Synoptic Parallels Examined Seriously/Devin Rose and Roman Catholic Apologetics Today

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:34

I don't know what did just happen I don't know hit the wrong button again huh mm -hmm and didn't have the camera facing your direction we did it either

00:46

I mean it is facing your direction but you didn't have that camera on to show you sitting there going what you know you let me sit here the disembodied voice go

00:55

I don't know what's see you're bad his bad see you can even see the

01:01

Borg light there and the lava lamp see both it's in both shots I think it's cool and the lava lamp is loving which means we are prepared for the program today

01:11

I am going to leave certain subjects completely alone cuz

01:17

I don't wanna get sued hopefully have good news sometime someday anyway

01:30

I was informed of a debate that took place a couple weeks ago now over in I believe somewhere in Scotland which

01:41

I would love to do a debate in Scotland we just can't find any Muslims to debate in Scotland we've tried you gotta import them we're just gonna have to bring some folks up from London Birmingham whatever because we just can't get any of the

01:54

Scottish Muslims to debate which is a shame I've I've said I look if this is what it takes

02:01

I will debate in one of my kilts I'll do it I will do it

02:06

I've worn my my kilts in Scotland before I'll do it again so but there is a debate took place with Zakir Hussain Zakir Hussain some of you remember young man that I debated in the

02:22

East London Mosque a week after the Benghazi embassy attacks on is

02:27

Mohammed prophesied in the Bible and I like Zakir we've had some you know we can exchange emails and and chat about various things and ask each other questions and get each other's opinions on stuff and especially outside of the glare of the of the

02:45

TV lights you know he seems to be a nice young man and what

02:51

I was looking for to be perfectly honest with you I know Zakir's gonna watch this I'm gonna let him know that this is up there what

02:58

I was looking for the primary thing that I criticized Zakir for in our debate was what

03:06

I would call the machine gun approach to to debating you just you just fire off all sorts of stuff you know you just blanket the area and it doesn't make for good debates and in fact even on your own side you're only impressing a very narrow range of your own people when when you do that and it's not really it's not really the range of people you want to be impressing anyways to be honest with you and so I criticized him for you know throwing all this stuff out there and and when you throw out 50 assertions in one presentation how much serious thought and documentation have you been able to present behind any one of those things it leads to very surface -level argumentation is what it does not to serious meaningful interaction so I was watching

04:13

I wanted to listen to this debate and find out has there been growth there has there you know that Zakir come to understand that these issues and this is a debate on who

04:29

Jesus is these are vitally important issues and for me what

04:37

I'm looking for in especially young Muslim apologists is there there's two directions they can go they can either go more and more toward pleasing the base which is going to be using less than meaningful argumentation but it's the kind of stuff that your base wants to hear or the more or the less popular direction but the direction that is encouraging and that is going more in depth in your argumentation and showing more of an understanding of what the other side is saying instead of just throwing out a bunch of stuff narrow your focus improve the arguments and go for the best the other side has to offer not not the weakest the other side has to offer that includes you know coming to recognize the need for consistency and source usage which

05:31

I think is is just one of the the fundamental problems for pretty much every

05:38

Muslim apologist is the sources that they will utilize they can't be consistent and so I listen to the debate and please forgive me for forgetting the gentleman his name because I have here is just one clip that I happened

05:53

I'm actually using this clip at TMAI in less than a week so those of you who are going to the

06:00

TMAI symposium in Southern California on biblical inerrancy and global Christianity this this clip

06:08

I'll be playing otherwise the whole debate is still on my other computer and I didn't have it in here to look at so I apologize if someone would like to pull it up in channel or tweet it to me or something

06:23

I will I will correct my my errors and I thought the gentleman did a fine job anyway

06:30

I listened to the debate interestingly enough and I think

06:35

Zacher will find this interesting I listened to that debate right after finishing listening to the very last section of Itzhar al -Haq now

06:45

Itzhar al -Haq for those of you who have not heard the name is going to be one of the main focuses in my

06:51

TMAI presentation on Monday Itzhar al -Haq is a it's in four parts 800 to 900 pages long it is a work first published

07:04

I believe in Arabic in 1864 it is the it is the the work that deeply influenced

07:11

Akhmed Didat and really brought him into doing Dawah and Islamic apologetics and most modern

