To: Synoptic
On: Distinguishing Sources in 3ST
From: Bruce

The statistical interpretation of string behavior seems to have reached a
lull. Perhaps I might take up the strings from a slightly different angle.

PROBLEM

GIVEN: The Matthew/Luke common material. CONJECTURED: That the Lukan form of
that material comes from two sources: (a) an Aramaic sayings source,
accessed directly, and (b) Matthew's version of some of the Aramaic
material, accessed from Matthew. PREVIOUSLY DONE: A division between the two
has previously been made, on other grounds than those here inspected. TO
INQUIRE: Whether anything in the proportion of identical words between Mt
and Lk conforms to, and thus supports, that proposed division.

DATA: Here are Ron's statistics (as rearranged by myself):

A. Luke draws on A [Ron's "sQ"]: 12 strings in 7 units

     A1. Sermon on the Mount
6:24 // 16:13 / sQ / 26 [no man can serve two masters]
6:29-30 // 12:27-28 / sQ / 13  [not even Solomon . . .]
7:3 // 6:41 / sQ / 14  [the speck in your brother's eye]
7:7-8 // 11:9-10 / sQ / 24  [ask and it will be given you]
7:11 // 11:13 / sQ / 11 [if you know how to give good gifts . . .]
     A2. Foxes Have Holes
8:20 // 9:58 // sQ / 24
     A3. The [Missionary] Laborers are Few
9:37-38 // 10:2 / sQ / 15
     A4. He Who Is Not With Me
12:30 // 11:23 / sQ / 15
     A5. Curses By:
12:41 // 11:32 / sQ / 24 [the men of Nineveh]
12:42 // 11:31 / sQ / 16 [the Queen of the South]
     A6. The Good Fortune of the Disciples
13:17 // 10:24 / sQ / 11 [many desired to hear what you hear]
     A7. Simile of the Leaven
13:33 // 13:21 / sQ / 13

B. Luke uses Matthew's translation of A [Ron's xQ]: 23 strings in 13 units

     B1. Preaching of John
3:7-8 // 3:7-8 / xQ / 12
3:9-10 // 3:8-9 / xQ / 24
3:10 // 3:9 / xQ / 20
     B2. Baptism of Jesus by John
3:11-12 // 3:16-17 / xQ / 15
     B3. Temptation of Jesus by Satan
4:6 // 4:11 / xQ / 11
     B4. Tale of the Centurion
8:9 // 7:8-9 / xQ / 25
     B5. Signs of Jesus's Power, as Message to John
11:5-6 // 7:22-23 / xQ / 11 [the blind see, etc]
     B6. Jesus Speaks of John
11:7-8 // 7:24-25 / xQ / 19
11:8-10 // 7:25-27 / xQ / 18
11:10 // 7:27 / xQ / 14 [Isaiah quotation]
     B7. Woes to Galilean Churches
11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12
11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12
     B8. Thanks to the Father
11:25 // 10:25 / xQ / 11
11:25-27 // 10:21-22 / xQ / 27 [ . . who has concealed it from the wise]
     B9. All Things are Delivered to Jesus
11:27 // 10:22 / xQ / 11
     B10. Beelzebul Controversy
12:27 // 11:19 / xQ / 15
12:28 // 11:20 / xQ / 13 [then the Kingdom of God has come upon you]
     B11. The Unclean Spirit Returns
12:43 // 11:24 / xQ / 14
12:45 // 11:26 / xQ / 14
     B12. Lament for Jerusalem
23:37 // 13:34 / xQ / 14
23:37-38 // 13:34-35 / xQ / 12 [cursing of Jerusalem]
     B13. Parable of the Evil Servant
24:47-48 // 12:44-45 / xQ / 14 [cursing of Israel]
24:50-51 // 12:46 / xQ / 26 [the Master will condemn the faithless]

FREQUENCY PROFILES

I extract from the above the information about number and length of strings
of identical wording. An X equals one instance of a string of that length:

A. From the Aramaic Source (12 strings)

11wds: X X
12wds:
13wds: X X
14wds: X
15wds: X X
16wds: X
17wds:
18wds:
19wds:
20wds:
21wds:
22wds:
23wds:
24wds: X X
25wds:
26wds: X X
27wds:

B. Via Matthew (23 strings)

11wds: X X X X
12wds: X X X X
13wds: X
14wds: X X X X X
15wds: X X
16wds:
17wds:
18wds: X
19wds: X
20wds: X
21wds:
22wds:
23wds:
24wds: X
25wds: X
26wds: X
27wds: X

INTERPRETATION

1. The two profiles are rather similar, are they not? A big cluster at the
low end of the scale, and a less pronounced cluster at the high end of the
scale, and nothing much in between. Nothing emerges from visual inspection
of the profiles which immediately suggests that these two samples are drawn
from different populations. On the contrary, in this form, and allowing for
the difference in sample size, they look much the same.

2. The only feature of the profiles that might attract interest as violating
the expectation that the instances of long strings will taper off at the
high end of the range is the presence, in both lists, of visually noticeable
numbers of very long strings, following virtual lacunae in the middle range.
Interest thus attaches to those particular strings. Whatever is at work here
seems to be equally at work in both inventories, but just what is at work?
The identifications of those two groups of four strings each is here
restored, as supporting data:

(A: From the Conjectured Aramaic Source)

     Sermon on the Mount:
6:24 // 16:13 / sQ / 26 [no man can serve two masters]
7:7-8 // 11:9-10 / sQ / 24  [ask and it will be given you]
     Foxes Have Holes
8:20 // 9:58 // sQ / 24
     Curses By:
12:41 // 11:32 / sQ / 24 [the men of Nineveh]

[Comment: The Sermon on the Mount is a long section, unless it be proposed
to subdivide it, and in a long section, the chance of longer identical
strings is probably greater. This tends to reduce the apparent significance
of the first two cases. So also the fourth: the Nineveh paragraph is
followed by a Queen of the South paragraph, and from this longish piece two
strings were found, though only one of them made the 10wd experimental
cutoff. One might then suspect that in most of this material, the size of
the source passage may be a factor in the number and distribution of long
strings].

(B: Via Matthew)

     Preaching of John
3:9-10 // 3:8-9 / xQ / 24
     Tale of the Centurion
8:9 // 7:8-9 / xQ / 25
     Thanks to the Father
11:25-27 // 10:21-22 / xQ / 27 [ . . who has concealed it from the wise]
     Parable of the Wicked Servant
24:50-51 // 12:46 / xQ / 26 [the Master will condemn the faithless]

[Comment: Again we have the pattern that three of the four long strings come
from long stories, that is, stories long enough to have more than one
qualifying string drawn from them. Only the Tale of the Centurion is
represented by only one string. Is this because it consists of a relatively
high proportion of narrative as against sayings material?].

Without pushing this further at this moment, I seem to find that not only
are the two frequency profiles rather similar, but the material which is
perhaps distributionally significant in both cases seems to have the same
explanation: they are drawn from relatively long original story units.
Further investigation should probably focus on the type of material (saying,
narration, whatever) as well as its probable post-Crucifixion Sitz im Leben
(fixed anecdote, liturgically conditioned text, whatever).

Dave G's modified report was that the pattern to which Ron had pointed does
not reach the industrial standard significance level, and thus does not
strongly support the idea of two sources. The present overview, though made
from a different perspective, seems to reach a similar conclusion.

What then do we have here, beyond the statistically likely fact that long
stories will on average tend to produce longer identically worded strings in
the derived text, and the often made observation that Luke tends to copy
dialogue more faithfully than the narrative connective tissue?

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Thanks to Bruce, for ending the temporary lull.



My own feeling at the moment is that while the addition of a Greek
saying source helps explain some issues with "Mark-without-Q", a lot of
things about the proposed saying source are similar to Matthew in
general, thus I have proposed that both the gospel of Matthew and the
Greek saying source have the same the same author.



As for the Aramaic saying source, there are some small details that this
idea seems consistent with. Most notably from my point of view, the word
morathe in Matthew's salt saying. However, upon reflection, given my
idea that the saying source was a forgery, something like this could
just as easily be explained by supposing the individual forging the
document knew a little bit of Aramaic. We don't need to suppose a full
Aramaic saying source. The forging individual could, for example, have
claimed to have produced the Greek-saying source by translating from an
Aramaic speaking Matthew (who may or may not have even existed). Thus
the forged Greek document would be a physical reality, and the Aramaic
source would only have existed in the imagination of aMt.



I'm also reminded of a previous statistical investigation Ron and I
worked on -



http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/bib-likely-3SH.xls



The results are off to the right in the spreadsheet.



It is discussed briefly here



http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Q_forgery.html



under



Comparison with the three source hypothesis



The conclusion there was that the vocabulary profile of Ron's sQ
actually was more similar to undisputed Matthian vocabulary than Ron's
xQ.

For those that remember the notation - 200 and 201 were related to sQ
but not xQ.

Also on close examination, we noted a few words in sQ that seemed very
typical of Matthew's agenda.



This seemed contrary to expectations, given Ron's division, but not
impossible to explain either. However, I think the most straight-forward
explanation is that all the material has the vocabulary stamp of the
same author, the author of the gospel of Matthew.



In summary, while I still think a (successfully forged) Greek saying
source has useful explanatory power, when compared to the raw
"Mark-without-Q" hypothesis, I am skeptical that the source ever existed
in a full Aramaic form.



But I'm not totally pessimistic about Ron's project in general. If a
Greek saying source existed, forged or not, it might be possible to
discern groupings of sayings, as Ron has attempted.





