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

RE: [XTalk] Statistics in support of dependence of Luke and Matthew independent of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Bob MacDonald
    ... counting 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
    Message 1 of 11 , May 22 11:11 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen Carlson wrote:
      >>I'm having a tough time understanding what exactly you're
      counting 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.


      Bob MacDonald
      Victoria, B.C., Canada
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.