9825Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence
- Sep 19, 2004Hello Leonard,
As you say we have been through this before. I doubt I could add anything to
what I have on my site, and what we have discussed on this list in the past.
Examples of specific vocabulary items are generally pointless, since the
statistical argument is based on the combined weight of many examples, not
individual cases which are by themselves insignificant.
I posted this because there are people here who may not be familiar with
earlier discussions on this list. If you, or others have specific questions
about material presented on the web pages, I'd be happy to try to answer
those question, since that might help me improve the site.
----- Original Message -----
To: <GentDave@...>; <tlewistlewis@...>;
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence
> In a message dated 9/18/2004 9:33:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> GentDave@... writes:
> > The vocabulary in the text common between Matthew and Mark, is
> > significantly
> > related to the vocabulary of Mark elsewhere in Mark's text. The same is
> > true of the text unique to Matthew. This result, and others
> > like it, strongly suggest that Mark was the original text, and that
> > is based on Mark
> Dave, I know you have been through this before, but could you possibly
> out, perhaps with some examples, what you mean by the above paragraph
> (especially, in a few more words, what you say about Matthew). A
> vocabulary evidence that favors Markan priority always intrigues me, since
> other grounds (except perhaps one) the theory seems so improbable to me.
> Leonard Maluf
> Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
> Weston, MA
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>