Dave Gentile

Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

EMC Captiva

EMC Corporation

601 Oakmont Lane,

Westmont, IL 60559

P: 630-321-2985

F: 630-654-1607

E: Gentile_Dave@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dave,

   Here is a quote from the "Interpretation of Results" section of your
fascinating website:

   "For the 2SH the relation between 200 and 202 is a bit problematic, but it
could be explained by significant parts of 200 – sondergut Matthew, being part
of Q."

   I have thought for a long time that this is an important issue.  Mt uses
something like 90 percent of Mk, while Lk uses much less of Mk (it's been a
while since I saw the percentages).

   If we assume that Mt and Lk had the same general tendencies in the use of a
sayings source, then we should expect several passages from that source to
appear only in Mt, in what we call M material.  (Mt would have used close to all
of the source while Lk did not.)

   This means that analyzing Q by only looking at the double tradition is
intrinsically flawed on the front end!

   Now I find it interesting that your analysis points towards the relevance of
this issue.

   I'm not the most well-read Q student on earth.  Has anyone seen this issue
addressed in detail?

   Rev. Chuck Jones
   Atlanta, Georgia



---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chuck Jones wrote:



I'm not the most well-read Q student on earth.  Has anyone seen this
issue addressed in detail?



Dave: I'm certainly not either, but not to my knowledge. Others here may
be able to give a much more informed answer, however.

From what I've seen those who point to similarities between Matthew (or
M) and "Q" seem to be Q skeptics and discount the existence of Q in the
first place.

Also, since my page is just a webpage, and not published anywhere, I'm
not sure the issue is "out there" to be addressed.



Dave







Dave Gentile

Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

EMC Captiva

EMC Corporation

601 Oakmont Lane,

Westmont, IL 60559

P: 630-321-2985

F: 630-654-1607

E: Gentile_Dave@...

________________________________



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In traditional statistics, the 90th percentile significance cut-off is
fairly arbitrary, and it also does not technically mean "there is a
better than 90% chance X is true". In Bayesian statistics, we would
indeed interpret our recent result to mean there is an 11% chance of the
seeing this skewed result (or a more extreme result) given just random
chance. This probability value is only as good as the information
considered, however. We should say "Given the information considered,
there is an 11% chance of X". That's about equal to the probability of
walking up to a craps table, betting on a hard ten, and winning the
first time. It happens, but it's not all that common.



This is a long way of saying I'd be a little more comfortable if we had
a better explanation for Ron's result, or more information that altered
this 11% value.



In Bruce's list both John's special preaching, and the Centurion's
servant caught my eye. These are areas of particularly long, exact
agreement between Matthew and Luke. The other thing I note about them is
that they don't fall into Luke's basic structure. Most of his Q material
is placed in two sections, his version of the sermon, and his long
'central section'. So both of these fall outside of Luke's main blocks,
and both have unusually high verbatim agreement.



Thus I would propose that these are particularly good candidates for
material added to Luke later, by someone copying from Matthew, and not
by the original author of Luke. This would help explain Ron's result.



Continuing along these lines, if I pull out all of the material related
to John, the centurion's servant, and the temptation of Jesus by Satan,
all of which are outside of Luke's two main blocks, we're left with 13
strings instead of 23 in xQ. Now we have something like a 70% chance of
getting a result at least this extreme by random chance. This would
fully explain Ron's result.



I'm not sure why a late redactor would be so keen on adding material
related to John, but I'm sure we could think of reasonable motives here.



So, what I see as notable in all of this is that within Luke's two main
blocks we have not observed any important distinction, however, outside
of those block, the incidence of identical strings is dramatically
increased. I don't have the length of the relevant sections available,
so I can't crunch the numbers, but I'd bet we'd get a pretty significant
result here.





Dave Gentile

Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

EMC Captiva

EMC Corporation

601 Oakmont Lane,

Westmont, IL 60559

P: 630-321-2985

F: 630-654-1607

E: Gentile_Dave@...







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I haven't read the book (yet), but I understand that
Clare K. Rothschild, BAPTIST TRADITION AND Q (WUNT 190;
Mohr Siebeck, 2005) addresses questions relating to
the common authorship of M and Q.

Perhaps someone more familiar with this book can comment.

Stephen Carlson

--
Stephen C. Carlson
Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor,
2005)

Chuck Jones wrote:

> Mt uses something like 90 percent of Mk, while Lk uses much less of Mk
> (it's been a while since I saw the percentages).
> If we assume that Mt and Lk had the same general tendencies in the use of a
> sayings source, then we should expect several passages from that source to
> appear only in Mt, in what we call M material.  (Mt would have used close to
> all of the source while Lk did not.)

Chuck,

Although my findings don't match this exactly, they do come a lot closer
than most. For I find that Luke omitted twice as much logia sayings material
as Matthew omitted. In terms of complete sayings the balance is even more
skewed. Luke omitted from the logia: Mt 5:30,29 ('Hand/eye'), Mt 7:6
('Pearls/swine'), Mt 10:42 ('Cup of water'), Mt 10:23 ('Through all
Israel'), Mt 22:14 ('Called/chosen') and Mt 24:11 ('False prophets').
Matthew only omitted Lk 11:27-28 ('Womb') and Lk 12:54-56 ('Weather signs').
This last I treat as special L because of the dubious textual support for
its apparent parallel Mt 16:2b-3.

It may also be worth pointing out that each of the above aphorisms (all of
which are outside the Double Tradition and therefore not generally included
in Q) is integrated into the logia by being paired with a Double Tradition
saying in its proposed structure, and in all but one case the integration is
reinforced by a link with an adjacent Double Tradition saying.

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

Ron Price wrote:

   It may also be worth pointing out that each of the above aphorisms (all of
which are outside the Double Tradition and therefore not generally included
in Q) is integrated into the logia by being paired with a Double Tradition
saying in its proposed structure, and in all but one case the integration is
reinforced by a link with an adjacent Double Tradition saying.


Ron,

   If I understand this paragraph correctly, the material you're referring to
could (should?) be investigated further as possible Q material.  Is that
correct?

   Rev. Chuck Jones
   Atlanta, Georgia



---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chuck Jones wrote:

> If I understand this paragraph correctly, the material you're referring to
> could (should?) be investigated further as possible Q material.  Is that
> correct?

Chuck,

Not really, for I think the hypothetical Q comes from a simplistic and
flawed understanding of the Double Tradition. My reconstruction of the logia
differs quite a lot from Q (details on my Web site). The diverse nature of Q
is such that it is impossible to define useful criteria as to what sayings
from outside the Double Tradition should be added to it. The Double
Tradition is the wrong place to start. If we start with the doublets, which
is a cohesive group of aphorisms, it is much easier to see which other
synoptic sayings should be added to the group.

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

Matt

Pericope Label

Narrative

Matthean Style

Matthean Context

Incompatible with core sQ

3:7-12

Jn. B.'s Testimony

(*)*

****

-

-

4:1-11

Temptation

*****

**

**

-

8:5-13

Centurion's Servant

***

**

-

*

11:2-19

Jn. B.'s Inquiry

*

*****

**

**













11:25-27

Jesus' Thanksgiving

-

**

-

*

12:22-32

Beelzebul

**

-

-

**

































































Matt

Pericope Label

Narrative

Matthean Style

Matthean Context

Incompatible with core sQ

















































11:20-23

Woe to Chorazin...

-

-

*

*

























12:43-45

Unclean Spirit

-

**

*

-

22:1-10

Wedding Banquet

-

*

*

-

23:37-39

Lament for Jerusalem

-

****

*

-

24:45-51

Servant set over household

-

*

-

*

25:14-30

Talents

-

*

-

*





I went though Ron's xQ to see which arguments I currently find to be
personally convincing. The top group I agree should not be in a saying
source. Besides Ron's criteria we could add that they are outside of
Luke's 2 main sections (except Beelzebul and Thanksgiving), and also
tend have large verbatim agreements. The Beelzebul conflict I am
convinced came directly from Matthew to Luke for other reasons. Also,
the exceptionally long verbatim agreement in Thanksgiving, plus the
John-like style and theme leads me to accept this placement.



On the other side, arguments about Matthian style and context would not
sway me, given that my view is that Matthew and the saying-source have
the same author.



The servants and the talents both seem compatible with Matthew's ideas
as well. The end is coming soon, but we don't know exactly when, and
must be watchful. This does not seem, to me, to contradict the idea that
the end is soon. This same idea is also found in Mark.  The "talents" is
the only one of these outside of Luke's main groups, but this by itself
seems insufficient for an assignment outside the saying source.



Finally, Ron has that Chorazin mentions miracles. I don't find this to
be compelling, but in addition, the bit about miracles is not found in
Luke, so its placement in Q is questionable in the first place. Thus I
don't think we can use this as a reason to remove the saying from the
saying source.



I'm not sure what effect this would have on Ron's pairing, but perhaps
some of the sayings on the second chart deserve to be reconsidered.





Dave Gentile

Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

EMC Captiva

EMC Corporation

601 Oakmont Lane,

Westmont, IL 60559

P: 630-321-2985

F: 630-654-1607

E: Gentile_Dave@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Appologies for the odd formatting in the last note. My cut and paste
of Ron's tables did not turn out as expected.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, IL

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
On: Ron Price's 3ST
Containing: Suggestion and Inventory
From: Bruce

SUGGESTION

Ron defends his "sQ" nomenclature with the thought that the letter "Q" is
familiar to everybody. That is exactly why Q in all forms should be avoided
in labeling any proposed source which differs significantly (as Ron's does,
in both derivational logic and in contents) from Q. I make the obvious
suggestion, which Ron's modesty may have prohibited him from making himself:
that in view of Ron's long work on the theory it be named after him, and
that his conjectured source be called P.

