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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Who made copies of Mark (was RE: A discussion of the different endings of Mark)

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Glen Jackson
    ... No problem. The nature of these sorts of discussions is to make off-the-cuff responses -- I think we ve both been guilty of that now. :-) To my mind, the
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > I apologize. If you were referring to pericopes in Mk and Mt
      > but not Lk, then I probably didn't read your post closely enough.
      > However, as I believe that Luke used Mt as one of his sources,
      > then for me the reason for Lk omitting them has nothing to do
      > with them not being present in whatever version of Mk that Luke
      > had access to. However, what that reason is, I don't know, and
      > it entails getting inside the mind of Luke to figure it out.

      No problem. The nature of these sorts of discussions is
      to make off-the-cuff responses -- I think we've both been
      guilty of that now. :-)

      To my mind, the great omission, as one poster has referred
      to this block, is just more evidence that Lk did not know
      Mt.

      > I also think that in the early days many people would favor the version
      > written for them, so that Roman Christians would copy Mk even though
      > Mt and Lk contain much more material and are (in our minds) superior
      > as a result.

      But wasn't Lk also written in Rome?

      Another factor may come in to play in the 60's and 70's. Lk and Mt
      were newer and so initially resources would have been diverted
      from making copies of Mk to making copies of Lk and Mt, at
      least until some degree of parity was achieved. The resulting being
      a population of Mk manuscripts aging while Lk and Mt manuscript
      population would of necessity be younger.

      > I think we just interpret the evidence differently.

      Agreed. The real problem being the meagerness of the evidence.

      ><> Jeffrey Glen Jackson, son of Albert, son of George, son of <><
      ><> Henry, son of Miles, son of Randolph, son of Ephraim, son of <><
      ><> Thomas, son of John, son of Thomas, .... sonne of Jack. <><
      mailto:jeff@... http://www.jeff-jackson.com
      "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different
      stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose
      beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens
      a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing
      like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright





      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.