[SNIP]
>Whatever one's preferences regarding
>the Synoptic problem, Matthew's two animals are unique; if one assumes
>Marcan priority, one must suppose that Matthew has added the ass and linked
>it to the prophecy (as seems most likely to me), while Luke has improved
>upon Mark's phrasing but kept Mark's content intact; if, on the other hand,
>one accepts the Farmer-Griesbach view of Matthaean priority, it would
>appear that both Luke and Mark found Matthew's version of the two animals
>awkward enough to dispense with the ass.
This is only a small point, but for the sake of clarity and accuracy, let
me make it. Carl refers to the "Farmer-Griesbach view of Matthaean
priority". Now, Farmer definitely espouses Matthaean priority, holding that
Luke knew and used Matthew's Gospel (in the form or pretty well the form in
which we have it now) in the writing of his Gospel. But Griesbach did not -
repeat, NOT - teach the priority of Matthew. He left completely open the
question of the relationship between Matthew and Luke, and nowhere presents
a clear view about it.
My own conclusion in the matter is that of Markan Dependence, that is, that
Mark was dependent upon three sources, Matthew's Gospel, Luke's Gospel, and
his own knowledge of the teaching of Peter. I believe the evidence is
incontrovertibly against the possibility that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel as
a completed writing.
For the sake of accuracy and clarity, please let us recognize that the
Griesbach hypothesis and the hypothesis of Matthaean priority are NOT THE
SAME THING (capitals = emphasis).
Regards,
Ward
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au
AUSTRALIA.