INVENTORY

What is ultimately being discussed, whether from statistical or other
angles, is what I will now begin to call P. Not everyone may have accessed P
from Ron's website in following recent discussion, though for the record
that site is

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

For the rest, it may be convenient to have a structural summary in E-mail
form. I provide one herewith. Given the rounding off of lines in E-mail, I
have had to abbreviate some descriptions, and to get a little more room I
have rephrased "A8" (etc) as "8" (etc), and transferred them to the
beginning of the line; that a given "8" is "A8" is hopefully manifest,
albeit implicit in its placement under "A." Ron's site remains the
authority, and should be checked before committing oneself to a comment in
hardcopy form. This version may perhaps suffice for purposes of preliminary
E-mail discussion.

   A: Entering the Kingdom
  Mark     Matthew         Luke          Saying / internal links

1.  -----     5:3-4,6,11-12   6:20-23   Beatitudes / earth
2.  9:50a   5:13                14:34-35   Salt / earth; influence others
3.  4:21     5:15                11:33        Light lamp / influence others
4. (13:31)  5:18                16:17       Law / God's law persists
5.  -----     5:25-26          12:58-59   Your accuser/  God's law persists
6. 9:43,47 5:30,29           -----          Hand/eye separation
7. 10:11    5:32               16:18         Divorce separation
8.  -----     5:39-48     6:27-30,32-36    Love enemies -
9.  -----     15:14         6:39               Blind guide / guidance
10 -----   10:24-25      6:40              Teacher/disciple guidance
11  10:15  18:3             -----             Be like child / enter K of G
12  10:25  -----             -----            Eye of needle / enter K of G
13   -----  7:3-5         6:41-42          Speck/plank / criticize others
14 (4:24) 7:1-2         6:37-8            Judge/measure / criticize others
15  -----   7:6             -----               Pearls/swine / do not...
16  -----   7:13-14     13:24             Two gates -
17 -----    7:15-20     6:43-44          Good tree / good & evil
18 -----   12:34-35    6:45               Good treasure / good & evil
19 (11:24) 7:7-11     11:9-13          Ask / good & evil
20 -----   7:12          6:31                 Golden rule / do
21 -----  7:21-23   6:46;13:26-27     I never knew you / do; everyone
22  ----- 7:24-27   6:47-49               Rock/sand / do; everyone

   B: The Mission of the Kingdom
Mark         Matthew     Luke             Saying / internal links

1. (1:16-20)   8:19-22      9:57-60      Following Jesus / discipleship
2. 9:41           10:42          -----           Cup of water / discipleship
3. (4:26-29)    9:37-38     10:2           Harvest / fr w B14; send; worker
4. 1:15; 6:8-11 10:5b-15  10:4-12    Instr / fr w/B7; send; worker; sheep
5. -----            10:16          10:3          Sheep/wolves / send; sheep
6. 13:13         10:22          -----           Hated/endure / all
7. (13:10)      10:23          -----           Through all Israel / all
8. 13:9,11      10:17-20    12:11-12     Hand over ... words / don't worry
9. (4:22; 8:38) 10:26-33  12:2-9        Nothing hidden / don't be afraid
10. (13:12)     10:34-35   12:51,53     Division / family
11. 8:34         10:37-38    14:26-27     Worthy/cross / Whoever ...; family
12. 8:35         10:39         17:33           Save/lose / Whoever
13. 9:37b       10:40         10:16          Whoever welcomes / Whoever; me
14. 9:40         12:30         11:23          For/against / Whoever; me

   C: The coming Kingdom
  Mark         Matthew     Luke        Saying / internal links

1. (11:25)     6:7,9-13    11:2-4       K come! / "many" n enough
2.  ------        22:14          -----         Called/chosen  / "many" n
enough
3.  -----         6:22-23     11:34-35    Eye as lamp -
4.  2:17         -----           -----           Caesar/God / ruler
5. (8:12)    12:38-9,41-2 11:16,29-32  Req sign / ruler, prophet
6. -----      13:16-17     10:23-24     What you see / r, p, blessed; hear
7. (3:31-35)  -----        11:27-28      Womb / blessed; hear
8. -----    18:15,21-22  17:3-4         Forgiveness / sin
9. 9:42   18:6-7            17:1-2         Millstone  / sin
10. 9:35b;10:42b-44  23:11 -----    Ruler / servant high vs low status
11. -----   23:12 14:11;  18:14b       Humble exalted / high vs low status
12. 9:1         -----         -----              Some standing / sky to
earth
13. -----        -----       12:54-56       Weather signs / earth & sky
14. 4:30-32 13:31-33 13:18-21       Mustard/yeast / earth to sky; man/woman
15. -----       18:12-14 15:4-10         Sheep, coin / numb one; man/woman
16. -----       6:24         16:13           Two masters / numbers; one
17. 11:23    17:20        17:6            Mulberry tree -
18. (10:21)  6:19-21  12:33-34      Treasure in heaven / possessions
19. -----      6:25-33   12:22-31       Food/clothing / possessions; will be
given
20  4:25     25:29       12:48             Much given / will be given
21 (10:29-30) 19:28  22:28-30       Thrones / rewards at the coming
22  10:31   20:16      13:30             Last/first / rewards at the coming

D: Hindrances to the Kingdom
Mark        Matthew     Luke        Saying / internal links

1. -----       23:13,15bc 11:52       Hinder entrance / woe
2. -----       23:25-26     11:39-41  Clean cup / woe; blind; Pharisees
3. -----       23:23-24     11:42       Tithe mint / woe; blind; Pharisees
4. 12:38-39 23:6-7       11:43        Seats/greetings / woe; Pharisees
5. -----       23:27          11:44        Unmarked graves / woe; Pharisees
6. -----       23:4            11:46        Burdens / woe
7. -----      23:29-36      11:47-51   Memorials / woe; prophets
8. 13:22    24:11            -----         False prophets / prophets
9. 13:21    24:26           17:23        Look he is .../  "they" ref to D8
10. -----     24:27          17:24        Lightning / visible from afar
11. -----     24:28          17:37        Corpse / visible from afar
12. -----     24:37-39    17:26-27,30 In the days of Noah / sudden coming
13. -----     24:40-41    17:34-35   Taken/left / sudden coming
14. (13:35-37) 24:42-44 12:39-40 Watch/thief / sudden coming

AN EXTRACT FROM RON'S FOLLOWING NOTES
Footnote indications have been suppressed; see Ron's site

     a. MORE ABOUT THE STRUCTURE
The first saying in each section indicates that section's overall theme:

A Who can enter the kingdom (Mt 5:3)
B Proclaiming the kingdom (Lk 9:60)
C The coming kingdom (Lk 11:2c)
D Those who hinder entrance to the kingdom (Mt 23:13)

Each section appears to be arranged in two halves with the same number of
sayings in each half. In D, these comprise the woes and a description of the
coming of the Son of man. The first half of B comes to a climax in 'Through
all Israel'. Matthew ch.5 includes sayings from the first half of A, and
ch.7 includes sayings from the second half. The first half of A opens with a
saying about the poor; the second half opens with a saying about the rich.
The first half of C opens with an expression of hope for the coming kingdom;
the second half opens with a confident prediction of its coming.

a. THE ORDER OF THE SAYINGS [aLk = Author of Luke; etc]

The order in P [formerly sQ].
The proposed order of the sayings indicated above has been determined by a
combination of criteria:

   a.. In section A the sayings generally follow the order in Mt 5-7 and Lk
6:20-49. aMt and aLk agree in placing 'Beatitudes' and 'Rock/sand' at the
beginning and end of their respective sermons, which is probably a
reflection of their original positions in A.
   b.. The order in C is determined primarily by the parallels with A.
   c.. The order in B is based mainly on Matthew, for aMt has kept together
what appears to be mission material (mainly in Mt 10) better than aLk.
   d.. In D, the order of the woes in P follows the order in Luke with one
exception, which will be explained below. The mention of prophets in Mt
24:11 provides a link between the last woe and the signs of Jesus' coming.

---------END OF INVENTORY---------

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

To: GPG
Cc: Synoptic
On: [Ron Price's] P and [Everybody's] Q
From: Bruce

It has long seemed to me (and I say this despite the endpaper manuscript
facsimiles which reify Q in its Hermeneia version) that Q as it stands - or
lurches, since its defenders exhibit a truly remarkable ability to
temporarily redefine Q at any point which has been successfully challenged -
is indefensible. But this is not to say that there is nothing there at all,
or that Synoptic theory is best off without *some* additional elements
besides the Synoptics themselves. If there existed a now lost source prior
to both Mt and Lk, however, it seems to me that it will need to be defined
ab initio in a different way than Q, and defined on criteria both internally
consistent and externally plausible. Among other things, that better theory,
as it seems to me, must either embrace or openly abandon the "sayings
source" notion, which is one of the appeals of Q to the Q laity, but which
has long been violated by the framers of Q.

It seems to me that something like this sort of alternative to Q is what Ron
Price has come up with. His "P" is consistently a sayings source (it
eliminates the John B material which is most frequently acknowledged, by
votaries of Q, to be a weak spot in Q). It has a structural logic of its
own, largely thematic (which any modern thinker might excogitate) but making
considerable use of sayings parallelism, a device not uncommon in ancient
texts and thus promising in itself. P has a basis in what we can directly
observe in the Synoptics and in their pattern of interrelationships. I have
earlier ventured to question some of its details, and to doubt that Ron's
recent argument from string length really adds to the support for P. But I
think the field can only benefit from further discussion, of this and like
options.

I add a few tiny points by way of suggesting what seem to me might be
fruitful lines of discussion.

