Sat Apr 6 20:21:48 1996

From majordom  Sat Apr  6 20:21:48 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA05422; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 20:21:48 +0500
Message-Id: <3166AA05.EE6@ucr.campus.mci.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:29:41 +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: 1235
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Carlton L. Winbery wrote:
> 
> 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.

Thanks. I don't mean to continue this discussion and don't expect 
you to, but I should simply add that I would not agree with Farmer 
either. I was just pleasantly surprised to hear of someone espousing 
a non-Markan priority view in recent years.

Grace & Peace to you as well,
Dr. Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

Back