Re: Beast(s) ridden by Jesus (was: Re: EI = Since)

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Mon Jun 01 1998 - 11:02:56 EDT

At 9:55 AM -0400 6/01/98, Ward Powers wrote:
>At 05:53 98/06/01 -0400, Carl Conrad wrote:
>>Whatever one's preferences regarding
>>the Synoptic problem, Matthew's two animals are unique; if one assumes
>>Marcan priority, one must suppose that Matthew has added the ass and linked
>>it to the prophecy (as seems most likely to me), while Luke has improved
>>upon Mark's phrasing but kept Mark's content intact; if, on the other hand,
>>one accepts the Farmer-Griesbach view of Matthaean priority, it would
>>appear that both Luke and Mark found Matthew's version of the two animals
>>awkward enough to dispense with the ass.
>This is only a small point, but for the sake of clarity and accuracy, let
>me make it. Carl refers to the "Farmer-Griesbach view of Matthaean
>priority". Now, Farmer definitely espouses Matthaean priority, holding that
>Luke knew and used Matthew's Gospel (in the form or pretty well the form in
>which we have it now) in the writing of his Gospel. But Griesbach did not -
>repeat, NOT - teach the priority of Matthew. He left completely open the
>question of the relationship between Matthew and Luke, and nowhere presents
>a clear view about it.

I stand corrected, thank you. I really had no need to refer to the
Farmer-Griesbach theory, and perhaps that's not the best descriptive term
in any case; all I meant to point to was the effect of a view of Matthaean
priority upon the matter of the relationship between the different synoptic
versions of the beast(s) ridden by Jesus in the so-called "triumphal entry."

>My own conclusion in the matter is that of Markan Dependence, that is, that
>Mark was dependent upon three sources, Matthew's Gospel, Luke's Gospel, and
>his own knowledge of the teaching of Peter. I believe the evidence is
>incontrovertibly against the possibility that Luke knew Matthew's Gospel as
>a completed writing.

Well, I don't like to talk about "incontravertibility," as I find that such
assertions have only a relative lifeline; but I certainly doubt Luke knew
Mt "as a completed writing." But this is NOT the forum for discussion of
the Synoptic Problem. For that we now have a legitimate forum in
Synoptic-L, for information about which interested parties are pointed to:

>For the sake of accuracy and clarity, please let us recognize that the
>Griesbach hypothesis and the hypothesis of Matthaean priority are NOT THE
>SAME THING (capitals = emphasis).

This is a point well taken. My apologies for the slip.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:45 EDT