PRIORITY

To my eye, the most cogent of recent arguments in favor of Q - and they do
not necessarily support Q as the IQP folks know it - is that in certain
material common to Mt and Lk but absent from Mk, it is not consistently
either Mt or Lk *but now one and now the other,* which seems to be
developmentally prior. It is this kind of situation which can responsibly
lead to the positing of a third source differently used by both extant
texts. Ron's recent argument has focused on cases where, as he sees it, Lk
has differently treated the P material when accessing it directly, and when
accessing it via its translated version in Mt. Ron's argument is based on
strings of *identical* wording between Mt and Lk. My own instinct is that it
is in the *nonidentical* wording of these same passages that any evidence
for directionality is going to be found. Identity merely proves literary
relationship. It cannot of itself establish textual directionality. Ron's
presumption, given that he finds Lk to be after Mt and to have used Mt, must
be that in Matthean context Lk is always secondary to Mt, and that it is
only where Lk directly taps Mt's source P that a Lukan passage might seem to
be anterior to the parallel Matthean version. That possibility might be
worth checking systematically.

SERMON ON THE SOMETHING

The SM (Luke's SP), at least from January through November, is the most
beloved of NT passages, and also the one in connection with which there
arise some of the most vehement arguments in favor of Q (as versus a theory
of undiluted Markan priority). It is thus automatically of interest to ask
how SM/P fares in the proposed P. For reference,

Sermon on the Mount = Mt 5-7
Sermon on the Plain = Lk 6:20-49

A point of immediate interest is: does this material stand associated in P?
The answer is that much of Mt's SM, and in Matthean order, is found in the
"A" section of source P, and makes up the majority of that section. The
differences are two: (a) some of the Matthean SM is omitted (eg, from the
Beatitudes, those on the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, etc), which
has the result of attributing these portions of SM to Matthean expansion of
P, and leaving the rest near to the counterpart Lukan form of the Sermon.
This is one of the places most often cited in support of Lukan priority in
the Double Tradition, and the P theory would seem to recognize that
argument. (b) The SM part of section "A" of source P is interspersed with
material standing later in Mt, eg 15:14 on blind guides, 10:24f on teachers
and disciples, and 18:3 of childlikeness, these being followed by a passage
with no Matthean counterpart but represented among the Synoptics only in Mk
10:25, which is linked to the preceding (in P) by the theme of entry into
the Kingdom of God.

These conclusions as to the content and order of P entail the corollary that
Mt has broken up and redistributed the Sermon as he found it in his source.
I suspect that not all readers will find these modifications convincing, and
that some will respond to them as Streeter did to the notion that Luke had
broken up and redistributed the Sermon as he found it in Mt. I doubt,
myself, that the Sermon in any form has any real rhetorical integrity, and
suspect that it was assembled, by whomever, from materials originally
separate from each other, merely in order to have a connected discourse of
Jesus, rather than the bits and snippets which the Gospels otherwise present
to us as representing Jesus's teachings.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mt 6:9-15 || Lk 11:2-4

Another Q discussion crux, and one in which again the Lukan version of
common matter is often judged to be  prior to the Matthean version, is the
Lord's Prayer. One problem for modern persons is that so many of them have
from childhood been accustomed to the Matthean version; it is hard-wired in
most people who consider NT matters at all. But for those considering the LP
on its philological merits, a good case can be made that the Matthean
version is an ecclesiastical expansion and indeed a commentary on the Lukan
version. Why it is not then routinely inferred that both aMt and aLk got it
from their own kindergarten exposure to it as members of the community of
the early faithful, and not from some written source which it is then
necessary to posit and to publish complete with endpapers, entirely escapes
me.

In any case, what does P do with the LP? Seemingly it omits it. Portions of
Mt 6 are found not in "A" (the SM context) but in sections "C" and "D" of
the P construct, largely (I assume) on thematic grounds. Up to a point, I am
inclined to agree with this; it seems to me, on merely intuitive grounds,
that the LP is an unlikely item in a general ethical sermon, and that Mt was
wrong to bundle it into his general ethical sermon.

As for the antiquity of the LP, I think it probably has none, but that the
LP arose in post-Crucifixion early Church practice, along with many usages
which, at least as I see it, were taken over from, or reintroduced from, the
practice of the much better established believer community of John. If the
SM/SP is to be distinguished rhetorically from a catechism, or from such
instruction of converts as we see in the Didache, then it or its more
plausible future revised version will probably have to avoid including the
LP. In this matter too, Luke (who locates the LP elsewhere) may be in the
right. This would be a point also in favor of the P hypothesis.

It occurs to me in this connection that (1) it would be interesting to see
how much the P hypothesis regards Mt 6 as having drawn from P, and how much
from other places, and in general, what is the compositional logic of Mt 6.
And that (2) there is no time to pursue such matters in the present note,
which accordingly I will end at this point.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts

Bruce Brooks wrote:

> Sermon on the Mount = Mt 5-7
> Sermon on the Plain = Lk 6:20-49
>
> A point of immediate interest is: does this material stand associated in P?
> The answer is that much of Mt's SM, and in Matthean order, is found in the
> "A" section of source P, and makes up the majority of that section. The
> differences are two: (a) some of the Matthean SM is omitted (eg, from the
> Beatitudes, those on the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, etc), which
> has the result of attributing these portions of SM to Matthean expansion of
> P, and leaving the rest near to the counterpart Lukan form of the Sermon.

Bruce,

Many thanks for inadvertently bringing my attention to an error on my Web
site. My reference there for Matthew's beatitudes is Mt 5:3-4,6,11-12. This
refers to a much earlier version of my reconstruction. It should read Mt
5:3-8,11-12. In other words I believe that to match the 7 woes there were 7
beatitudes in the logia (or "P" if you prefer), including those concerning
the meek, the merciful and the pure in heart. My English language
reconstruction does include the 7 beatitudes.

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
On: Inventory of Source P as revised 22 Dec 07

There is not as yet any International Ron Project, so that what the original
Ron says about the content of his hypothetical source P definitely goes. The
rest of us can only update and accept. Whether we like the later version is
up to us. My own first impression is that Ron's later change in the
Beatitudes section of P (7 Beatitudes matching 7 Woes) makes it, in fact,
more worked over and thus less presumptively original, as though the author
of John had suddenly intruded into the writing chamber of Matthew. However,
that is nothing to the point. Here is the revised inventory of P as recently
corrected by its proponent (aP), made available for more informed discussion
in future. A reminder: Ron's website is at

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

REVISED INVENTORY

   A: Entering the Kingdom
  Mark     Matthew         Luke          Saying / internal links

1.  -----     5:3-8,11-12      6:20-23   7 Beatitudes / earth
2.  9:50a   5:13                14:34-35   Salt / earth; influence others
3.  4:21     5:15                11:33        Light lamp / influence others
4. (13:31)  5:18                16:17       Law / God's law persists
5.  -----     5:25-26          12:58-59   Your accuser/  God's law persists
6. 9:43,47 5:30,29           -----          Hand/eye separation
7. 10:11    5:32               16:18         Divorce separation
8.  -----     5:39-48     6:27-30,32-36    Love enemies -
9.  -----     15:14         6:39               Blind guide / guidance
10 -----   10:24-25      6:40              Teacher/disciple guidance
11  10:15  18:3             -----             Be like child / enter K of G
12  10:25  -----             -----            Eye of needle / enter K of G
13   -----  7:3-5         6:41-42          Speck/plank / criticize others
14 (4:24) 7:1-2         6:37-8            Judge/measure / criticize others
15  -----   7:6             -----               Pearls/swine / do not...
16  -----   7:13-14     13:24             Two gates -
17 -----    7:15-20     6:43-44          Good tree / good & evil
18 -----   12:34-35    6:45               Good treasure / good & evil
19 (11:24) 7:7-11     11:9-13          Ask / good & evil
20 -----   7:12          6:31                 Golden rule / do
21 -----  7:21-23   6:46;13:26-27     I never knew you / do; everyone
22  ----- 7:24-27   6:47-49               Rock/sand / do; everyone

   B: The Mission of the Kingdom
Mark         Matthew     Luke             Saying / internal links

1. (1:16-20)   8:19-22      9:57-60      Following Jesus / discipleship
2. 9:41           10:42          -----           Cup of water / discipleship
3. (4:26-29)    9:37-38     10:2           Harvest / fr w B14; send; worker
4. 1:15; 6:8-11 10:5b-15  10:4-12    Instr / fr w/B7; send; worker; sheep
5. -----            10:16          10:3          Sheep/wolves / send; sheep
6. 13:13         10:22          -----           Hated/endure / all
7. (13:10)      10:23          -----           Through all Israel / all
8. 13:9,11      10:17-20    12:11-12     Hand over ... words / don't worry
9. (4:22; 8:38) 10:26-33  12:2-9        Nothing hidden / don't be afraid
10. (13:12)     10:34-35   12:51,53     Division / family
11. 8:34         10:37-38    14:26-27     Worthy/cross / Whoever ...; family
12. 8:35         10:39         17:33           Save/lose / Whoever
13. 9:37b       10:40         10:16          Whoever welcomes / Whoever; me
14. 9:40         12:30         11:23          For/against / Whoever; me

   C: The coming Kingdom
  Mark         Matthew     Luke        Saying / internal links

