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

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

Expand Messages
  • Hyeon Woo Shin
    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
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • dgentil@sears.com
      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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.