“What is metaphorical cannibalism?”
“When people say Jesus was not being literal”
In that case, I engage in “metaphorical cannibalism” here:
I “say Jesus was not being literal” when he said, “if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out.”
Matthew 18:9 (Berean Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And if your eye causes you to sin,
gouge it out and cast _it_ from you;
it is better for you to enter into life one-eyed,
than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire.
A chart in this book illustrates the path that Mark took in compiling his gospel using material from Matthew and Luke:
_A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis 1835-1866: A Contemporary Report Rediscovered_ (1993), 152-153
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
** you do not have permission to see this link **
_One Gospel From Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke_ by David B. Peabody, Allan James McNicol, Lamar Cope
(2002), 426pp.
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
One of the key questions that motivates scholars in New Testament studies is the Synoptic Problem the relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke as they tell roughly the same story about the life and work of Jesus. For years, scholars have argued that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel produced, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed their materials from Mark, and a few additional sources. In Beyond the Impasse of Markan Priority, a follow-up to their Beyond the Q Impasse, David Peabody and his co-authors offer a dissenting voice, and demonstrate why they believe the Gospel of Mark is dependent on Matthew and Luke. While this argument is not a new one, this book provides the first detailed textual analysis to make the point definitively. Pericope by pericope, the authors examine and retell the story or teachings contained therein to highlight the dependence of Markan features on those of Matthew or Luke or both. This retelling is followed by observations that highlight structural, compositional, and thematic features of the pericope. The analysis concludes with a focus on literary details such as Markan additions to the texts of Matthew and Luke, Markan changes to the texts of Matthew and Luke, and evidence of fragmentary preservation of Matthew and Luke in the Markan text.
David B. Peabody is Professor of Religious Studies at Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln. Lamar Cope is Professor of Religious Studies and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Carroll College, Waukesha, Wisconsin. Allan J. McNicol is Professor of New Testament at the Institute of Christian Studies in Austin, Texas.
David you do realize that NT scholarship didn’t end in the 19th century? There has been a ton of work done in the last 30 years on the synoptic problem and the overwhelming consensus among critical scholars is for Markan priority. See Mark Goodacre’s books for example. I’ve been through all that and find the discussion tedious. Maybe you and brenmcg can compare notes and start a thread. The revolution begins here!
“do realize that NT scholarship didn’t end in the 19th century?”
Yes. It’s interesting that Marcan priority got knocked down shortly after it appeared on the scene.
“I’ve been through all that and find the discussion tedious”
Nobody is forcing anybody to discuss it.
Someone other than I brought the topic up in this thread, and I responded to that individual’s query.
“Maybe you and brenmcg can compare notes and start a thread. The revolution begins here!”
Maybe so.
What are the 2 strongest lines of evidence for Marcan priority?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)