1. (11:25)     6:7,9-13    11:2-4       K come! / many n enough
2.  ------        22:14          -----         Called/chosen  / many n
enough
3.  -----         6:22-23     11:34-35    Eye as lamp -
4.  2:17         -----           -----           Caesar/God / ruler
5. (8:12)    12:38-9,41-2 11:16,29-32  Req sign / ruler, prophet
6. -----      13:16-17     10:23-24     What you see / r, p, blessed; hear
7. (3:31-35)  -----        11:27-28      Womb / blessed; hear
8. -----    18:15,21-22  17:3-4         Forgiveness / sin
9. 9:42   18:6-7            17:1-2         Millstone  / sin
10. 9:35b;10:42b-44  23:11 -----    Ruler / servant high vs low status
11. -----   23:12 14:11;  18:14b       Humble exalted / high vs low status
12. 9:1         -----         -----              Some standing / sky > earth
13. -----        -----       12:54-56       Weather signs / earth & sky
14. 4:30-32 13:31-33 13:18-21       Mustard/yeast / earth to sky; man/woman
15. -----       18:12-14 15:4-10         Sheep, coin / numb one; man/woman
16. -----       6:24         16:13           Two masters / numbers; one
17. 11:23    17:20        17:6            Mulberry tree -
18. (10:21)  6:19-21  12:33-34      Treasure in heaven / possessions
19. -----      6:25-33   12:22-31       Food/clothes / possessions; will be
given
20  4:25     25:29       12:48             Much given / will be given
21 (10:29-30) 19:28  22:28-30       Thrones / rewards at the coming
22  10:31   20:16      13:30             Last/first / rewards at the coming

D: Hindrances to the Kingdom
Mark        Matthew     Luke        Saying / internal links

1. -----       23:13,15bc 11:52       Hinder entrance / woe
2. -----       23:25-26     11:39-41  Clean cup / woe; blind; Pharisees
3. -----       23:23-24     11:42       Tithe mint / woe; blind; Pharisees
4. 12:38-39 23:6-7       11:43        Seats/greetings / woe; Pharisees
5. -----       23:27          11:44        Unmarked graves / woe; Pharisees
6. -----       23:4            11:46        Burdens / woe
7. -----      23:29-36      11:47-51   Memorials / woe; prophets
8. 13:22    24:11            -----         False prophets / prophets
9. 13:21    24:26           17:23        Look he is .../  "they" ref to D8
10. -----     24:27          17:24        Lightning / visible from afar
11. -----     24:28          17:37        Corpse / visible from afar
12. -----     24:37-39    17:26-27,30 In the days of Noah / sudden coming
13. -----     24:40-41    17:34-35   Taken/left / sudden coming
14. (13:35-37) 24:42-44 12:39-40 Watch/thief / sudden coming

AN EXTRACT FROM RON'S FOLLOWING NOTES
Footnote indications have been suppressed; see Ron's site

     a. MORE ABOUT THE STRUCTURE
The first saying in each section indicates that section's overall theme:

A Who can enter the kingdom (Mt 5:3)
B Proclaiming the kingdom (Lk 9:60)
C The coming kingdom (Lk 11:2c)
D Those who hinder entrance to the kingdom (Mt 23:13)

Each section appears to be arranged in two halves with the same number of
sayings in each half. In D, these comprise the woes and a description of the
coming of the Son of man. The first half of B comes to a climax in 'Through
all Israel'. Matthew ch.5 includes sayings from the first half of A, and
ch.7 includes sayings from the second half. The first half of A opens with a
saying about the poor; the second half opens with a saying about the rich.
The first half of C opens with an expression of hope for the coming kingdom;
the second half opens with a confident prediction of its coming.

a. THE ORDER OF THE SAYINGS [aLk = Author of Luke; etc]

The order in P [formerly sQ].
The proposed order of the sayings indicated above has been determined by a
combination of criteria:

   a.. In section A the sayings generally follow the order in Mt 5-7 and Lk
6:20-49. aMt and aLk agree in placing 'Beatitudes' and 'Rock/sand' at the
beginning and end of their respective sermons, which is probably a
reflection of their original positions in A.
   b.. The order in C is determined primarily by the parallels with A.
   c.. The order in B is based mainly on Matthew, for aMt has kept together
what appears to be mission material (mainly in Mt 10) better than aLk.
   d.. In D, the order of the woes in P follows the order in Luke with one
exception, which will be explained below. The mention of prophets in Mt
24:11 provides a link between the last woe and the signs of Jesus' coming.

---------END OF INVENTORY---------

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

To: Synoptic
Cc: GPG
On: Matthew 6 (Exploring the P Hypothesis)
From: Bruce

Trouble is, this NT stuff is like potato chips; you can't do just one. On
the theory, however, that NT may have less cholesterol than potato chips,
here is my quick look at the composition of Mt 6, assuming that Matthew had
the hypothetical P text (as most recently amended) before him, along with
Mk, but that everything not accounted for by those two sources comes out of
Matthew's own head (how it got there it is not my present purpose to
inquire). Matthew, then, had three sources: Mk, P, and himself.

SCENARIO

Matthew has begun his Sermon on the Mount back in Mt 5, and he will wind it
up at the end of Mt 7. As the curtain goes up, we thus find him well along
with it. He has just completed the section on not distinguishing between the
good and the evil, but rather treating both alike, as supposedly God also
does (Mt 5:43-48). Let's start there. I use as headings the source on which
(by present hypothesis) aMt is supposed to be relying, and merely summarize
the contents of the Mt 6 passages. My own remarks are preceded by asterisks;
some find the result of the P experiment convincing, some do not.

------THE MT 6 EXPERIMENT--------

             From P (A8)
Mt 5:39-48. Treat just and unjust equally, as does God. Be perfect.

             Original
Mt 6:1-4. Do not flaunt your piety before men; you will have no reward.
Mt 6:5-8. Do not pray conspicuously, like the hypocrites
     *parallel to preceding, but cf below
             From P (part of C1)
Mt 6:7. . . . or heap up phrases as the Gentiles do.
     *seems awkward to have just this one bit in P
             Original
Mt 6:8. Do not be thus; your Father knows your need before you ask.
     *aMt here seems to be bridging to his next long P extract:

             From P (end of C1)
Mt 6:9-13. Lord's Prayer . . . deliver us from evil.
             Original
Mt 6:14-15. . . for if you forgive men their trespasses . . .
     *agreed that this looks like a Matthean gloss on the preceding.

             Original
Mt 6:16-18. When you fast, do not be like the hypocrites
     *this looks like a parallel to Mt 6:1-8; why not in P? cf above.
             From P (C18, with a slight echo of Mk 10:21)
Mt 6:19-21. Lay up treasures in Heaven.
     *at least somewhat thematically consecutive

             From P (C3)
Mt 6:22-23. Eye is lamp of body; it should shine
             From P (C16)
Mt 6:24. No man can serve God and Mammon.
     *Separated in C and different in sense. Why join them?

             From P (C19)
Mt 6:25-33. Do not be anxious about your life
             Original
Mt 6:34. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow
     *credible as an editorial summary of preceding.

-----------END OF THE MT 6 EXPERIMENT---------

To me, at first glance, some of the movements of aMt's mind as implied by
the P theory here examined look intelligible and convincing. Others look
less so, and there is at least one point at which there seems to arise a
question about the contents of P itself, as presently proposed. It is
perhaps not as likeable as it would be if aMt were taking his P material at
least in its P sequence.

On the whole, the experimental results are not necessarily unfavorable to
the theory. But I draw no conclusions at this point, preferring to see if
anyone has a notably different sense of the aMt authorial process in this
particular segment.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Bruce Brooks wrote:

> Mt 6:16-18. When you fast, do not be like the hypocrites
>   *this looks like a parallel to Mt 6:1-8; why not in P? cf above.

Bruce,

The three sayings in Mt 6:2-4, 5-6 and 16-18 are too stereotyped compared
with the doublets which form the template for the logia (what you call "P").

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

To: Synoptic
With: Further on the 3ST (Section A)
From: Bruce

Myself, I am at this moment neither sold on 3ST nor do I refuse to consider
it. While reserving any final judgement, I think it has some interesting
features that deserve a careful look. One attractive point for me is that,
as reconstructed, conjectural text P really is a sayings gospel, not a
narrative in disguise (like Q). Another is that, again as reconstructed, it
has a form of its own: not only is the material distributed into four
topical groups, but the groups have definite lengths (of 22, 14, 22, and 14
sayings; too bad they weren't all 14, or we could invoke the principle of
Luke's Genealogy as having something to do with its design). Moreover, they
are pervasively linked by thematic pairings. Now, anybody can arrange a
random pile of sayings into topical groups, and exercising the privilege of
choice, can wind up with groupings of seemingly intentional size, and only
ingenuity is required to see thematic links of some sort between them. So
this result isn't of itself decisive, but it is nevertheless appealing and
suggestive. By way of following up one suggestion, I here take a further
look at the principle of pairing in Group A:

First, here is the inventory of Group A as most recently corrected:

REVISED INVENTORY

   A: Entering the Kingdom
  Mark     Matthew         Luke          Saying / internal links

1.  -----     5:3-8,11-12      6:20-23   7 Beatitudes / earth
2.  9:50a   5:13                14:34-35   Salt / earth; influence others
3.  4:21     5:15                11:33        Light lamp / influence others
4. (13:31)  5:18                16:17       Law / God's law persists
5.  -----     5:25-26          12:58-59   Your accuser /  God's law persists
6. 9:43,47 5:30,29           -----          Hand/eye / separation
7. 10:11    5:32               16:18         Divorce / separation
8.  -----     5:39-48     6:27-30,32-36    Love enemies -
9.  -----     15:14         6:39               Blind guide / guidance
10 -----   10:24-25      6:40              Teacher/disciple guidance
11  10:15  18:3             -----             Be like child / enter K of G
12  10:25  -----             -----            Eye of needle / enter K of G
13   -----  7:3-5         6:41-42          Speck/plank / criticize others
14 (4:24) 7:1-2         6:37-8            Judge/measure / criticize others
15  -----   7:6             -----               Pearls/swine / do not...
16  -----   7:13-14     13:24             Two gates -
17 -----    7:15-20     6:43-44          Good tree / good & evil
18 -----   12:34-35    6:45               Good treasure / good & evil
19 (11:24) 7:7-11     11:9-13          Ask / good & evil
20 -----   7:12          6:31                 Golden rule / do
21 -----  7:21-23   6:46;13:26-27     I never knew you / do; everyone
22  ----- 7:24-27   6:47-49               Rock/sand / do; everyone

OBSERVATIONS:

1. The first saying is actually 7 sayings, grouped as "Beatitudes." If they
were counted separately, they would bring the section total to 28, or twice
14. Might this be a useful emendation? The alternation of 22 and 14 leaves
me somewhat cold, but 28 and 14 (or 14 and its double) might have something
going for it.

