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?
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 form of the Two-Source Theory. However, one has to point to the implausibility that this deutero-Markus, though influential enough to have found its way independently to both Matthew and Luke, was not apparently influential enough to supplant our Mark. Our only witness to its existence is the phenomenon of the minor and major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, and these are more simply and plausibly explained by the theory of Luke’s knowledge of Matthew. But Fuchs’s theory is half-right. Deutero-Markus was used by Luke, and we are able
Related Questions
- 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?
- Surely the problem for the case against Q is that the Minor Agreements are just that, so minor?
- Surely there must be a right of appeal against a Penalty Charge notice?
