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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.