Sat Apr 6 18:43:07 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr  6 18:43:07 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA04990; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:43:07 +0500
Message-Id: <316692E4.13B4@ucr.campus.mci.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 15:51:00 +0000
From: Don Wilkins 
Organization: UC Riverside
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 616
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Carlton L. Winbery wrote:
> W.R. Farmer of SMU several years back published an article arguing for the
> authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.  It's obviously conflate nature fits well
> with the contention that all of Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke.

Carlton, I am very weary of the so-called "assured result" of Marcan 
priority, so it's refreshing to see such a remark as this. Two 
questions: do you agree with this conflation theory (I infer that you 
do), and are there many other textual critics that would agree with 
it? My guess would be no, but I would love to hear otherwise.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

Back