The following suggestions seem to be in the opposite direction, but not
really.

2. We could also make a case for eliminating the Beatitudes from P. And why?
Because, if considered as a single passage, it falls outside the pairing
pattern which is otherwise common in the section. It is the 2nd/3rd sayings
in the list that are linked by "influence others," and the 4th/5th that are
linked by "God's law persists." Saying A1 has no pair in the system unless
(with the author of P) we recognize an overlapping link based on "earth."
Overlapping links are not the usual way of texts which use pairing as a
formal device. I would end by suggesting that we remove saying 1, and see
what happens.

3. The next problem with the rhythm of the pairing occurs at saying A8,
summarized as "love your enemies," but actually a very long segment, the end
of Mt 7. As I see it, this piece is too long to be fairly epitomized by any
one phrase, as might have been said also of saying 1. Pieces this long are
not really well described as paired sayings. If we are to follow further in
the indicated line of reasoning, then, we might try eliminating it also from
source P. We now have 20 sayings left in section A.

4. If we think of Matthew writing his Sermon on Mount, and deriving it
chiefly from source P, it is something of a wonder that he skips over
sayings 9-12, which stand in P after the material used by Mt in his chapter
5, and then resumes with sayings 13-14 (in reverse order, but it should be
no problem to make the order of P agree with that of Mt) and following, for
his Chapter 7. We still have the problem of Chapter 6, but let's ignore that
for the moment. Mt's scenario for the Sermon as derived from P would (as it
seems to me) be easier of A9-12 were absent.  Moreover, the second pair,
A11-12, might perhaps be no less well accommodated in section D of source P,
which is about hindrances to the Kingdom. If we try the experiment of
eliminating these four from section A, we are left with 16 sayings.

5. The next problem (as viewed from here) would be with saying 18, which
like 9-12 was ignored by aMt in constructing his Sermon on Mount. Suppose we
eliminate it. Note that in doing so, we remove another and independent
anomaly: in the present section A there are three sayings, not two, linked
by the "good & evil" motif. Eliminating saying 18 leaves us with two, which
is overwhelmingly the formal precedent set by the rest of the section.

6. Another anomaly of sayings linked in a group of 3 rather than 2 occurs at
A20-22, all with the link "do." Of the three, there are two (sayings 21-22)
which are linked by "everyone," so that if this group of three is to be
reduced to two, as the formal protocol might suggest, we would then retain
sayings 21-22 and eliminate 20.

7. All this is apt to seem very damaging to the hypothesis. But I wish to
note that there are compensating advantages. By definition, all anomalous
triplets are gone from section A, and we have only duplets. Additionally,
again by definition, the composition scenario for the Sermon on the Mount is
greatly
simplified, and simplicity has its attractions.

To refer to other perhaps useful results, I must repeat the above list, this
time eliminating the proposed extraneous passages. I eliminate links which
are no longer functional:

   A: Entering the Kingdom
  Mark     Matthew    Luke          Saying / internal links

2.  9:50a   5:13         14:34-35     Salt / influence others
3.  4:21     5:15         11:33          Light lamp / influence others

4. (13:31)  5:18         16:17         Law / God's law persists
5.  -----     5:25-26     12:58-59   Your accuser /  God's law persists

6. 9:43,47 5:30,29      -----          Hand/eye / separation
7. 10:11    5:32          16:18         Divorce / separation

13   -----  7:3-5         6:41-42       Speck/plank / criticize others
14 (4:24) 7:1-2         6:37-8         Judge/measure / criticize others

15  -----   7:6             -----             Pearls/swine / do not...
16  -----   7:13-14     13:24           Two gates -

17 -----    7:15-20     6:43-44        Good tree / good & evil
19 (11:24) 7:7-11     11:9-13        Ask / good & evil

21 -----  7:21-23   6:46;13:26-27  I never knew you / everyone
22  ----- 7:24-27   6:47-49             Rock/sand / everyone

8. First, the pairing pattern is perfectly consistent, as was not true of
the previous P.

9. Second, the revised section A now includes 14 sayings, like sections B
and D. Again, greater formal consistency seems to have been achieved by the
changes proposed above. These are formal advantages in addition to those
previously noted, and tend to support the initial suggestion.

10. Matthew's composition process will need to find the Golden Rule
elsewhere. My suggestion is that he found it in the marketplace; this is an
old Chinese maxim of very wide circulation, first heard of in China in the
05th century, and long nativized in the eastern Mediterranean. We do not
need to posit some outside written source for it, the streets of Antioch
will have served equally well.

11. So also the Beatitudes, which might seem to be crucial to the Sermon. In
modern ears, they doubtless ARE crucial, but modern ears do not count. What
counts is earlier ears. Those earlier ears might well have recognized the
Beatitudes from church, just like ourselves; they would have been familiar
by contact (not by reading them in a book) to Mt's audience, and thus would
have made a good way to open the Sermon: a proposition which is already
accepted by its hearers. I don't see a rhetorical problem here; if anything,
I see an intelligible rhetorical strategy.

REFLECTION

12. It is noticeable that in the revised P (section A), the proportion of
material with Markan parallels increases. When the devotees of Q, having
DEFINED their test as consisting of what is common to Mt/Lk but absent in
Mk, then proceed to discuss "Mk/Q overlap," I mentally consign them to
philology's wastebasket. If that is their consistency, I do not need to hear
more of the argument. But an outside source need not be so defined, and it
is in any case just a little bit strange that if a body of Jesus sayings had
reached the point of being codified in a highly structured text, Mark would
not have heard of it - not the text, and also, and more surprisingly, not of
any of the material on which the text drew. So if we avoid defining P in the
first instance as material absent from Mk, we may actually be in a better
position. The P material (if independently defined or derived) might easily
occur, at least recognizably, at some points in Mk.

At least as I see it, then, this increased Mk pattern is not at all fatal to
the P theory. Taking the above revision of section A as a basis, it might
next be interesting to see what differences there might be between Mt's
treatment of Mk material, and of material used also in Mk but which Mt took
instead from P. This is
somewhat analogous, is it not? to the experiment recently reported by Ron:
an attempt to distinguish between material Lk gets from Mt, and material he
gets from Mt's source, P.

Or maybe not, but at any rate, that is where I get as of this moment.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

To: Synoptic
On: Further on the 3ST (Section B)
From: Bruce

You know how it is; it is hard to recommend something without doing it
oneself. I thus, though briefly, take up section B of the conjectured P
source, along the lines of the previous note on section A.

SECTION B

Suppose we find the previous winnowing of linkages convincing, or at least
suggestive. Its rules are: (1) no triplets, only duplets, (2) no overlapping
links, and (3) no very long sayings, as unamenable to epitomization. What
happens if we approach section B on this basis?

Here is section B, as previously provided:

   B: The Mission of the Kingdom
Mark         Matthew     Luke             Saying / internal links

1. (1:16-20)   8:19-22      9:57-60      Following Jesus / discipleship
2. 9:41           10:42          -----           Cup of water / discipleship
3. (4:26-29)    9:37-38     10:2           Harvest / fr w B14; send; worker
4. 1:15; 6:8-11 10:5b-15  10:4-12    Instr / fr w/B7; send; worker; sheep
5. -----            10:16          10:3          Sheep/wolves / send; sheep
6. 13:13         10:22          -----           Hated/endure / all
7. (13:10)      10:23          -----           Through all Israel / all
8. 13:9,11      10:17-20    12:11-12     Hand over ... words / don't worry
9. (4:22; 8:38) 10:26-33  12:2-9        Nothing hidden / don't be afraid
10. (13:12)     10:34-35   12:51,53     Division / family
11. 8:34         10:37-38    14:26-27     Worthy/cross / Whoever ...; family
12. 8:35         10:39         17:33           Save/lose / Whoever
13. 9:37b       10:40         10:16          Whoever welcomes / Whoever; me
14. 9:40         12:30         11:23          For/against / Whoever; me

PROBLEMS

There are two places where we have links joining more than two passages:
B3-5 "send" and B11-14 "whoever." In the former case, it happens that we can
eliminate any one of the three and the result is a linked pair. We might
then consider the other set first.

In the latter, the solution is clearer: if we eliminate B12, which has only
the thematic link "whoever," we get two adjacent pairs simply linked: B10-11
"family" and B13-14 "me." Then B12 is the formally odd member, and may be
discarded with advantage to the formal scheme.

Returning to the former case, B3-5, we may now note that B3 is considered to
have a formal resonance with B14, and we have just preserved B14 as part of
the group. Then the link with it is probably best preserved. If we extend
this consideration also to B4 (which resonates with B7, a passage which has
not been suggested to be anomalous), then the odd member seems to be B5. I
herewith propose eliminating it from P.

