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

Mt/Lk agreements against Mk

Expand Messages
  • Richard Richmond
    ... and Lk ... from ... Like, New ... I have read the article now and have to conclude that there are NO major agreements in order of Mt and Lk against Mk.
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 3, 2005
    • 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


      If we apply Occam’s razor here we would have to say
      the simple explanation of this phenomenon is that Mark
      was first and the other two were borrowing from his
      order. Which is the predominant view in the field of
      New Testament Study today.


      Rick Richmond rickr2889@...



      ____________________________________________________
      Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
    • John Lupia
      ... Lieb Wieland: This is not exactly correct. Lk s citation of Isaias is not the identical word for word quote as is found in Mk. So, even this does not
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Richard Richmond <rickr2889@...> wrote:

        > >> 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.


        Lieb Wieland:

        This is not exactly correct. Lk's citation of Isaias
        is not the identical word for word quote as is found
        in Mk. So, even this does not qualify, as I know you
        will agree.


        >
        >
        > If we apply Occam’s razor here we would have to say
        > the simple explanation of this phenomenon is that
        > Mark
        > was first and the other two were borrowing from his
        > order. Which is the predominant view in the field of
        > New Testament Study today.
        >


        You are entitled to hold this as your opinion, but in
        a scholarly forum all opinions should be able to be
        demonstrated when you cite the source that claims to
        bear out the evidence. Can you please kindly explain
        how Occam's razor demonstrates what you claim in this
        case. I see no logical connection.

        John N. Lupia, III

        John N. Lupia, III
        Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 USA
        Fax: (732) 349-3910
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
        God Bless America



        ____________________________________________________
        Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
        http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
      • Richard Richmond
        John C. Poirier wrote: This is not how Ockham s razor cuts in this case: the lack of Matthew s and Luke s agreements in order against Mark only means that Mark
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          John C. Poirier wrote:

          This is not how Ockham's razor cuts in this case: the
          lack of Matthew's and
          Luke's agreements in order against Mark only means
          that Mark is the
          mediating term, *not* that Mark is prior. E.g., if
          Luke knows Matthew's
          order *through* Mark's mediation, then we would not
          expect Matthew and Luke
          to agree in order against Mark.

          Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed
          to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar;
          William of Occam. Occam was a village in the English
          county of Surrey where he was born.

          Stated succinctly is: that all other things being
          equal the simplest explanation is likely to be the
          correct one.

          In this situation it cuts like a knife. Three
          documents contain the same material in substantially
          the same order and sometimes word for word, and two of
          those documents never agree against the third in
          order. A grammar school teacher would conclude ( and
          has by the way) that Matthew and Luke have copied from
          Mark which as William of
          Occam recommends, is the simplest explanation and the
          most likely to be correct.


          Rick Richmond rickr2889@...



          ____________________________________________________
          Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
        • John C. Poirier
          ... I know all about it, but it s good to have it stated like this. ... No it doesn t. (See below.) ... That grammar school teacher (whether he s the one
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Rick Richmond wrote:

            > Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed

            > to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar;

            > William of Occam. Occam was a village in the English

            > county of Surrey where he was born.

            >

            > Stated succinctly is: that all other things being

            > equal the simplest explanation is likely to be the

            > correct one.



            I know all about it, but it's good to have it stated like this.

            > In this situation it cuts like a knife.

            No it doesn't. (See below.)



            > Three documents contain the same material in substantially

            > the same order and sometimes word for word, and two of

            > those documents never agree against the third in

            > order. A grammar school teacher would conclude ( and

            > has by the way) that Matthew and Luke have copied from

            > Mark which as William of Occam recommends, is the simplest

            > explanation and the most likely to be correct.



            That grammar school teacher (whether he's 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 doesn't 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 don't believe my logic, just work it out on paper.)

            The logical fallacy that you're propounding is a famous one: it was
            decisively overturned by Butler in 1951, and since then many people have
            called attention to it. It is one of the biggest blunders in NT
            scholarship, and unfortunately it still has a hold on the field of NT
            Introduction.



            John C. Poirier







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