I stand corrected, thank you. I really had no need to refer to the
Farmer-Griesbach theory, and perhaps that's not the best descriptive term
in any case; all I meant to point to was the effect of a view of Matthaean
priority upon the matter of the relationship between the different synoptic
versions of the beast(s) ridden by Jesus in the so-called "triumphal entry."
>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.
Well, I don't like to talk about "incontravertibility," as I find that such
assertions have only a relative lifeline; but I certainly doubt Luke knew
Mt "as a completed writing." But this is NOT the forum for discussion of
the Synoptic Problem. For that we now have a legitimate forum in
Synoptic-L, for information about which interested parties are pointed to:
http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/index.htm
>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).
This is a point well taken. My apologies for the slip.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/