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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Aug 3, 2005
    • 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 2 of 8 , Aug 3, 2005
      • 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 3 of 8 , Aug 4, 2005
        • 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 4 of 8 , Aug 6, 2005
          • 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.