Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## [Synoptic-L] Lk's dependence on Mk (Re: Dave Gentile)

Expand Messages
• Dave Gentile, ... Lk has both halves in 11 + 6 cases, and transposes the order only 2 times (see Mk 6:36 par.; Mk 14:1 par.). The 15 cases of agrements
Message 1 of 2 , Oct 4, 2000
Dave Gentile,

At 4 Oct 2000 15:40:40 -0500, Dave Gentile wrote:

>I'm wondering if in the cases where Matthew has one half, and Luke and Mark have both halves, does Luke transpose the order of the doubles often.<

Lk has both halves in 11 + 6 cases, and transposes the order only 2
times (see Mk 6:36 par.; Mk 14:1 par.). The 15 cases of agrements
indicates Lk's direct use of Mk. Do you suppose that your Gos-A (or your
Proto-Mt) contains those duplicate expressions? (Then it means that it
is the style of Gos-A.) If so, why not Mk?

- On "kai elegen autois": "kai elegen autois" is Mk's (redactional)
style (2:27; 4:2, 11, 21, 24; 6:4, 10; 7:9; 8:21; 9:1, 31; 11:17). Lk
employes it in Lk 6:4 (by the influence of Mk 2:27a). Lk does not use
"kai elegen autois" elsewhere except here. Lk prefers "eipen de autois"
(8:25; 9:20; 10:18; 11:2; 22:36, 67) which is typically Lucan (only Lk
uses it in the NT). This phenomenon (the dissimilarity to the author's
style + the similarity to the source's style) is why I prefer the
hypothesis of Lk's direct use of Mk.

Thanks!

Hyeon Woo Shin

--
Wamelplein 192
1106 DT Amsterdam

shin0000@...
http://my.dreamwiz.com/qhj99
• Hyeon Woo Shin, On kai elegen autois - this clarifies the situation. On my hypothesis, I would say, this is the style of Gos-B. Mark copies this from his
Message 2 of 2 , Oct 5, 2000
Hyeon Woo Shin,

On "kai elegen autois" - this clarifies the situation. On my hypothesis, I
would say, this is the style of Gos-B. Mark copies this from his primary
source. The one example slips through redaction in proto-Mt, and Luke to
appear in Luke.

Besides other reasons that lock these Gospels into place on my hypothesis,
I would point to the Bethsaida section of Mark as evidence that points to
Luke using an earlier edition of Mark.

On the statistics specifically related to my hypothesis.
The argument about Mark's style is vary effective against a pure GH.
GH tries to say the these "must" be explained by conflation.
My hypothesis allows that they may be formed in a number of ways.
Thus while in is not unreasonable to suppose that many of these are just
original features,
we still can make improvements if we offer reasons for some of them, that
look suspicious.

I'll add to the list the double that I found in the Lawyer's question, as
one more example of Luke's transposition. It seems odd that I stumbled
across every example of this, but let's assume that this is all there are
for now.

The line between Gos-A and Mark is only thinly supported, while the other
lines are much more firm. Let's assume for the moment that we know the rest
of the hypothesis to be true, and the only question is "Did Mark use
Gos-A?". I think some features are still better explained. Since the
Bethsaida section probably appears first in Mark on this hypothesis, and
the 4000 is in this late addition, 2 sources for the "1000" story seemly to
be implied.

Luke's transposed lines. - Of Marks doubles, Luke has doubles 19 times. In
3 of these cases he transposes the order. This would imply 6 of Marks 19
doubles were caused by conflation, the others occurred by themselves. Also
notice this: In all 3 cases where Luke transposes Mark's double, Matthew
only has one half. Matthew keeps one half in 113 of 213 cases, or 53% of
the time. The chances of Matthew keeping one half, in all three cases, just
by chance, is about 1 in 7. This supports the line between Gos-A and Mark.
If we extrapolate from the 6/19 to the total, we would speculate that about
67 of Marks 213 doubles are due to conflation.

The numbers of course are very speculative estimates, and the connection
between Gos-A and Mark is rather thinly supported, but I would
never-the-less say that some data is better explained by placing the line
in the diagram. (4000/5000, 3 Luke transposes, 17 GH supports)

Dave Gentile

Lk has both halves in 11 + 6 cases, and transposes the order only 2
times (see Mk 6:36 par.; Mk 14:1 par.). The 15 cases of agrements
indicates Lk's direct use of Mk. Do you suppose that your Gos-A (or your
Proto-Mt) contains those duplicate expressions? (Then it means that it
is the style of Gos-A.) If so, why not Mk?

- On "kai elegen autois": "kai elegen autois" is Mk's (redactional)
style (2:27; 4:2, 11, 21, 24; 6:4, 10; 7:9; 8:21; 9:1, 31; 11:17). Lk
employes it in Lk 6:4 (by the influence of Mk 2:27a). Lk does not use
"kai elegen autois" elsewhere except here. Lk prefers "eipen de autois"
(8:25; 9:20; 10:18; 11:2; 22:36, 67) which is typically Lucan (only Lk
uses it in the NT). This phenomenon (the dissimilarity to the author's
style + the similarity to the source's style) is why I prefer the
hypothesis of Lk's direct use of Mk.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.