At the risk of overexplaining things you already understand: yes, Mark is 'in here too ' in a way because the 17 linguistic elements (which I am calling Mattheanisms because that's what I would argue they are on the best available interpretation of the evidence) do not occur in Mark.If I understand, you made a comparison above between (technically Mark is in here too but I left it out to avoid confusion and reduce the number of options):I think this would be much easier to explain on the Farrer theory: the Mattheanisms were first in Matthew, Luke took them over from Matthew, and the Evangelion has fewer because it doesn't use all of Luke.
In a way, I think that is in itself an argument for Markan priority. I think the Mattheanisms are better explained on the theory that they are additions (whether one accepts that they originated with Matthew or Matthew copied them from Q/Luke and introduced them in additional paces) to Mark rather than Markan omissions. And I do not think you could produce a similar list of 'Markanisms' that are missing from Matthew (and probably not Luke either).
And happy birthday, Peter!
Best,
Ken
Statistics: Posted by Ken Olson — Thu May 01, 2025 2:26 pm
