The conclusion of the book:
(p. 196, my bold)
I don't trust Doole when he minimizes the rivarly between "Luke" and "an other on the market" as a mere commercial rivarly, when really the clash was strongly theological about the identity of the father of Jesus (if the alien or YHWH).
Yet, even so, he has well clear in mind the difference between the perfect continuity between Mark and Matthew and the "discontinuity" (to use an euphemism) between, for example, Mark and John.
In producing a new edition he does not, as Luke and John, envisage his gospel as yet an other on the market. He wrote what he considered the definitive account of Jesus’ teaching (πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάµην ὑµῖν, Mt 28:20). Matthew is a loyal tradent of the Markan tradition, and Mark is Matthew’s tradition. This new edition of Mark was thus an affirmation of its central position in the Christian movement.
(p. 196, my bold)
I don't trust Doole when he minimizes the rivarly between "Luke" and "an other on the market" as a mere commercial rivarly, when really the clash was strongly theological about the identity of the father of Jesus (if the alien or YHWH).
Yet, even so, he has well clear in mind the difference between the perfect continuity between Mark and Matthew and the "discontinuity" (to use an euphemism) between, for example, Mark and John.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Sun Oct 27, 2024 10:59 am