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

Re: Gospel according to the Hebrews

Expand Messages
  • Dave
    Hello, Just a couple of thoughts. ... 40 ... from ... First, if Luke did not copy Mark it does not follow that Mark copied Luke. They may have had a common
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 24 9:34 AM
      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 portion
      > 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
      just one.

      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
      200 002
      1 1 1 0 10 0 10 0 0
      7 2 7 2 5 0 0 3
      2 2

      > The following three facts also support this conclusion:
      > 1. When Mark and Matthew differ in chronology Luke agrees with
      > 2. When Mark and Luke differ in Chronology, Matthew agrees with
      > 3. Matthew and Luke never agree in chronology against Mark.

      That looks very much like an argument typically cited to support
      Markian priory. Mark is the middle term.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.