¹ See most recently Stein, R. H., The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1987) 76–83; 131–9;Google ScholarDowning, F. Gerald, ‘Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem’, JBL 107 (1988) 69–85.Google ScholarSee also Tuckett, C. M., The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal, SNTS Monograph Series 44,198.Google Scholar

² Mark's compositional use of Matthew and Luke is not mechanical. It is always an artistic literary achievement. Nor is Mark's use of Matthew and Luke always uniform. In the nature of the case the way Mark uses Matthew and Luke will vary with the circumstances. No one term can adequately describe Mark's compositional activity in all cases, neither conflating, combining, unifying nor blending. And yet all these terms can be useful to the critic in one instance or another. Conflation is a technical term borrowed from text criticism and best describes the way Mark brings together the texts of Matthew and Luke in small meaning–units. The classic study of Thomas, R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study in the Synoptic Problem (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 28; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature, 1977), is especially to be recommended in this regard.Google ScholarBut the term is also used appropriately by Roland, Mushat Frye in his excellent study: ‘The Synoptic Problems and Analogies in Other Literature’ in The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, edited by William, O.Walker, Jr., (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978) 261–302, where he designates as highly typical characteristics of conflated works: (1) alternation between or among Vorlagen; (2) condensation of overall or total length of the Vorlagen; (3) frequent expansion within pericopes, and addition of lively details to provide a fresher and more circumstantial narrative. The present study, like that of the ‘Synoptic Apocalypse’ to appear in the forthcoming volume of papers from the symposium de interrelatione evangeliorum, held in Jerusalem, Israel, in 1984, supplementsnd complements the work of Longstaff and Frye by illustrating in detail the creative manner in which Mark has used a somewhat complex set of parallel texts from Matthew and Luke in composing his own lively and unique account of the Gospel. I am indebted to Chi Nam Choi for bringing to my attention the conflated character of Mark 8. 31–33.Google Scholar

³ Farmer, William R., ‘Luke's Use of Matthew: A Christological Inquiry’, Perkins Journal, XL, 3 (07 1987) 41.Google Scholar

⁴ άπό after a passive verb is a Lucan linguistic usage. Cf. Collison, F. J. G, Linguistic Usages in the Gospel of Luke (University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan) 125. In this instance Mark appears to have followed a more classical linguistic usageGoogle Scholar

⁵ Cf. Peabody, , Mark as Composer (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987) 96, Table 184 and 98, Table 188.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Peabody, , op. cit., 55, Table 69.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Luke's conclusion to this verse: περì; το ῤήματος; τούτου. Collison, N.B., op. cit. 176–7 lists ῤμα as certainly a linguistic usage of Luke. Mark uses ῤμαua once more in 14. 72 where it is parallel to Matt 26. 75 where ῤμα (in the gen.) is found. Its presence in 9. 31 suggests Mark's literary dependence on Luke.Google Scholar

⁸ Collison, op. cit., 74 lists the use of the periphrastic pluperfect in this place as a ‘certain’ linguistic usage of Luke.Google Scholar

⁹ For evidence of the hand of the evangelist in this expansion, cf. Peabody, op. cit., 92, Table 173, who lists Mark 7. 24b as exhibiting the same redactional feature:feature: κί + a negative +ἤθελεν + a form of γινώ;σκ;;ω See also for the Markan use of the imperfect έδίδασκεν Peabody, op. cit., 71, Table 84. For the Marken use of the imperfect έδίασκενwith καì ἔλεγεν αύτοίς; see Peabody, op. cit.,71, Table 115 and 72, Table 116.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (Louvain: University Press, 1972). Cf. Frans Neirynck, ‘Mark in Greek’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses XLVII, 1 1971 173.Google Scholar

¹¹ The use of έν τ όδ is a redactional feature of Mark's text. Cp. Peabody, op. cit., 93, Table 178. Note its use in Matt 20.17. This would suggest Matthew's dependence upon Mark except for the fact that Matthew uses the phrase elsewhere in his text in passages where there is no Marcan parallel. Cp. Matt 5. 25 and 21. 8b. Note also the minor agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the use of this phrase in Matt 21. 8a//Lk 19. 36 where Mark uses είς την όδόν. Mark usesdelta;είς όδόν in 6. 8 and 10.17.Google Scholar

¹² Peabody, op. cit. 56–7, Table 70, cf. 143–4.Google Scholar

¹³ On οί δώ;δεκα used absolutely, see Peabody op. cit., 68, Table 102. Cf. Dennis Gordon Tevis, ‘An Analysis of Words and Phrases Characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew’, S.M.U Ph.D. thesis, 1982, Table 43, regarding Matthew's use of οί δώδεκα μαθητάί αύτο. A few manuscripts read:τόùς δώδεκα μαθηη;αί αύμόin Matt 20. 17. But the majority read: τοùς δώδεκα μαθητάς. The variant reading: τοùς δώδεκα, however, is also strongly attested. Cf. the critical apparatus to The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. In its companion volume: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Metzger, Bruce M. pp. 50–1 it is commented: ‘Although copyists often add the word μαθηταί to the more primitive expression οί δώδεκα… a majority of the Committee judged that the present passage was assimilated to the text of Mark (10. 32) or Luke (18. 31). In order to represent both possibilities it was decided to employ square brackets. The reading with αύτο in several minuscules and versions is clearly a secondary expansion.’Google Scholar

¹⁴ Sinaiticus reads είς θάνατον for θανάτώ for in Matthew 20. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁵ On εỉπεν πρός in Luke, see Collison, op. cit. 140–5.Google Scholar