Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Gloag rips the Markus Interruptus theory to shreds.
Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (1895)
Paton James Gloag
https://books.google.com/books?id=F8lNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA198
http://www.bookcracker.com/Gloag4.pdf
===========================================
Joseph Waite talks of Mark's familiarity with the Matthew and Peter truths, does not discuss the issue of the reader.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QzEFNxb3vFMC&pg=PA6
Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (1895)
Paton James Gloag
https://books.google.com/books?id=F8lNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA198
http://www.bookcracker.com/Gloag4.pdf
===========================================
Joseph Waite talks of Mark's familiarity with the Matthew and Peter truths, does not discuss the issue of the reader.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QzEFNxb3vFMC&pg=PA6
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Additional writers who use the Galilee verses in Mark as support for the non-authenticity, theorizing a lost ending.
From Tradition to Gospel (1971)
by Martin Dibelius, Bertram Lee Woolf
https://books.google.com/books?id=4OUwdg0zRc4C&pg=PA181
The gospel according to St. Mark: the Greek text with introduction, notes and indices (1905)
Henry Barclay Swete
https://books.google.com/books?id=yiVWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR93
The Resurrection and Modern Thought (1915)
William John Sparrow-Simpson
https://books.google.com/books?id=ueVNAQAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
From Tradition to Gospel (1971)
by Martin Dibelius, Bertram Lee Woolf
https://books.google.com/books?id=4OUwdg0zRc4C&pg=PA181
The gospel according to St. Mark: the Greek text with introduction, notes and indices (1905)
Henry Barclay Swete
https://books.google.com/books?id=yiVWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR93
The Resurrection and Modern Thought (1915)
William John Sparrow-Simpson
https://books.google.com/books?id=ueVNAQAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Mark 16:9 (AV)
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Luke 8:2 (AV)
And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
Mark is using what was reported by Luke.
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Luke 8:2 (AV)
And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
Mark is using what was reported by Luke.
Steven Avery
Administrator
Also from Peter Head, these Luke-Mark connections should be checked:
In relation to content there is a significant issue that the Longer Ending draws upon parallel material in the other Gospels.6 The individual appearance to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9–11) parallels John 20:14–18; the appearance to two people walking in the country (Mark 16:12–13) parallels the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13–35; the appearance to the eleven while reclining (Mark 16:14) parallels Luke 24:36–43; the commissioning (Mark 16:15) parallels Matthew 28:19–20; and the mention of the ascension (Mark 16:19) parallels Luke 24:50–51. This synthesizing feature of the content of the Longer Ending has long been recognized as reflecting a different relationship to the other Gospels than is reflected within Mark’s Gospel.7
In relation to content there is a significant issue that the Longer Ending draws upon parallel material in the other Gospels.6 The individual appearance to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9–11) parallels John 20:14–18; the appearance to two people walking in the country (Mark 16:12–13) parallels the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13–35; the appearance to the eleven while reclining (Mark 16:14) parallels Luke 24:36–43; the commissioning (Mark 16:15) parallels Matthew 28:19–20; and the mention of the ascension (Mark 16:19) parallels Luke 24:50–51. This synthesizing feature of the content of the Longer Ending has long been recognized as reflecting a different relationship to the other Gospels than is reflected within Mark’s Gospel.7
Steven Avery
Administrator
How can Mark 3:17 mention the “sons of thunder” without knowing Luke 9:52-56 ?
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10572
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10572
Steven Avery
Administrator
Mark 16:9-20 - Why Egyptian Scribes Removed It
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6346409181794331060&postID=1667395118155815678
Demian said...
The venerable Bede in his commentary on 1 Peter 5:13, seems to suggest that Mark wrote his gospel during the time of the emperor Claudius and after that was sent to Egypt. If that is correct, then his gospel would have been written no later than 54. Here’s what he says:
“Peter and Mark both came to Rome during the time of the emperor Claudius and Mark himself, having written his Gospel at Rome, was sent to Alexandria. Hence it is gathered that when it is asked where and when Peter wrote this Letter (the 1st letter of Peter), the place was Rome, the time that of Claudius Caesar”
Theophylact is also of the same mind. Here’s what he says in the preface of his commentary to the gospel of Mark:
“The Gospel According to St. Mark was written ten years after the Ascension of Christ. This Mark was a disciple of Peter, whom Peter calls his son, that is, his spiritual son. He was also called John,' and the nephew of Barnabas, and the companion of Paul. But eventually he accompanied Peter the most, and was with him in Rome. The believers in Rome begged Mark not only to preach orally, but also to give them a written account of Christ’s life. He agreed, and composed it immediately. God revealed to Peter that Mark had written this Gospel, and when he saw it, Peter confirmed its truth, and sent Mark as bishop to Egypt. There Mark preached and established the Church in Alexandria, enlightening all those in that sunny land to the south”
PS: Both fathers commented on the gospel of Mark and had in their bibles the long ending of Mark, by the way.
====
Steven Avery
Theophylact is interesting. And I see Theophylact as missing the high priest Theophilus, which makes Luke c. AD 41 rather than late 40s.
