RE: [XTalk] Statistics in support of dependence of Luke and Matthew independent of Mark
- Stephen Carlson wrote:
>>I'm having a tough time understanding what exactly you'recounting or how it relates to Q, but your study seems to
have concluded that the contents of Matthew and Luke's
double tradition are found in different sequences while
the shared material between other pairs of gospels do not.
Usually, that's taken as an argument *for* Q instead of
against, so I'm not sure I fully understand your
Your feedback is very helpful. I have added links and an
extract from the database to show the results of excluding
sequence. So it is much easier to see 'what I am counting'
I am grateful for the clarification. My study shows some
relationship between pairs that you have given me language
Luke-Matthew double tradition is in different sequences and
does not give up anything to Luke-Matthew-Mark triple
Luke-Mark has only 2 pericope with what might be a literary
relationship apart from the synoptic triple tradition
Matthew-Mark has 4 out of a possible 10 (excluding the many
in the triple tradition)
Each of the last two pairs loses 75% of pericopae to the
triple tradition when sequence is dropped as a factor.
The parallels in the double tradition seem to be further
divisible by class - what classes would be suitable?
Conceptual, e.g. Genealogies Luke 3.23 Matthew 1.2
a few key words; e.g. the adoration of the shepherds and the
Magi; Luke 2.8 Matthew 2.1 or 19.
[Christ,Bethlehem,joy,Mary] or 11. The Boy Jesus in Nazareth
Luke 2.39 Matthew 2.22 [Nazareth,Galilee] or redistributed
sections of the sermon on the mount - some of which are more
significant than a few words e.g. 51. Beatitudes, Luke
6.20 Matthew 5.3
Whole phrases and sentences - i.e. a literary relationship.
E.g. 66. Two Masters Luke 16.13 Matthew 6.24 "No servant/one
can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and
love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise
the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." or The
testimony about John Luke 7.24, 16.16 Matthew 11.7.
As to the argument for Q - the results seem to me to show
only dependency, not the mechanism of dependency. Maybe
there is a common source; maybe the common source is
Matthew - not enough information to decide.
Victoria, B.C., Canada