RESULT

Here is the resulting inventory of section B:

   B: The Mission of the Kingdom
Mark         Matthew     Luke             Saying / internal links

1. (1:16-20)   8:19-22      9:57-60      Following Jesus / discipleship
2. 9:41           10:42          -----           Cup of water / discipleship

3. (4:26-29)    9:37-38     10:2           Harvest / fr w B14; send; worker
4. 1:15; 6:8-11 10:5b-15  10:4-12    Instr / fr w/B7; send; worker

6. 13:13         10:22          -----           Hated/endure / all
7. (13:10)      10:23          -----           Through all Israel / all

8. 13:9,11      10:17-20    12:11-12     Hand over ... words / don't worry
9. (4:22; 8:38) 10:26-33  12:2-9        Nothing hidden / don't be afraid

10. (13:12)     10:34-35   12:51,53     Division / family
11. 8:34         10:37-38    14:26-27     Worthy/cross / family

13. 9:37b       10:40         10:16          Whoever welcomes / me
14. 9:40         12:30         11:23          For/against / me

I make the following observations about this revised inventory.

1. As with the revised inventory of section A, it now consists of pairs of
sayings linked by a single thematic link, without overlap.

2. The only passage in this section with no Markan parallel (B5, Mt 10:16)
has been eliminated. The result is a set ALL of whose members have Markan
parallels. This goes beyond the result for section A, in which the
proportion of sayings with Markan parallels was merely increased. But it is
in that same direction, and that direction may be a propitious one.

3. The number of passages has been reduced from 14 to 12. Is this bad? Not
necessarily. If we think of the number as well as the form of P as
authorially intentional, then 12 is a lot more likely number than 14.

4. In fact, 10 may be likelier than either. For consider: 5 is about the
highest possible number it is possible to hold in the mind as a singularity
(or in practical terms; to subitize; with 6 objects or more in front of you,
you have to actually count them). Then 5 sayings, or 5 pairs of sayings, are
a good base for a text meant to be memorized. Was P, given that it was a
text, meant to be memorized? I can't think of any other plausible intention
for it.

If so, then the above revision of section B has not yet reached bottom as a
revised reconstruction.

RETROSPECT: AGAIN SECTION A

5. Looking back briefly to section A, does the possibility exist of
eliminating two pairs, reaching a decalogue like structure in which all
sayings have Markan parallels? Not quite. What IS possible is to eliminate
two pairs which have NO Markan parallels, so that if we consider the pair
and not the saying as the unit of account, then a Markan connection for the
pair can be achieved. If we take that further step, section A would after
all look like this:

   A: Entering the Kingdom
  Mark     Matthew    Luke          Saying / internal links

2.  9:50a   5:13         14:34-35     Salt / influence others
3.  4:21     5:15         11:33          Light lamp / influence others

4. (13:31)  5:18         16:17         Law / God's law persists
5.  -----     5:25-26     12:58-59   Your accuser /  God's law persists

6. 9:43,47 5:30,29      -----          Hand/eye / separation
7. 10:11    5:32          16:18         Divorce / separation

13   -----  7:3-5         6:41-42       Speck/plank / criticize others
14 (4:24) 7:1-2         6:37-8         Judge/measure / criticize others

17 -----    7:15-20     6:43-44        Good tree / good & evil
19 (11:24) 7:7-11     11:9-13        Ask / good & evil

I suspect we may here be going beyond the point of utility, but two tests
might be tried before giving up. (1) Does the Matthean scenario for the
composition of the Sermon on the Mount favor one of these revisions of
section A over the other? And, (2) is the formal character, as distinct from
the symbolic character of the total number of sayings, improved by these
changes? As to the latter, there would seem to be a Yes answer; at least as
I transcribed it from Ron's web site, the linking for sayings A15-16 was not
overwhelmingly convincing.

Here is Ron's authoritative web site:

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

where it can be confirmed that neither A8 nor A16 had any "internal links"
at all. It may then be a virtue of the present series of objections that
neither of those passages figures in the revised P suggestion.

Maybe we are getting somewhere. At least some of the proposals here made
seem to find support within the material itself. Which is not to say that
this will continue to be the case.

Respectfully suggested,

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

> From: Bruce
>
> You know how it is; it is hard to recommend something without doing
it
> oneself.

I was thinking much the same thing. In order to comment on the
details, I'd have to work through it myself.

Dave Gentile
Riverside, IL

One quick comment - I do like the idea that all of one section of
the saying source (in Bruce's modification) is also found in Mark.
The question I would then be interested in is – Which came first,
the SS or Mark? I think Mark has priority in the opening Salt/Light
section. But, I've spent less time looking at other items on the
list. Anyone have a favorite we could toss around?

Dave Gentile
Riverside, IL


--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:
>
> To: Synoptic
> On: Further on the 3ST (Section B)
> From: Bruce
>
> You know how it is; it is hard to recommend something without
doing it
> oneself. I thus, though briefly, take up section B of the
conjectured P
> source, along the lines of the previous note on section A.
>
> SECTION B
>
> Suppose we find the previous winnowing of linkages convincing, or
at least
> suggestive. Its rules are: (1) no triplets, only duplets, (2) no
overlapping
> links, and (3) no very long sayings, as unamenable to
epitomization. What
> happens if we approach section B on this basis?
>
> Here is section B, as previously provided:
>
>   B: The Mission of the Kingdom
> Mark         Matthew     Luke             Saying / internal links
>
> 1. (1:16-20)   8:19-22      9:57-60      Following Jesus /
discipleship
> 2. 9:41           10:42          -----           Cup of water /
discipleship
> 3. (4:26-29)    9:37-38     10:2           Harvest / fr w B14;
send; worker
> 4. 1:15; 6:8-11 10:5b-15  10:4-12    Instr / fr w/B7; send;
worker; sheep
> 5. -----            10:16          10:3          Sheep/wolves /
send; sheep
> 6. 13:13         10:22          -----           Hated/endure / all
> 7. (13:10)      10:23          -----           Through all
Israel / all
> 8. 13:9,11      10:17-20    12:11-12     Hand over ... words /
don't worry
> 9. (4:22; 8:38) 10:26-33  12:2-9        Nothing hidden / don't be
afraid
> 10. (13:12)     10:34-35   12:51,53     Division / family
> 11. 8:34         10:37-38    14:26-27     Worthy/cross /
Whoever ...; family
> 12. 8:35         10:39         17:33           Save/lose / Whoever
> 13. 9:37b       10:40         10:16          Whoever welcomes /
Whoever; me
> 14. 9:40         12:30         11:23          For/against /
Whoever; me
>
> PROBLEMS
>
> There are two places where we have links joining more than two
passages:
> B3-5 "send" and B11-14 "whoever." In the former case, it happens
that we can
> eliminate any one of the three and the result is a linked pair. We
might
> then consider the other set first.
>
> In the latter, the solution is clearer: if we eliminate B12, which
has only
> the thematic link "whoever," we get two adjacent pairs simply
linked: B10-11
> "family" and B13-14 "me." Then B12 is the formally odd member, and
may be
> discarded with advantage to the formal scheme.
>
> Returning to the former case, B3-5, we may now note that B3 is
considered to
> have a formal resonance with B14, and we have just preserved B14
as part of
> the group. Then the link with it is probably best preserved. If we
extend
> this consideration also to B4 (which resonates with B7, a passage
which has
> not been suggested to be anomalous), then the odd member seems to
be B5. I
> herewith propose eliminating it from P.
>
> RESULT
>
> Here is the resulting inventory of section B:
>
>   B: The Mission of the Kingdom
> Mark         Matthew     Luke             Saying / internal links
>
> 1. (1:16-20)   8:19-22      9:57-60      Following Jesus /
discipleship
> 2. 9:41           10:42          -----           Cup of water /
discipleship
>
> 3. (4:26-29)    9:37-38     10:2           Harvest / fr w B14;
send; worker
> 4. 1:15; 6:8-11 10:5b-15  10:4-12    Instr / fr w/B7; send; worker
>
> 6. 13:13         10:22          -----           Hated/endure / all
> 7. (13:10)      10:23          -----           Through all
Israel / all
>
> 8. 13:9,11      10:17-20    12:11-12     Hand over ... words /
don't worry
> 9. (4:22; 8:38) 10:26-33  12:2-9        Nothing hidden / don't be
afraid
>
> 10. (13:12)     10:34-35   12:51,53     Division / family
> 11. 8:34         10:37-38    14:26-27     Worthy/cross / family
>
> 13. 9:37b       10:40         10:16          Whoever welcomes / me
> 14. 9:40         12:30         11:23          For/against / me
>
> I make the following observations about this revised inventory.
>
> 1. As with the revised inventory of section A, it now consists of
pairs of
> sayings linked by a single thematic link, without overlap.
>
> 2. The only passage in this section with no Markan parallel (B5,
Mt 10:16)
> has been eliminated. The result is a set ALL of whose members have
Markan
> parallels. This goes beyond the result for section A, in which the
> proportion of sayings with Markan parallels was merely increased.
But it is
> in that same direction, and that direction may be a propitious one.
>
> 3. The number of passages has been reduced from 14 to 12. Is this
bad? Not
> necessarily. If we think of the number as well as the form of P as
> authorially intentional, then 12 is a lot more likely number than
14.
>
> 4. In fact, 10 may be likelier than either. For consider: 5 is
about the
> highest possible number it is possible to hold in the mind as a
singularity
> (or in practical terms; to subitize; with 6 objects or more in
front of you,
> you have to actually count them). Then 5 sayings, or 5 pairs of
sayings, are
> a good base for a text meant to be memorized. Was P, given that it
was a
> text, meant to be memorized? I can't think of any other plausible
intention
> for it.
>
> If so, then the above revision of section B has not yet reached
bottom as a
> revised reconstruction.
>
> RETROSPECT: AGAIN SECTION A
>
> 5. Looking back briefly to section A, does the possibility exist
of
> eliminating two pairs, reaching a decalogue like structure in
which all
> sayings have Markan parallels? Not quite. What IS possible is to
eliminate
> two pairs which have NO Markan parallels, so that if we consider
the pair
> and not the saying as the unit of account, then a Markan
connection for the
> pair can be achieved. If we take that further step, section A
would after
> all look like this:
>
>   A: Entering the Kingdom
>  Mark     Matthew    Luke          Saying / internal links
>
> 2.  9:50a   5:13         14:34-35     Salt / influence others
> 3.  4:21     5:15         11:33          Light lamp / influence
others
>
> 4. (13:31)  5:18         16:17         Law / God's law persists
> 5.  -----     5:25-26     12:58-59   Your accuser /  God's law
persists
>
> 6. 9:43,47 5:30,29      -----          Hand/eye / separation
> 7. 10:11    5:32          16:18         Divorce / separation
>
> 13   -----  7:3-5         6:41-42       Speck/plank / criticize
others
> 14 (4:24) 7:1-2         6:37-8         Judge/measure / criticize
others
>
> 17 -----    7:15-20     6:43-44        Good tree / good & evil
> 19 (11:24) 7:7-11     11:9-13        Ask / good & evil
>
> I suspect we may here be going beyond the point of utility, but
two tests
> might be tried before giving up. (1) Does the Matthean scenario
for the
> composition of the Sermon on the Mount favor one of these
revisions of
> section A over the other? And, (2) is the formal character, as
distinct from
> the symbolic character of the total number of sayings, improved by
these
> changes? As to the latter, there would seem to be a Yes answer; at
least as
> I transcribed it from Ron's web site, the linking for sayings A15-
16 was not
> overwhelmingly convincing.
>
> Here is Ron's authoritative web site:
>
> http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
>
> where it can be confirmed that neither A8 nor A16 had
any "internal links"
> at all. It may then be a virtue of the present series of
objections that
> neither of those passages figures in the revised P suggestion.
>
> Maybe we are getting somewhere. At least some of the proposals
here made
> seem to find support within the material itself. Which is not to
say that
> this will continue to be the case.
>
> Respectfully suggested,
>
> Bruce
>
> E Bruce Brooks
> Warring States Project
> University of Massachusetts at Amherst
>