07:22

Islamic apologists even if they haven't read the book are are reliant upon it for a lot of their a lot of their arguments and so I just I had read most of it

07:34

I don't know two years ago and then had set aside and then I said you know

07:40

I need to finish that up even though the last sections are not the most interesting sections or even the most useful sections but anyways we had just finished up and then

07:48

I listened to this this debate it was a long ride 90 almost 94 miles and as I listened

07:57

I was I was disappointed the the machine gun argumentation remains in effect the predilection for Bart Ehrman and wild -eyed liberals remains in effect and I and I I keep saying to people like Zakir if we were constantly trying to hold you accountable to liberal

08:27

Muslims that you wouldn't even say are liberals you would say hey you're not really addressing us you're you're utilizing material but for these guys

08:38

I'm afraid sadly biblical scholarship is the scholarship that agrees with them but not with historic

08:44

Christianity so and the same kind of scholarship that if applied to the Quran would lead to conclusions they'd never expect except so it this and you know soccer knows that I talk a lot about consistency but doesn't seem to see where these issues are or very often errs in making application

09:05

I wanted to look at one particular element of his argument of his arguments it was just a whole chain of stuff that was being thrown out because well does a couple things those of you who either attended g3 or watched my presentations at g3 from last month know that on the second presentation

09:30

I made in the morning the morning session the first session in the morning I I took a risk a real risk in addressing some really tough stuff including you know some of the some of the hardest issues in New Testament studies and trying to throw that stuff out and to make it relevant and to make it meaningful is is a challenge especially in a context like that with the amount of time you have one of the issues that I raised that has come up over and over again in Islamic apologetics and in dealing with atheism as well so this isn't if you're if you're sort of starting to tune out all he's talking about Islam again you know remember vast majority of things we say about Islam have a lot to do with atheism

10:29

Trinity issues textual criticism I mean there's a lot of crossover so I think most in our audience have already recognized now

10:39

I've got a I've got to stay focused even when the subject is something that I may not be overly interested in because sometimes that's where you'll get real gems of information is in that context it certainly has been my experience in my studies over the years anyway this particular synoptic issue was one of the first synoptic issues raised by Shabir Ali in our

11:07

Biola debate back in 2006 and here it is again and there are different elements of this synoptic parallel that Muslim apologists will focus in on and I think it's just incumbent upon us to especially know this one because even if someone just throws out a general well you know you look at Matthew Mark and Luke and there's all this you know

11:37

Matthew and Luke are editing mark and they're improving mark blah blah blah stuff it can be very difficult for any of us to be prepared for any for every single possible issue so what you can do is if you don't have time and most of you are are busy working people we tend to attract folks who work 60 70 hours a week the folks that have all the money in the world for some reason don't seem to find me interesting or this ministry interesting so most of most of you in this audience don't have time to become an expert on every element of synoptic parallelism etc etc but what you can do is you can look at one or two key issues learn them well and then use them as an example say well you know for example let's talk about you remember this story and then you go into the discussion and I think this would be a good one to use

12:49

I think this would be a good one to use let's let Zacher introduce it to us and then we'll look at the text and draw some things out and then

13:00

I want to I want to get on to Devin Rose and some other things so we'll see how far we get something tells me we're probably not gonna get to all of it but let's um let's look at Zacher's comments here it's only only about a minute long well you know be helpful if you plug it in just a little bit there

13:25

I was listening to it here we go what about Mark chapter 5 verse 30 as Jesus was walking a woman comes behind him who's been bleeding for 12 years and she touches

13:34

Jesus and she's healed so Jesus turns around because he noticed power had left him and he starts asking these disciples who touched me who touched me and they said to him we don't know who touched you there's a whole crowd around you so Jesus is looking around trying to figure out who touched him and then the woman tells him it was me who touched you now the same story in Matthew chapter 9 rather than looking around all confused and ignorant where is who touched me instead

14:00

Jesus turns around straight away looks at the woman says take heart daughter your fate has healed you so what did

14:07

Matthew do once again he improved the so -called Word of God the Gospel of Matthew by changing the image of Jesus so if any

14:15

Christian tries to explain away the text in Mark they should first explain why Matthew was embarrassed by it and he changed it so this is a problem when

14:23

Christians think they can just quote from the New Testament to try to prove who Jesus is when it's clear that the

