's material.
Although some of the added material was the same, much of it was unique,
and none of it was placed in the same place in Markian context.
It would seem that of the 3 documents, the one without the added material
jumps out as being the basic starting document.
One alternative possibility would be for one of the larger documents (say
Matthew) to be first.
(Mt => Mk => Lk)
But then the actions of Mark seem somewhat odd, although one could make
some arguments for why it might have been done, and the actions of Luke,
If Luke had access to Matthew and Mark why didn't he leave the parts of
Matthew that he liked, where they were?
GH Mark does not look unreasonable from this 30,000 foot view. Its major
problems seem to lie in the details. But GH Luke certainly did some odd
manipulation of the document.
So, while the argument does not exclude authors that could have possibly
done some more complex things, it certainly suggests the simplest solution
is that each author independently added his own new material.
If we drop my initial suppositions, nothing about the real big picture
seems to argue against what the simplified version would suggest happened.
3 sources almost always agree on the content of Mark, and 2 or 3 sources
almost always agree on the order of Mark. The order of the other material
is almost never attested to by more than 1 source, and the content only by
1 or 2.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...