At best, the Minor Agreements can only show Lukes subsidiary dependence on Matthew in triple tradition passages. Surely, by analogy, they can at best only show Lukes subsidiary dependence on Matthew in Q material?
Q: Surely the Minor Agreements can be explained by appeal to the notion of an earlier edition of Mark. Could not Matthew and Luke have used this “Ur-Marcus” rather than our Mark? The difficulty with this notion is that the Minor Agreements seem, on the whole, to be secondary to Mark. In other words, it is much easier to explain the difficult Minor Agreements as resulting from Luke’s use of Matthew than it is to explain them as witnessing to an earlier version of Mark. Although the idea of an “Ur-Marcus” was once commonplace, it now has few defenders. Q: What then of a deutero-Markus? Could the idea that Matthew and Luke used a revised edition of Mark explain the Minor Agreements? This position is currently defended with vigour by the Austrian scholar Albert Fuchs. Deutero-Markus, an attempt to save the hypothetical Q by the invention of a second hypothetical document, is valuable in that it takes the Minor Agreements seriously and acknowledges that they cause a problem for the classic
Related Questions
- At best, the Minor Agreements can only show Lukes subsidiary dependence on Matthew in triple tradition passages. Surely, by analogy, they can at best only show Lukes subsidiary dependence on Matthew in Q material?
- If Luke knew Matthew, why does he never use Matthews additions to Mark in triple tradition material?
- Where to buy Depade Alcohol Dependence Treatment best deals shipped international (worldwide)?
