If Secret Mark Were Authentic Would that Make the Case for Q Stronger?

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:20 pm

Just wondering.

Post by **andrewcriddle** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:10 am

One possible solution to the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (emphasised by Q sceptics) is that the version of Mark used by Matthew and Luke differed from canonical Mark. If secret Mark were authentic it might in principle be relevant to this issue.

Andrew Criddle

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:36 pm

You earned a thank you in my new book for this and everything else you've done. Highlight of your life I'm sure. But thank you anyway.

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:50 am

I think I am going to have to credit Ken Olson too. None of this would have been possible without him. I am sure he will be even more thrilled with this credit.

davidmartin · Post by **davidmartin** » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:32 pm

I guess this support for the authenticity of secret mark has been commented on here?

first time i heard of it
https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011 ... n-forgery/

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

If Secret Mark Were Authentic Would that Make the Case for Q Stronger?

If Secret Mark Were Authentic Would that Make the Case for Q Stronger?

Re: If Secret Mark Were Authentic Would that Make the Case for Q Stronger?

Re: If Secret Mark Were Authentic Would that Make the Case for Q Stronger?

Re: If Secret Mark Were Authentic Would that Make the Case for Q Stronger?

Re: If Secret Mark Were Authentic Would that Make the Case for Q Stronger?