Title
A Source Critical Reassessment of the Gospel of Luke: Was Canonical Mark Really Luke's Source?,Used
Sold by Ergodebooks, an authorized reseller.
Returns accepted within 30 days | support@ergodebooks.com
Shipping Information
- Free Standard Shipping — United States only
- Processing Time: 1–3 business days
- Estimated Delivery: 3–5 business days after dispatch
- Double-boxed, fully insured & discreetly packaged
- Tracking number sent via email once dispatched
- Orders over $250 require signature upon delivery. Taxes calculated at checkout.
Returns & Refund
Returns accepted within 30 days of delivery.
Damaged or Defective Item
Free return shipping + replacement or full refund
Wrong Item Received
Free return shipping + replacement or full refund
Change of Mind
Return shipping at customer's expense · 25% restocking fee applies
Payment Option
Dr. Kari Tolppanen argues that the author of the Gospel of Luke did not derive his common material with the Gospel of Mark from canonical Mark. He bases his thesis on three major observations: First, Luke clearly emphasizes certain theological themes in LukeActs, but interestingly, these themes are sometimes missing in Luke's passages while present in Mark's parallel passages. Second, there are significant differences at both macro and micro levels between the Lukan and Markan PassionResurrection sections and their nonPassionResurrection sections, suggesting that Luke did not derive these two blocks of text from the same source. Third, great variation in verbatim agreement levels between Luke and Mark's parallel passages runs against known ancient editorial practices and the human tendency towards consistency in editing. In his conclusion, the author suggests that Luke did not derive his common material with Mark from canonical Mark but from a parallel source. This parallel source and canonical Mark had the same origin but different development histories probably due to the interaction of orality and literacy. This explains the inconsistencies between Luke and Mark.
⚠️ WARNING (California Proposition 65):
This product may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
For more information, please visit www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.