14:29

New Testament writers were willing to change the biography of Jesus in order to make it conform to their own beliefs so rather than modify their beliefs to conform to Scripture instead they will modify

14:40

Scripture to conform to their beliefs so there you have there you have the argument and this argument doesn't deal with the entire pericope of the healing of Jairus's daughter it focuses only upon that middle part and as you have the presentation you have the assumption of Mark and priority not the proof of it but the assumption and then you have and you can't blame these guys it's it's the liberals who call themselves

15:19

Christians that are doing this stuff that are playing mind games and and assuming that we can get into Matthew's mind and well

15:26

Matthew was embarrassed by what Mark said how do you know that you don't know that well

15:32

I'm hypothesizing well why don't you just say you're hypothesizing you don't know that anyway the idea is that in in Mark Jesus is all confused he's looking around who touched me who touched me

15:47

I don't know who touched me but in Matthew it's daughter your faith has made you well and so that means that Matthew obviously couldn't have viewed

15:58

Mark as the Word of God because then you wouldn't be changing the

16:05

Word of God right so there there's the argument now those who are familiar with the the debate with Shabir Ali will know that he focused on a different aspect of this particular pericope and I think it's a much much more challenging aspect

16:27

I mean the answer to both is the same thing but I think it's much more challenging aspect and that is that when

16:37

Jairus comes to Jesus in Mark chapter 5 verse 23 we read well in fact what

16:49

I'm gonna do is we're going to go back to this and then go back to this don't put that put that up accordance there you go what hey well

17:05

I gotta switch over to accordance you got it you got it okay if you can't keep up with me over there man I mean we already know you're having some functional problems as far as knowing which buttons to push so you better you better just you know you've talked about how often you're a professional let's let's let's get with the get the program here all right yeah

17:26

I'm thinking that's probably a little small so let's let's do that that's that's easier okay notice verse 23 he implored him earnestly saying my little daughter is at the point of death please come and lay your hands on her she will get well and live notice in Matthew and then notice it's all the way you've got three verses in in Mark's version in Matthew while he was saying these things to them a synagogue official came and bowed down before him doesn't give his name and said my daughter has just died but come and lay your hand on her and she will live so that was the issue and I forgot and I apologize maybe someone may someone wrote it down from my presentation

18:25

I don't have my presentation on this computer so I apologize but I had the exact numbers the exact number of words and percentages in my g3 presentation

18:35

I didn't memorize them and I was I was gonna transfer the thing over to this side and I forgot too much too much going on before the program today anyway my recollection is

18:46

Matthew uses about one -third of the number of words to tell this story that Mark does so the first thing to notice is

19:02

Mark is giving a very full version of this story and Matthew has chosen to give a very condensed version of this story now every one of us has engaged in having to decide how to condense stories when you get home from work and your wife says how was your day or she gets home and you ask her how was her day if she's tired if she has other things to do you're gonna get the very condensed version but if she's actually in a good mood and it was a good day you might get the version that's even longer than you wanted to hear but no one would ever think of accusing your wife of lying if she did not give you the exact same level of information every single time you ask the question every author of the

20:17

Gospels has his own background his own purposes for writing and he has his own audience in mind and when you take those things in consideration you have to choose as an author the level of detail that you're going to go into and it's gonna be based upon how much emphasis or importance you're attaching to any one particular story so in this particular instance

20:52

Mark is giving much more information Matthew is condensing or what we call telescoping he is putting things together into a smaller package now if I had just and I've had this happen before in fact

21:17

I can give you an exact example many years ago

21:22

I observed a a very serious car accident and it was back when

21:29

I had I don't think you even knew you didn't know me when I had my Kawasaki 440 but I had a

21:37

I had a Kawasaki 440 that was that was the bike that I learned to ride on and I was the first vehicle in line at 59th

21:47

Avenue in Bell Road and I was going west on Bell Road and I took off from the light and motorcycles can accelerate faster than most cars can and I had even been thinking about the fact that one of the nice things about being in motorcycles you can sort of get away from the traffic and right as I'm thinking that this car passes me clearly speeding because I was up to speed already and racing towards 67th

22:18

Avenue the light turns and there is an accident and this guy is flying and it's a bad accident we're talking car in the air spinning around I mean it was a bad accident so I stopped

