Spuren von Deuteromarkus. 4 volumes. By Albert Fuchs

In his work on the Synoptic Problem over the course of the last 30 years or so, Albert Fuchs has been a consistent and tireless advocate of the theory that the Matthew–Luke agreements against Mark in triple-tradition passages are to be explained by common use of an edited version of Mark's text...

Descrizione completa

Salvato in:  
Dettagli Bibliografici
Autore principale: Tuckett, Christopher M. 1948- (Autore)
Tipo di documento: Elettronico Review
Lingua:Inglese
Verificare la disponibilità: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Caricamento...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Pubblicazione: Oxford University Press 2008
In: The journal of theological studies
Anno: 2008, Volume: 59, Fascicolo: 2, Pagine: 750-752
Recensione di:Spuren von Deuteromarkus IV (Münster : LIT Verlag, 2004) (Tuckett, Christopher M.)
Spuren von Deuteromarkus III (Münster : LIT Verlag, 2004) (Tuckett, Christopher M.)
Spuren von Deuteromarkus II (Münster : LIT Verlag, 2004) (Tuckett, Christopher M.)
Spuren von Deuteromarkus I (Münster : LIT Verlag, 2004) (Tuckett, Christopher M.)
Spuren von Deuteromarkus ; 4 (Münster : Lit, 2004) (Tuckett, Christopher M.)
Spuren von Deuteromarkus ; 3 (Münster : Lit, 2004) (Tuckett, Christopher M.)
Spuren von Deuteromarkus ; 2 (Münster : Lit, 2004) (Tuckett, Christopher M.)
Spuren von Deuteromarkus ; 1: (Münster : Lit, 2004) (Tuckett, Christopher M.)
Altre parole chiave:B Recensione
Accesso online: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Descrizione
Riepilogo:In his work on the Synoptic Problem over the course of the last 30 years or so, Albert Fuchs has been a consistent and tireless advocate of the theory that the Matthew–Luke agreements against Mark in triple-tradition passages are to be explained by common use of an edited version of Mark's text, a ‘Deuteromarkus’, which is later than the version of Mark which became established as the canonical text of the Gospel. The so-called ‘minor agreements’ have always been something of a thorn in the flesh for any neat, simple version of the Two Source Theory (i.e. Matthew and Luke using what is generally assumed to be all but ‘our’ Mark, as well as ‘Q’). Although they have often been explained in a piecemeal way (e.g.
ISSN:1477-4607
Comprende:Enthalten in: The journal of theological studies
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1093/jts/fln040