Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mt/Lk agreements in order against Mk

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    ... Since nobody answered I take it that a) nobody is interested in this or b) nobody has the time to answer or c) nobody knows any major agreements in
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 1 12:07 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      About 3 weeks ago I wrote:

      > Mark Goodacre in his FAQ writes:
      > http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/faq.htm
      > "Matthew and Luke do have major agreements between each
      > other against Mark, in both wording and order."
      > Where are the "major agreements in order" of Mt and Lk
      > against Mk?


      Since nobody answered I take it that
      a) nobody is interested in this or
      b) nobody has the time to answer or
      c) nobody knows any "major agreements in order".

      I think it comes down to the definition of "major" here. I would take "major" as "pericope level". On that level I cannot see any "major agreements in order".

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... This was discussed in E. P. Sanders, The Argument from Order and the Relationship Between Matthew and Like, New Testament Studies 15 (1968-69): 249-61;
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 1 5:04 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 09:07 AM 8/1/2005 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
        >About 3 weeks ago I wrote:
        >
        >> Mark Goodacre in his FAQ writes:
        >> http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/faq.htm
        >> "Matthew and Luke do have major agreements between each
        >> other against Mark, in both wording and order."
        >> Where are the "major agreements in order" of Mt and Lk
        >> against Mk?
        >
        >
        >Since nobody answered I take it that
        >a) nobody is interested in this or
        >b) nobody has the time to answer or
        >c) nobody knows any "major agreements in order".
        >
        >I think it comes down to the definition of "major" here. I would take
        >"major" as "pericope level". On that level I cannot see any "major
        >agreements in order".

        This was discussed in E. P. Sanders, "The Argument from Order and
        the Relationship Between Matthew and Like," New Testament Studies 15
        (1968-69): 249-61; repr. in Two-Source Hypothesis (<http://www.mindspring.com/%7Escarlson/synopt/catalog.htm#Bellinzoni%201985>Bellinzoni 1985: 409-25).

        Stephen Carlson

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
        Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
      • Wieland Willker
        ... I have read the article now and have to conclude that there are NO major agreements in order of Mt and Lk against Mk. Sanders lists four instances, all
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 2 11:11 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > >> Where are the "major agreements in order" of Mt and Lk
          > >> against Mk?
          >
          > This was discussed in E. P. Sanders, "The Argument from
          > Order and the Relationship Between Matthew and Like," New
          > Testament Studies 15 (1968-69): 249-61


          I have read the article now and have to conclude that there are NO
          "major agreements in order" of Mt and Lk against Mk.
          Sanders lists four instances, all consist of only one verse. But three
          of them are from Mark/Q overlap, so it is possible that they are not
          from Mk. We are therefore left with only one single verse (Mt 3:2/Lk
          3:3), where both place John's call to repentance before the Isaiah
          quotation, while Mk places it after.
          I don't think that one can build anything on this.

          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
          ------------------------------------------------
          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          Textcritical commentary:
          http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... The difficulty here is that you are invoking a proposed solution to the problem (that Mark and Q overlap) as part of your statement of the data. Mark-Q
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 3 1:36 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            On 03/08/05, Wieland Willker <willker@...-bremen.de> wrote:

            > I have read the article now and have to conclude that there are NO
            > "major agreements in order" of Mt and Lk against Mk.
            > Sanders lists four instances, all consist of only one verse. But three
            > of them are from Mark/Q overlap, so it is possible that they are not
            > from Mk.

            The difficulty here is that you are invoking a proposed solution to
            the problem (that Mark and Q overlap) as part of your statement of the
            data. Mark-Q overlap has been a particular difficulty in this area --
            Mark-Q overlap has become so accepted a part of the standard solution
            to the Synoptic Problem that it is regularly presented as a means of
            describing the data. I argue in various places that one should not
            talk about Mark-Q overlaps when one is describing the data; rather,
            one should talk about major agreements between Matthew and Luke
            against Mark.

            Mark
            --
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology and Religion
            University of Birmingham
            Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
            Birmingham B29 6LG UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

            http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
            http://NTGateway.com
          • Wieland Willker
            ... Yes, agreed, but even if one does not accept Mark-Q overlap, we are left with only four little verses! Out of 673. This could well be attributed to chance.
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 3 11:39 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark Goodacre wrote:
              > The difficulty here is that you are invoking a proposed solution
              > to the problem (that Mark and Q overlap) as part of your
              > statement of the data. Mark-Q overlap has been a particular
              > difficulty in this area


              Yes, agreed, but even if one does not accept Mark-Q overlap, we are left with only four little verses! Out of 673. This could well be attributed to chance. One would expect a LITTLE agreement here and there.
              I wouldn't call this "major agreements between Matthew and Luke". This is deception.

              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              ------------------------------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
            • Wieland Willker
              ... My original question was if there are any major agreements in order between Matthew and Luke against Mark . The Sanders article notes only 4 single
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 4 4:53 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephanie Fisher wrote:
                > The major agreements between Matthew and Luke, otherwise
                > called 'Mark-Q overlaps', become more significant when the
                > double tradition is taken into consideration as Luke's use of
                > Matthew and not Q (The Case Against Q, 163-65).


                My original question was if there are any "major agreements in order between Matthew and Luke against Mark". The Sanders article notes only 4 single verses.
                I must admit that I don't really understand what you want to say.

                Best wishes
                Wieland
                <><
                ------------------------------------------------
                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                Textcritical commentary:
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
              • Ron Price
                ... Wieland, I don t have easy access to the source to which you are referring here, but I ll risk commenting anyway. The Temptation story is a good example of
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 6 6:12 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wieland Willker wrote:

                  > .....even if one does not accept Mark-Q overlap, we are left with
                  > only four little verses! Out of 673. This could well be attributed to chance.
                  > One would expect a LITTLE agreement here and there.
                  > I wouldn't call this "major agreements between Matthew and Luke". This is
                  > deception.

                  Wieland,

                  I don't have easy access to the source to which you are referring here, but
                  I'll risk commenting anyway.

                  The Temptation story is a good example of a major agreement (in content)
                  between Matthew and Luke against Mark (alias a Mark/Q overlap). The word
                  "major" here seems to me perfectly appropriate.

                  Of course if we are talking about agreements in *order*, our conclusion may
                  be different. Are we referring to agreements in order between pericopae or
                  within pericopae? What algorithm do we use to compare a longer text with a
                  shorter one, in other words when counting the agreements do we ignore
                  pericopae or words which occur in only two of the three sources?

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.