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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mt/Lk agreements in order against Mk

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Wieland, I m interested, but I come under your category (b); I am still checking my references to see whether I can get you a major, but doing so against
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Wieland,

      I'm interested, but I come under your category (b); I am still checking my
      references to see whether I can get you a major, but doing so against
      furiously competing deadlines. No examples are on the top of my head at the
      moment. Thanks meanwhile for the useful question.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Steff Seven
      I have been re-reading Sander s examples since Wieland sent that reminder earlier this evening (here). Neirynck (1973 ETL 49:784-815) has attempted to refute
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I have been re-reading Sander's examples since Wieland sent that reminder earlier this evening (here). Neirynck (1973 ETL 49:784-815) has attempted to refute it as has Kloppenborg (Ex Q 2000 19.5). Mark Goodacre is definitely too busy at the moment.

        Stephanie Fisher NZ
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Stephen C. Carlson
        To: Wieland Willker ; Synoptic-L
        Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:04 AM
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mt/Lk agreements in order against Mk


        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



        Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l



        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

        a.. Visit your group "Synoptic" on the web.

        b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        Synoptic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------




        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
        Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark Goodacre
        I am a bit too busy to comment on this interesting question at the moment, but let me recommend Jeffrey Peterson, Order in the Double Tradition and the
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I am a bit too busy to comment on this interesting question at the
          moment, but let me recommend Jeffrey Peterson, "Order in the Double
          Tradition and the Existence of Q" in Mark Goodacre and Nick Perrin
          (eds.), _Questioning Q_ (London: SPCK, 2004): 28-42, which engages
          with Streeter, Sanders and Kloppenborg on the question.

          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
        • Steff Seven
          Dear Wieland Willker, If Luke is more familiar with Mark and has decided to use him as a framework (Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 47-48), one would not
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Wieland Willker,

            If Luke is more familiar with Mark and has decided to use him as a framework (Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q, 47-48), one would not expect to find much agreement in Luke's order with Matthew against Mark in that framework. If Luke at the same time is aware that Matthew has alot of extra material, he may put Mark down occasionally and scan Matthew for this material and place it in blocks. There is much sequential order in this, the double tradition or 'Q'. Jeffrey Peterson discusses this in "Order of the Double Tradition and the Existence of Q" in Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (eds), Questioning Q, 28-42. This extra material is taken from Matthew's Markan context and appears in similar sequential order in Luke. 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).

            Stephanie Fisher
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Wieland Willker
            To: Synoptic-L
            Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:39 PM
            Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mt/Lk agreements in order against Mk


            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



            Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l



            SPONSORED LINKS Bible study tool Bible study


            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

            a.. Visit your group "Synoptic" on the web.

            b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            Synoptic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------




            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Steff Seven
            Dear Wieland, I am very sorry. My point was that the MAs in order against Mark, though few, do exist, but the quantity was explicable on the MwQH, because
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Wieland,

              I am very sorry. My point was that the MAs in order against Mark, though few, do exist, but the quantity was explicable on the MwQH, because Luke has only Mark in front of him (so to speak). That is, Luke has decided to use Mark's racey gospel as his framework and follows Mark's order.

              When Luke picks up Matthew, obviously he is not using Mark, and this is where there is much order in sequence. Here he extracts material which Matthew has added to Mark.

              I am still not very clear - it might be helpful to refer to Jeffrey Peterson's article in "Questioning Q" and Mark Goodacre's book "The Case Against Q".

              If you don't assume 'Q' the quantity of MAs in order don't matter. There are more MAs in wording against Mark and minor agreements as well - reflecting Luke's knowledge of Matthew even though he is following Mark. These, combined with the agreements in the double tradition, add up to quite alot.

              Best wishes
              Steph
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Wieland Willker
              To: Synoptic-L
              Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 11:53 PM
              Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mt/Lk agreements in order against Mk


              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



              Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l



              SPONSORED LINKS Bible study tool Bible study


              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

              a.. Visit your group "Synoptic" on the web.

              b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              Synoptic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------




              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
              Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.