22:33

I had seen it and when the police officers talked to me take my name address contact information this was so long ago there's no such thing as cell phone or email believe you me they asked what

22:55

I had seen but they wanted a summary later

23:02

I was contacted by an investigator and he wanted exhaustive detail the police officers at the time did not want every say you know they didn't want to know about what

23:13

I had been thinking about where I was going that no no they wanted who was where boom boom boom they wanted a telescoped summary knowing that the investigator would later be contacting me for everything and they're gonna ask me questions they're gonna ask me questions to try to get me to remember things that I wouldn't normally include in telling the story anyways we all know how that works now was

23:46

I lying to the officers when I gave them the summary no of course not was

23:53

I lying to the investigator when I gave the full version and and he asked me about stuff

23:58

I had even thought of and oh no no actually you know no I wasn't lying in either case were they contradictory no they were not

24:06

I told the same story one had more detail but when I told the officers a summary it wouldn't necessarily be in strict chronological order that's what the investigator wanted all right with all that in mind

24:24

Matthew is telescoping and you will notice that not only is his presentation much shorter there's an entire section missing see he only he only gives us 918 through 26 mark gives us 521 through 43 22 verses of this story and what is missing from Matthew mark 535 and following while he was still speaking they came from the house the synagogue official saying your daughter has died why trouble a teacher anymore but Jesus overhearing what was being spoken said the synagogue official do not be afraid any longer only believe that's not even in Matthew Matthew does not even include the coming of the men from the house did he know about it we don't know we don't know that Matthew had mark that is a theory it is just as probable if not more probable that he had a specific oral tradition from eyewitnesses and it could be that his source had summarized at this point and mark source had not what if mark was using

25:53

Peter and Peter told the story very fully where Matthew is using a different source the fact is you don't know and when you accept just one little theory and then try to cram everything into it you create a mess and that's what a lot of New Testament theology does and the reason

26:16

Muslims like messes is because they're attacking the New Testament they will never let that happen to the

26:21

Quran double standard but that's what we deal with that's we deal with so the point is

26:29

Matthew gives the information of her death right at the start mark gives it in the middle in chronological order of how it happened the point is that when she is gets to the house in both instances he knows exactly what the situation is and he knows he's going into a death room with all that said let's think about soccer's attempted accusation here what he's missing is this whole relationship between Matthew and mark and when you understand that mark is giving so much more detail and then you recognize that soccer is misreading very badly one particular section the answer is easy to see why does mark give so much more detail in comparison to Matthew's very brief statement

27:27

Matthew 922 simply says but Jesus turning and seeing her said daughter take courage your faith has made you well and once the woman's made well boom that's it now is this some improvement is this some embarrassment on Matthew's part no because where soccer has erred here is in his reading of what's going on in mark notice what happens in mark instead let's listen look at how much detail is given by marker 525 through 534 nine verses

28:14

I mean this is an entire story unto itself I mean it's huge so why is he doing this he gives the story of the woman who had hemorrhage for 12 years endured much the hands of physicians but all she had had not been helped at all whether had grown worse

28:33

Matthew tells none of this his focus is not on this woman and not on her background and not on the issue of her healing or anything like that after hearing about G is she came up in the crowd and touched his cloak for she thought if I just touch his garment

28:49

I will get well immediately flow of her blood was dried up she felt in her body that she was healed of her affliction immediately

28:55

G is perceiving himself that the power proceeding from him had gone forth turned around the crowd and said who touched my garments do you really think soccer that Jesus didn't know do you really think that what

29:06

Matt mark is trying to say here is now Jesus didn't have a have a clue what was going on here no idea at all come on you wouldn't even read the

29:17

Quran that way be fair be fair this is this is just why does he do this why does

29:29

Jesus do this I mean look at much time marked it and his disciples said to him you see the crowd pressing it on you and you say who touched me and he looked around to see the woman who had done this looked around to see the woman who he knew yes he did know what was he trying to do he wanted to bring from the woman a statement of faith but the woman fearing and trembling aware of what had happened to her came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth and he said to her daughter your faith has made you well go in peace and be healed of your affliction he wanted to bring the woman to the point of making confession so that he might bless her and give her these words he wasn't ignorant

30:20

Matthew wasn't going oh I'm so embarrassed I mean come on people it you know

30:30

I know there are some people who read the Quran without giving it even this even the slightest benefit of the doubt

