Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark

From: [email-masked] (Carlton L. Winbery)
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:05:23 +0400

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
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Don Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 17:29:41 +0000

> 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