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

Re: [Synoptic-L] "Mark/Q overlaps"

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Dave, In spite of being within the travel narrative, Luke *did* place the text locally in Matthean order. For we have the following rough parallels: Mt
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave Gentile wrote:

      > ... Luke does not place the text [Mk 3:22-30] in Matthew's order either, he
      > groups it in his travel section with almost all of his other non-Mark
      > material.

      Dave,

      In spite of being within the travel narrative, Luke *did* place the text
      locally in Matthean order. For we have the following rough parallels:

      Mt 12:22-24 // Lk 11:14-16
      Mt 12:25-37 // Lk 11:17-23 // Mk 3:22-30
      Mt 12:38-42 // Lk 11:29-32

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Dave Gentile
      Ron, First of all, I think I would call Mt. 12:22-32 is the pericope in Matthew parallel to Mark 3:22-30, and Luke does use Matthew 12:22-32. Before this Luke
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron,

        First of all, I think I would call Mt. 12:22-32 is the pericope in
        Matthew parallel to Mark 3:22-30, and Luke does use Matthew 12:22-32.

        Before this Luke has || Mt. 7:7-11 and after the section Luke has

        || Mt. 12:43-45
        Lk. 11:27:28
        || Mt. 12:38-42
        then jumps to unrelated areas.
        Also Luke has placed Mt. 12:33-37 at Lk. 6:43-45

        So, we agree Luke has Matthew in front of him, and has used Mt. 22-
        32, but the text of Matthew immediately surrounding that (all of
        Matthew just prior to that and Mt. 33-37 just after) are not found
        in that location in Luke. Luke does then continue with some order
        reversed segments of Matthew (12:38-45), before completely leaving
        the section.

        But the question would be, "Does any of this provide a reason for
        Luke to move this out of parallel with Mark 3:22-30?" It seems it
        could have gone before Luke 6:20, or at the beginning of Luke 8,
        without any problem, even with a bit of related Matthian material
        brought along.

        Or, alternately, could Luke have placed this material in his travel
        section, and still followed Mark's wording? It seems that he could
        have.

        Thus I would argue that the relocation to the travel section, and
        the choice to follow the wording of Matthew rather than Mark are
        still apriori unrelated choices by Luke.

        But if we note that Luke's travel section is mostly reserved for non-
        Markian material, we have a one possible cause for these 2 separate
        behaviors. That is - Luke's copy of Mark lacked this text. This
        prevents Luke from following Mark's wording, of course, and when
        Luke does find this material in Matthew, he had no reason to treat
        it any differently that any other non-Markian material.

        And again, it just happens to line up with exactly with evidence of
        interpolation in Mark.


        Dave Gentile
        Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician
        B.S./M.S. Physics
        M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)
        Riverside, IL
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.