30:37

I haven't done that I mean you know you would think that if I did there would be internet websites filled with articles from Muslims right now demonstrating where I completely blew it in my book there aren't any because when

30:55

I dealt with the text of the Quran I'm like well it could mean this could mean that the language seems indicate this you've got this in the background how come you guys won't even start to show some seriousness in interacting with the text that you're dealing with I don't get it

31:16

Jesus isn't ignorant Mark is giving the whole story so that we can see the miraculous nature of this one who is about to raise the dead so much so that there are even women who had suffered so much who by barely touching his cloak in faith were healed and yet it's important to make profession of that faith and Jesus gives her the opportunity of doing so by stopping and saying who touched my cloak now notice she does not immediately respond did she there's time for the disciples to even say what what do you mean the crowd's pressing upon you so the reason this is not

32:06

Matthew changing the word of God embarrassed etc etc that's a very simplistic naturalistic explanation but it's just that simplistic it doesn't even begin to deal with the text and Zucker if you apply those standards to the

32:22

Quran night flights winged beasts etc etc the

32:30

Quran becomes a pile of silliness why don't you do it well because you're inconsistent and so I was disappointed there's there's a lot that I want to deal with um again the machine gun approach the best way to refute it is to play it slowly take each one apart what really concerned me was there was machine gun stuff about well

32:55

John 14 28 and and and John 17 3 and we've refuted these things in full so many times before that I just have to go

33:07

Zucker do you not read do you not hear um it was disappointing it was disappointing but I thought it would be useful to again show folks if you will allow these texts to stand and if you will allow if you'll look at them carefully you can see what's going on you can see why they're constructed the way they they were and that the authors are not being deceptive they're not embarrassed etc etc no reason to go that direction now moving on from uh from there uh a couple weeks ago

33:46

I played a clip of Devin Rose on Catholic Answers Live and evidently there was some discussion um about this on uh

34:03

Facebook um and yeah uh Armin just posted on Twitter and I'll retweet this for those of you follow me on on uh on Twitter um there's the well yeah what's the what's the date on this d d d oh

34:24

I just came up to this oh I thought that was the link to the uh the

34:30

G3 thing oh well um yeah the DL is live but I thought that was a link to uh the

34:38

G3 thing um if you want some more information on that you know the the images

34:44

I made and the percentage and stuff like that it's in the second of my G3 presentation anyways there evidently was some discussion of um my response to Devin Rose on Facebook and I thanked the gentleman who um sent me the material uh so I could look at it and one of the things that Devin Rose said was um

35:14

I had two back -to -back debates with Protestant professors PhDs and did not think it prudent to include someone who could be expected to act rudely in any case

35:25

I rebutted White's arguments in this post I'll be looking at the post um this is not the first time you know it it we

35:36

I guess we could call it the the Matthew Vine's defense because he certainly has been using it a lot but over the years uh you you become accustomed to recognizing there are certain people who are very bold as long as they don't think you're around or you're not gonna respond to them but then when you do all of a sudden they turn everything around and you're the big bad person because you've responded to them this is situation with Devin Rose here's a man who has published a book with Catholic answers who identifies himself as a

36:13

Catholic apologist um who makes strong claims in his book and who posted a video which

36:21

I have acknowledged on this program he says I've never accepted his apology I've acknowledged in this program that he apologized for the video and took it down but what did he apologize for what he claimed in the video or for the quote -unquote attitude of the video those are two different things and my offense has not ever been any alleged attitude it's been the assertion that Devin Rose has made that his book refutes mine when it's plain as the nose on your face that Devin Rose doesn't know to this day what my book says if he read it it went in one ear and back out the other still doesn't know what the argument of my book is now do you think he's trying to get up to speed now maybe a little late when you market your book when you when you sit there and you you hold a picture of it up and you put a bumper sticker across it about anti -Catholicism being a tradition of men and actually fault me for not refuting your own arguments when the book was much written you know a decade before yours and then it turns out that you never even interacted with it never even tried to didn't even didn't even show an understanding of never quoted it never cited it and never showed any understanding of it that's what's offensive to me

37:41

Mr. Rose is that claim I wasn't offended by your hey look you know

37:46

I appreciate a Catholic apologist who actually believes what he believes they're tough to find these days

