tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post1543627694301771709..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Mark-Q Overlaps V: the degree of verbatim agreementMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-55640625766128690072008-01-05T07:24:00.000-05:002008-01-05T07:24:00.000-05:00I'm still troubled by what I think is the logic of...I'm still troubled by what I think is the logic of this argument. Appealing to the scientific laws of probability doesn't account for the human persuasions of the authors and it doesn't allow for the intricacies of each little pericope. Also the bits of "Q" with such a high level of verbal agreement do happen to be sayings and the authors may tell the same story in a different way (when following Mark) but when quoting words of Jesus (or John), may try to be precise. It gets confusing to me to apply statistics to the Synoptic Problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-70414263100078001842007-11-27T20:06:00.000-05:002007-11-27T20:06:00.000-05:00Thanks for all these comments. I am currently exp...Thanks for all these comments. I am currently expanding the argument of this section of the paper into an article of its own.<BR/><BR/>Tim: I don't know that there is a problem for Luke as an author who varies the degree of his copying. There is a continuum from high verbatim passages to low verbatim passages, with many different levels in between. We know that Luke is a versatile author with a large vocabulary, and we know (on the assumption of, say, the Priority of Mark) that he sometimes copies directly from his source material. His versatility is expressed in the different extents of his use of his sources at different points in his narrative.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-8656150516338536262007-11-17T01:11:00.000-05:002007-11-17T01:11:00.000-05:00Mark, I have often tried thinking this way in the ...Mark, I have often tried thinking this way in the past but unfortunately such a high Mt-Lk verbatim agreement still does not even make sense of Luke's author (someone who at other times clearly knows how to put things into his own words in varying degrees and not simply copy out huge chunks verbatim). I'm afraid it's still anomalous on the Farrer theory! I mentioned this recently as one of my eight myths/missasumptions on my almost retired blog: www.sourcetheory.blogspot.com/<BR/>Tim LewisDr Timothy Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17927408023525910316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-36343828641883315672007-11-16T20:28:00.000-05:002007-11-16T20:28:00.000-05:00In reply to Jim: I was merely noting that on the M...In reply to Jim: I was merely noting that on the Mark without Q hypothesis, Luke uses Mark as his framework but according to statistics has higher verbal agreement with Matthew than Mark when he is not following Mark.<BR/><BR/>As far as taking care to copy Matthew's Greek carefully, that obviously didn't happen in every case and the units deserve to be examined separately and variations and agreements studied in context.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it follows that if Luke used both Matthew and Mark as sources, he would have used them in the same way, if that is what Scott is suggesting. He may use Mark for his structure but use extra sayings and more elaborate narrative from Matthew where he preferred the writing. His different approach to each source would not compromise Ockam's razor and necessitate extra entities. Nevertheless, while Ockam's razor strives for simplicity, it sacrifices detail and ends up delivering a "workable hypothesis" which is not a reflection of historical reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1122891933278715452007-11-16T19:28:00.000-05:002007-11-16T19:28:00.000-05:00In reply to Steph's comment, I don't see any logic...In reply to Steph's comment, I don't see any logic ot purpose in the writer of Luke, if he extracted portions of Matthew that were omitted from Mark and carefully placed them in different contexts, then taking care to copy Mztthew's Greek so closely in his extractions. <BR/><BR/>Hence it's easier to see someone else doing this careful copying, namely the translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek, by the modified Augustinian hypothesis. By the MAH, the translator had a plausible reason for his editorial behavior.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-39736908275050473382007-11-16T10:10:00.000-05:002007-11-16T10:10:00.000-05:00In my comment to your previous blog, I noted that ...In my comment to your previous blog, I noted that the modified Augustinian hypothesis (<A HREF="http://www.tjresearch.info/MAH.htm" REL="nofollow">MAH</A>)has a plausible explanation for this high Mt-Lk Q-verse verbal agreement. It comes about because of the role played by the translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek, within the MAH framework.<BR/><BR/>The same kind of analaysis for the frequency distribution of strings of identical words leads to the same conclusion for the verbal qgreement between <A HREF="http://www.tjresearch.info/priority.htm#III" REL="nofollow"> Mark and Matthew.</A> This is also explained as the handiwork of the translator of Hebraic Matthew. As would be expected, this kind of verbal agreement does not exist between Mark and Luke, however. <BR/><BR/>I believe that Jack Poirer has also come to the same conclusions from his verbal-agreement studies of the word-string frequency distributions.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-76764279218828278152007-11-16T09:58:00.000-05:002007-11-16T09:58:00.000-05:00First a question. When Kloppenborg compares Mark a...First a question. When Kloppenborg compares Mark as a source to Q, does he use a reconstructed Q?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the next important step is to compare Luke's pattern of usage of Mark's material with the pattern that emerges if we assume that Luke is using Matthew as a source. If the statistics are similar between the Mark-as-source hypothesis and the Matthew-as-source hypothesis, then you have something pretty strong. If the patterns of Luke's theoretical usage diverge then you have to come up with further theories of why this is the case and Ockham's Razor may need to be sharpened a bit. Of course, Q has it's share of multiplying entities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-6114888806254897782007-11-16T02:39:00.000-05:002007-11-16T02:39:00.000-05:00Terence Mournet is helpful for his critique of met...Terence Mournet is helpful for his critique of methodology on statistics. I think charts are useful but limited unless you still examine each unit independently and in context. I agree though - the high level of agreement between Matthew and Luke doesn't count in favour of an inbetween document generally speaking.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting that while Luke might have preferred Mark as his framework, the chunks he might have copied from Matthew he treated with greater respect verbally. Mark was embarrassing and needed to be rewritten. He revealed details like family quarrels for a start...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-2422445078059805852007-11-16T01:13:00.000-05:002007-11-16T01:13:00.000-05:00It being my first SBL, I may change all my plans f...It being my first SBL, I may change all my plans for Monday and make it to your talk - but with my current emphasis on the Psalms, I don't know since I think you conflict with John Hobbins session - anyway, I hope for the possibility of finally saying hello. And maybe I can get to two places at once.Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.com