Re: Gospel according to the Hebrews
Just a couple of thoughts.
> Mark: A Secondary Gospel
> The late Dr. Robert Lindsey made further observations. Lindsey
> points out that the phrase "and immediately" occurs in Mark over
> times. Luke contains this phrase only once and then in a portionfrom
> with no parallel in Mark. Lindsey pointed out that it is
> unimaginable that Luke systematically purged the phrase "and
> immediately" from every portion of Mark which he used, especially
> since he uses the phrase himself elsewhere. This means that Luke
> could not have copied from Mark and that Mark therefore copied
> Luke.First, if Luke did not copy Mark it does not follow that Mark copied
Luke. They may have had a common source (like an early version of
Secondly, have you seen my statistical study on-line?
It uses the frequency of vocabulary items. (An argument related to
the one here) The results of my study strongly favor Markian
priority, or at least the priority of something very similar to our
Mark, if not exactly our Mark.
It seems quite possible that Luke changed almost every (or every)
occurrence of a word or phrase that sounded poorly written to him.
Look and all the KAIs that become DEs. So both Luke subtracting
EUQUS and Mark adding them are quite possible. The study, however,
evaluates probabilities. But it does it for 800 or so words, not
On the frequency of EUQUS specifically - Luke does not use this word
often. In Sondergut Luke there are 2 occurrences in the 5755 words
in the study. Given that frequency, one would estimate that in the
triple agreement we would expect Luke to use it about .7 times, and
in fact, my data says he uses it once (given that this 1 occurrence
disagrees with your data, this is probably in a "Mark/Q overlap" and
it depends on if you count Luke as using Mark there.
Mark is clearly different in his choice here, using EUQUS over 20
times as frequently as Luke.
So, yes, in the places where Mark and Luke agree, the frequency of
EUQUS is much more like Luke than Mark. So by itself this one bit of
data would cause us to lean towards Lukian priority. If the order
was Luke=>Mark, Mark just needs to copy Luke's word use. Mark=>Luke
requires active editing by Luke to bring the frequency down to a
level consistent with his style. However, this one bit of data is
overwhelmed by the rest of the data that strongly indicates Markian
priority. EUQUS is the exception, not the rule.
Interestingly EUQUS supports Mark's priority over Matthew quite
nicely. Matthew does not make frequent use of it when not following
Mark, but it does occur with Markian frequency in Mk/Mt agreements.
For those familiar with the synoptic categories from my study, here
is the data.
222 211 112 212 221 122 121 022 012
021 220 120 210 020 202 201 102
1 1 1 0 10 0 10 0 0
7 2 7 2 5 0 0 3
> The following three facts also support this conclusion:Mark.
> 1. When Mark and Matthew differ in chronology Luke agrees with
> 2. When Mark and Luke differ in Chronology, Matthew agrees with
>That looks very much like an argument typically cited to support
> 3. Matthew and Luke never agree in chronology against Mark.
Markian priory. Mark is the middle term.