37:51

I mean it's tough for you guys right now with your current Pope I mean these are these are not the best days for Catholic apologetics

37:59

I mean when you've got your you've got your Pope saying you're not going to convert anybody we're not supposed to proselytize we're not supposed to win arguments etc etc this is stuff he's right around doing we all know he's about to put out some global warming woohoo stuff you know just just loony leftist commie secularist uh socialism stuff you all know it's coming and the spin you're gonna have to be doing once he does it is just gonna be wild um it's tough times for you guys

38:33

I understand you know there's a lot of open a lot of vacancies uh I think in the uh in the job job hunting uh field for for Catholic apologists it's tough global warming woohoo stuff no global warming woohoo stuff that's exactly what's coming you better believe that's exactly what's coming if you don't realize that all this climate change stuff uh is bought and paid for by a guy named

38:57

George Soros you've missed it uh I mean the facts on this are overwhelming the stuff's out there they've caught the scientists creating hockey sticks and everything else and uh it's it's it's woohoo and right now most folks on the eastern seaboard

39:15

United States are going yep sure feels like woohoo to me uh especially when I go out my front door but anyway another another issue um

39:24

I know it's tough times for you guys um so I actually still appreciate

39:30

Roman Catholic apologists that that believe like the old popes did you know the the guy that wrote the the papal syllabus of errors it's it's easier to deal with somebody who actually believes than this this fluffy well we're still the true church type stuff you know it's a lot it's tough it's tough to deal with um it it really is so anyway uh could be expected to act rudely um

40:02

Mr. Rose um I have about a thousand times your experience in debate and proof that we can engage in debate in meaningful fashion about a thousand times and I'm not even having to pull an arrogant canter there um you're the one that had to pull videos and apologize for the quote -unquote attitude without actually apologizing for the content we didn't have to do that um you're just covering your tracks you would not debate me on moody radio because you know you cannot that that's the only reason don't don't don't do this oh he would be rude to me stuff

40:53

I'm sorry not buying it not buying it not with the stuff that you say in your book read the protestant dilemma um if you really believe the stuff you said in there then back it up don't do this well

41:06

I'm not gonna do it somebody unless they're really nice to me that's that's that's exactly what Matthew Vines is doing don't do that don't even go there anyway he says he refuted uh my arguments and there's there's more of this stuff that he said in on Facebook you can go and look for yourself about how uh mean and nasty and terrible and I am and all the rest of this kind of stuff um you know

41:32

I would have to see a big change in his attitude words and actions before I would even consider it evidently regarding a debate so here's a guy who's been challenging me to debate and marketing his book in light of that and then all of a sudden

41:45

I turn the spotlight on him and it's like oh you're gonna have to really be nice if you want to debate me yeah um

41:54

I'm sorry but you put yourself out there if you're gonna publish if you're gonna go on the air you're gonna make these statements um you need a backbone you know need need some skin you know the thin skin stuff ain't gonna ain't gonna cut it so um you know

42:16

I mean I'm surprised going to Texas gonna be in your neck of the woods uh why haven't we heard from you about doing something while we're there we can work it out but probably not gonna happen anyway uh the article that uh he refers to is called is apostolic succession a self -deception now it's interesting those of you who listen to the program know that I dealt with two clips from that catholic answers live program he only deals with the very first brief one because he even says he only listened to 20 minutes of the program okay

42:58

I listened to more of yours but it's okay you know and here's here's the here's the clip oh 1 .6

43:07

would be a little fast but I'll play it fairly quickly how about one of the granddaddy questions of all that's chapter 26 holy orders and apostolic succession if protestantism is true anyone who accurately interprets and teaches from the bible has authority in christ's church that probably loomed large in your own story correct question of authority yes and that question underlies every argument in the book in other words there's they're two totally different paradigms there's the catholic paradigm where we know who has authority because we can trace their succession from christ to the apostles all the way down through the centuries and then the protestant paradigm is that doesn't matter the church became corrupted and so whoever teaches the gospel accurately whatever that might mean they are the ones who have de facto authority okay so there was the clip that he responded to and by the way just in passing a bunch of the channel rats have put up a screen cap uh from g3 uh

44:03

I just retweeted it if you want to take a look at it um but uh yeah matthew uses was 139 words over eight verses mark uses 379 words over 22 verses so mark's version is 2 .7