Sat Apr 6 19:03:11 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr  6 19:03:11 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA05094; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 19:03:11 +0500
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:05:23 +0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery)
Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark
Content-Length: 1026
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Don Wilkens wrote;
>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.
>
Sorry to disappoint you, but I was giving Farmer's view.  He goes back to
the Greisbach thesis which I consider untenable.  There was a time when I
was influenced by Farmer's book, The Synoptic Problem, but I took a year to
work through and translate the triple and double traditions from the Greek
verse by verse.  I am thoroughly convinced that Matthew had a copy of Mark
essentially as we have it.  And also that Matthew and Luke shared some
written sources for at least part of what we call "Q." material.

Grace & Peace,
Carlton Winbery
END

Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu

Back