John C. Poirier wrote:
That grammar school teacher (whether hes the one
named by E. A. Abbott or someone else) would be wrong.
If A and C agree in order only where they also agree
with B, then that does *not* prove (or make it easier
to suppose) that they A and C depend upon B. It is as
I stated in my previous post: A could be first, then
B, and then C, in which case (if C doesnt know A
directly) C could only possibly agree with A where A
and C both agree with B. Likewise, C could be first,
then B, then A. Or yet again, B could be first, and
used independently by A and C, and the same pattern of
agreement would obtain. (If you dont believe my
logic, just work it out on paper.)
Lets look at it closer.
"If A and C agree in order only where they also agree
with B, then that does not prove (or make it easier to
suppose) that A and C depend upon B."
This is logical but not the case in the Synoptics.
Your initial premise is wrong. A and C do agree in
order, in places where B is uninvolved. They also
disagree in order where Mark is not involved therefore
our dilemma is that A and C both follow the order of
Mark where Mark IS involved indicating that when Mark
is involved A and C are copying his order not to
mention a large amount of his content.
Matthew 11 20 27 Luke 10:13:22 would be an example
of A and C sharing the same order.
Rick Richmond rickr2889@...
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page