Mon Apr 8 11:31:34 1996

From majordom  Mon Apr  8 11:31:34 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10872; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:31:34 +0500
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:28:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism
In-Reply-To: <9604081359.AA01366@osf1.gmu.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1148
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:

> Richard K. Moore wrote:

> >Let us not forget, however, that by their own admission, one of the
> >principles guiding the editors of the NA26/NA27 text in the decisions they
> >took for the Gospels was a commitment to Marcan priority.
> 
> I'm curious to know whether Markan priority affected the determination any
> particular reading.  Does anyone have an example?

The modern critical texts will have a tendency to claim more
harmonizations of Mark to Matthew, which are attributed to a presumption 
of Markan priority as well as to the fact that Matthew was the most 
popular gospel in the early church.  The real reflection of the Markan 
hypothesis would be seen in their internal evidence decision to follow a 
non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents 
itself.


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back