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

Mt/Lk agreements in order against Mk

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Mark Goodacre in his FAQ writes: http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/faq.htm Matthew and Luke do have major agreements between each other against Mark, in both wording
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Goodacre in his FAQ writes:
      http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/faq.htm

      "Matthew and Luke do have major agreements between each other against Mark, in both wording and order."

      Where are the "major agreements in order" of Mt and Lk against Mk?


      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
      ... Since nobody answered I take it that a) nobody is interested in this or b) nobody has the time to answer or c) nobody knows any major agreements in
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 1 12:07 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        About 3 weeks ago I wrote:

        > Mark Goodacre in his FAQ writes:
        > http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/faq.htm
        > "Matthew and Luke do have major agreements between each
        > other against Mark, in both wording and order."
        > Where are the "major agreements in order" of Mt and Lk
        > against Mk?


        Since nobody answered I take it that
        a) nobody is interested in this or
        b) nobody has the time to answer or
        c) nobody knows any "major agreements in order".

        I think it comes down to the definition of "major" here. I would take "major" as "pericope level". On that level I cannot see any "major agreements in order".

        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
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... 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;
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 1 5:04 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:07 AM 8/1/2005 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
          >About 3 weeks ago I wrote:
          >
          >> Mark Goodacre in his FAQ writes:
          >> http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/faq.htm
          >> "Matthew and Luke do have major agreements between each
          >> other against Mark, in both wording and order."
          >> Where are the "major agreements in order" of Mt and Lk
          >> against Mk?
          >
          >
          >Since nobody answered I take it that
          >a) nobody is interested in this or
          >b) nobody has the time to answer or
          >c) nobody knows any "major agreements in order".
          >
          >I think it comes down to the definition of "major" here. I would take
          >"major" as "pericope level". On that level I cannot see any "major
          >agreements in order".

          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; repr. in Two-Source Hypothesis (<http://www.mindspring.com/%7Escarlson/synopt/catalog.htm#Bellinzoni%201985>Bellinzoni 1985: 409-25).

          Stephen Carlson

          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
          Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
        • Wieland Willker
          ... 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
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 2 11:11 PM
          • 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
            <><
            ------------------------------------------------
            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
          • 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 5 of 8 , Aug 3 1:36 PM
            • 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 6 of 8 , Aug 3 11:39 PM
              • 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 7 of 8 , Aug 4 4:53 AM
                • 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 8 of 8 , Aug 6 6:12 AM
                  • 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.