Theophylact gives a date in the 60s for John, which feels late, but is possible, it would need its own study.
Plus, Luke preceded Mark, as explained by Ben C. Smith, and I tweaked from a more evangelical perspective.
Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending
http://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/marks-dependence-on-luke-the-end-of-markan-priority-plus-support-for-the-traditional-ending.1308/
As for what most scholars think, that is totally irrelevant. Only a handful will even contemplate the New Testament completed before AD 70. Those early daters are the only scholars really worth considering on this question, imho. (You might allow them to have a late Revelation date, and still consider their writings.) Even writers like eyewitnesses Richard Bauckham are irrelevant on NT dating.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Theophylact of Orhid, who lived in the 11th century
Patristics for Protestants
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pat...4299313743487721/?comment_id=4305064866245942
Richard Leigh
YES! Bl Theophylact said Matthew was written "...eight years after Christ's Ascension....Mark wrote his Gospel ten years after Christ's Ascension, instructed by Peter. Luke wrote his Gospel fifteen years after the Ascension, and John the most wise Theologian, thirty-two years after the Ascension...." That's from Theophylact's Preface to The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chrysostom Press, 1992, Stade, trans. p. 8. I might add that Theophylact is known to have gotten most of his information about the the Holy Scriptures from Chrysostom. Don't know if that's where he got his dates which no serious scholar accepts today.
Steven Avery
www.johnsanidopoulos.com
Here is Theophylact in a nice readable blog.
Casey Perkins
Top contributor
Steven Avery, from Eusebius History of the Church, Book 6, chapter 14:
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.
Patristics for Protestants
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pat...4299313743487721/?comment_id=4305064866245942
Richard Leigh
YES! Bl Theophylact said Matthew was written "...eight years after Christ's Ascension....Mark wrote his Gospel ten years after Christ's Ascension, instructed by Peter. Luke wrote his Gospel fifteen years after the Ascension, and John the most wise Theologian, thirty-two years after the Ascension...." That's from Theophylact's Preface to The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chrysostom Press, 1992, Stade, trans. p. 8. I might add that Theophylact is known to have gotten most of his information about the the Holy Scriptures from Chrysostom. Don't know if that's where he got his dates which no serious scholar accepts today.
Steven Avery
Preface to the Four Gospels by Saint Theophylact
Casey Perkins
Top contributor
Steven Avery, from Eusebius History of the Church, Book 6, chapter 14:
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.
Steven Avery
Administrator
Mark Borrows from Luke-Acts | LukePrimacy.com
The editorial methodology of Mark is evidenced by examining the first chapter and instances of borrowing from other contexts of Luke-Acts throughout Mark.
lukeprimacy.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
Mark borrows from Luke/Acts
lukeprimacy.com
Charles Dunster (includes MacKnight)
Genealogies first
Robert Lindsey
Jerusalem Perspective
Gathercole
Wenham
William Baird
William Reuben Farmer
Michaelis
Lukan priority per Meyer
www.forerunner.com
BVDB
bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com
Facebook
www.facebook.com
PBF
BCHF
IIDB
luk priority not pbf not dunster not bchf not iidb not synoptic-l
Mark Borrows from Luke-Acts | LukePrimacy.com
The editorial methodology of Mark is evidenced by examining the first chapter and instances of borrowing from other contexts of Luke-Acts throughout Mark.
lukeprimacy.com
Charles Dunster (includes MacKnight)
Tracts on St. Luke's Gospel
books.google.com
Tracts on St. Luke's Gospel
books.google.com
Genealogies first
Robert Lindsey
Jerusalem Perspective
Gathercole
Wenham
William Baird
William Reuben Farmer
Michaelis
Lukan priority per Meyer
A New Comprehensive Approach to the Gospels › The Forerunner
www.forerunner.com
BVDB
Bible Versions Disc Board-"Internet Scholars"
This is for Mr. Avery and all frauds like him. http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/11/t ... t-and.html Timothy McGrew on the Internet and Scholarship
bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com
Steven Avery
. Accept that Luke wrote the gospel account to the high priest Theophilus about 41 AD, by far the most sensible dating of Luke. (And Acts about 20 years later.) There were before that time a number...
www.facebook.com
PBF
BCHF
IIDB
luk priority not pbf not dunster not bchf not iidb not synoptic-l
Steven Avery
Administrator
The Canonical Status of the Longer Ending of Mark
Carl B. Bridges
https://www.academia.edu/15227968/The_Canonical_Status_of_the_Longer_Ending_of_Mark
Carl B. Bridges
https://www.academia.edu/15227968/The_Canonical_Status_of_the_Longer_Ending_of_Mark
Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
Administrator
Nicholas Lunn tries to grapple with the priority question of Luke 8:2 and Mark 16:9
p. 357
p. 297-299 also
p. 357-358
Over against the foregoing, what textual evidence can be brought forward that points to the priority of the clause in Luke 8:2? The issue of the information included in the relative clause of Mark 16:9 being applied to Mary at this later reference to her, rather than an earlier one in the Gospel, was dealt with in our discussion of stylistic concerns.69 There it was observed that the same phenomenon occurs respecting a whole range of different biblical characters, including others in the Gospels. For the author’s purposes there is good reason, just noted, why he wished for Mary to be described in this way at this particular point in his narrative.
