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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 OccamÂ’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 2 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 3 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.