Aside from an antecedent commitment to the spuriousness of Mark 16:9-20, a close
comparison of linguistic and literary features in the two relative clauses concerning Mary
shows that if anything it is Luke’s version that exhibits elements appearing secondary in
character. The clause is situated in a brief section that is otherwise uniquely Lukan. One
can imagine the writer describing the women who accompanied Jesus and his disciples as
those healed from diseases and demon-possession, and as he lists the first of these, Mary
Magdalene, the clause at the end of Mark, a Gospel which he certainly knew, comes to his
mind. This provides a suitable illustration of the general statement he has just made, so he
borrows the clause, adapting it to his own preferred manner of phraseology seen elsewhere
in his Gospel, and inserts it into his text.
The foregoing does not constitute sure proof, yet over against the reasons given for
the earlier existence of Mark 16:9, little can be said on the basis of language to support the
originality of the Lukan version. In other words, from a linguistic perspective the
indications of priority, slight as they may be, are all unidirectional and any unbiased verdict
must therefore judge the Markan form to be original.
=======================================
p. 354
Obviously the context is different in each case. One depicts a post-resurrection scene, the
other the early stages of Jesus’ ministry. Yet the general meaning of the statement in
question is the same, and the syntactic structure is very similar. Each consists firstly of a
prepositional relative phrase in which the pronoun refers to Mary, attached to this is a
three-word clause comprising a verb denoting the departure of demons and the noun phrase
£jiza Saipovia (“seven demons”). The relationship is sufficiently close to exclude the
possibility of mere coincidental resemblance.
Luke 8:2 has 12 hits total
p. 357
The Original Ending of Mark
Although traditionally accepted by the church down through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete...
books.google.com
p. 297-299 also
p. 357-358
Over against the foregoing, what textual evidence can be brought forward that points to the priority of the clause in Luke 8:2? The issue of the information included in the relative clause of Mark 16:9 being applied to Mary at this later reference to her, rather than an earlier one in the Gospel, was dealt with in our discussion of stylistic concerns.69 There it was observed that the same phenomenon occurs respecting a whole range of different biblical characters, including others in the Gospels. For the author’s purposes there is good reason, just noted, why he wished for Mary to be described in this way at this particular point in his narrative.
Aside from an antecedent commitment to the spuriousness of Mark 16:9-20, a close
comparison of linguistic and literary features in the two relative clauses concerning Mary
shows that if anything it is Luke’s version that exhibits elements appearing secondary in
character. The clause is situated in a brief section that is otherwise uniquely Lukan. One
can imagine the writer describing the women who accompanied Jesus and his disciples as
those healed from diseases and demon-possession, and as he lists the first of these, Mary
Magdalene, the clause at the end of Mark, a Gospel which he certainly knew, comes to his
mind. This provides a suitable illustration of the general statement he has just made, so he
borrows the clause, adapting it to his own preferred manner of phraseology seen elsewhere
in his Gospel, and inserts it into his text.
The foregoing does not constitute sure proof, yet over against the reasons given for
the earlier existence of Mark 16:9, little can be said on the basis of language to support the
originality of the Lukan version. In other words, from a linguistic perspective the
indications of priority, slight as they may be, are all unidirectional and any unbiased verdict
must therefore judge the Markan form to be original.
=======================================
The Original Ending of Mark
Although traditionally accepted by the church down through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete...
books.google.com
p. 354
Obviously the context is different in each case. One depicts a post-resurrection scene, the
other the early stages of Jesus’ ministry. Yet the general meaning of the statement in
question is the same, and the syntactic structure is very similar. Each consists firstly of a
prepositional relative phrase in which the pronoun refers to Mary, attached to this is a
three-word clause comprising a verb denoting the departure of demons and the noun phrase
£jiza Saipovia (“seven demons”). The relationship is sufficiently close to exclude the
possibility of mere coincidental resemblance.
Luke 8:2 has 12 hits total
Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 327 footnote
Luke 8:2 - ἐξεληλύθει - out of whom went seven devils
Mark 16:9 - ἐκβεβλήκει - out of whom he had cast seven devils
95 Luke 8:2 reads: "from whom seven demons had gone out [ἐξεληλύθει]." The
difference in verb makes this less suitable as an allusion to the driving out of the
Canaanite nations. 96. This phrase, as previously stated, is not present in all...
Luke 8:2 - ἐξεληλύθει - out of whom went seven devils
Mark 16:9 - ἐκβεβλήκει - out of whom he had cast seven devils
95 Luke 8:2 reads: "from whom seven demons had gone out [ἐξεληλύθει]." The
difference in verb makes this less suitable as an allusion to the driving out of the
Canaanite nations. 96. This phrase, as previously stated, is not present in all...