In a recent investigation I looked in the Triple Tradition in Matthew and
Luke for consecutive identical Greek words in strings longer than ten words,
and found 10 such strings. So these are all cases where both Matthew and
Luke happened to be following Mark faithfully, right?

Wrong. In fact in only 4 of the 10 cases does the Markan text agree exactly
with both Matthew and Luke. I wondered whether this effect would still occur
if the minimum string length were reduced from 11 words to 9 words. So I
extended the investigation and found there are altogether 22 strings of
consecutive Triple Tradition words identical in Matthew and Luke and having
at least 9 words. Of these, 8 strings (including 3 belonging to OT quotes)
are identical in Mark, and 14 differ from Mark.

So are we to believe that Luke just happened to make the same changes as
Matthew in 14 of these 22 cases when editing Mark? Or to look at it a
different way, are observed instances of identical strings more likely than
not to involve the two editors coincidentally making the same changes? To me
that is wholly incredible.

Of course I know this investigation is just another way of looking at the
'Minor Agreements', but it's surely a reminder of the frailty of the Two
Source Theory.

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

Ron,

   In my view there is no solution to the problem of the double tradition.  Each
proposed solution leaves loose ends; none deals effectively with all of the
data.

   Without a doubt, the minor agreements are the loose ends of the two source
theory.  But all of the other theories produce phenomena about which one
legitimately comment, "To me
that is wholly incredible."

   A problem I have with the "source camps" is that once they've uttered this
comment about somebody else's loose ends, they seem to fold their arms as if the
discussion is concluded, when all they've done is re-state the problem.

   (Not saying you're doing this; your post prompted the thought.)

   Rev. Chuck Jones
   Atlanta, Georgia


Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
           In a recent investigation I looked in the Triple Tradition in Matthew
and
Luke for consecutive identical Greek words in strings longer than ten words,
and found 10 such strings. So these are all cases where both Matthew and
Luke happened to be following Mark faithfully, right?

Wrong. In fact in only 4 of the 10 cases does the Markan text agree exactly
with both Matthew and Luke. I wondered whether this effect would still occur
if the minimum string length were reduced from 11 words to 9 words. So I
extended the investigation and found there are altogether 22 strings of
consecutive Triple Tradition words identical in Matthew and Luke and having
at least 9 words. Of these, 8 strings (including 3 belonging to OT quotes)
are identical in Mark, and 14 differ from Mark.

So are we to believe that Luke just happened to make the same changes as
Matthew in 14 of these 22 cases when editing Mark? Or to look at it a
different way, are observed instances of identical strings more likely than
not to involve the two editors coincidentally making the same changes? To me
that is wholly incredible.

Of course I know this investigation is just another way of looking at the
'Minor Agreements', but it's surely a reminder of the frailty of the Two
Source Theory.

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm







---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Could someone direct me to a website with transliteration tables? I've been
Googling around without finding any standard, professional ones.

   Jeffery Hodges


University Degrees:

Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
(Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

Email Address:

jefferyhodges@...

Blog:

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

Office Address:

Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
School of English, Kyung Hee University
1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu
Seoul, 130-701
South Korea

Home Address:

Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
Gunyoung Apt. 102-204
Sangbong-dong 1
Jungnang-gu
Seoul 131-771
South Korea

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm guessing you mean Greek transliteration schemes?

Here are some options:
The suggested transliteration scheme for the B-Greek e-list:
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/transliteration.txt

The full tables of the Text Criticism e-journal:
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC-translit.html

The description further of BetaCode Greek
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/Beta-codes.html

I would also encourage you to have a look at the very well done
transliteration work by OakTree:
http://www.accordancebible.com/resources/pdf/fonts.pdf
specifically with their Rosetta font designed just for Greek/Hebrew
transliteration.

Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
Minister, Raytown Christian Church
Ph.D. Candidate, Brite Divinity School, TCU


On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

> Could someone direct me to a website with transliteration tables?
> I've been Googling around without finding any standard, professional
> ones.
>
>  Jeffery Hodges

Greek, thank, but also:

   "Transliterating Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, etc."

   I had that in the subject heading, but I can imagine that it's not so obvious
that I wouldn't be overlooked. (Also Syriac.)

   Jeffery Hodges

Joseph Weaks <j.weaks@...> wrote:
   I'm guessing you mean Greek transliteration schemes?

Here are some options:
The suggested transliteration scheme for the B-Greek e-list:
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/transliteration.txt

The full tables of the Text Criticism e-journal:
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC-translit.html

The description further of BetaCode Greek
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/Beta-codes.html

I would also encourage you to have a look at the very well done
transliteration work by OakTree:
http://www.accordancebible.com/resources/pdf/fonts.pdf
specifically with their Rosetta font designed just for Greek/Hebrew
transliteration.

Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
Minister, Raytown Christian Church
Ph.D. Candidate, Brite Divinity School, TCU


On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

> Could someone direct me to a website with transliteration tables?
> I've been Googling around without finding any standard, professional
> ones.
>
> Jeffery Hodges


Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
Yahoo! Groups Links






University Degrees:

Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
(Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

Email Address:

jefferyhodges@...

Blog:

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

Office Address:

Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
School of English, Kyung Hee University
1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu
Seoul, 130-701
South Korea

Home Address:

Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
Gunyoung Apt. 102-204
Sangbong-dong 1
Jungnang-gu
Seoul 131-771
South Korea

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Apologies for cross posting, but I'd like to take advantage of the
widest possible audience:

I've just finished  reading Joseph Heinemann's "The Background of Jesus'
Prayer in the Jewish Liturgical Tradition" (pp. 81-89  in _The Lord's
Prayer and Jewish Liturgy_, J. Petuchowski and M. Brocke, eds.) and I
came across this statement on p. 86:


      Similarly, K. G. Kuhn (_Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und dem
      Reim_ [Tubingen, 1950, pp. 21-22] emphasizes the contrast
      between the NT passages quoted [i.e., Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark
      14:36 and Matt. 6:9 ff] and the Jewish conception, in which
      men "perform Thy will". This conception is found, for example,
      in the Palestinian version of the Eighteen Benedictions. In
      Rabbinic Judaism, the role of mankind in general, and of the
      Jewish people in particular, is to perform the will of God,
      whereas in the passive form used by Jesus ("May Thy will be
      done"), no room is left for man as an active agent performing
      God's will (p. 87).

This is preceded by:

      There is reason to inquire whether the formula, "May it be Thy
      will" [of 1st century Jewish private prayers], expressed the
      same kind of abject deference and surrender to the will of God
      which is found in the prayer of Jesus: "Not as I will, but as
      Thou wilt" (Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36), as well as in the
      verse: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt.
      6:9 ff.). Heiler considers those verses to be "the highest
      moment in the history of prayer", and regards the passing over
      of the petitioner's prayer "into the complete surrender in
      which the wish is suppressed" as the great innovation of
      Jesus.'

      Strack and Billerbeck also hold that there is no Jewish
      prototype for such utter surrender by the worshipper (except
      the words of Judah, in I Maccabees 3:60, "As may be the will
      in heaven, so shall He do"-but this is not a prayer). They
      regard the short prayer of Rabbi Eliezer, "May Thy will be
      done in heaven above, and grant relief to those who revere
      Thee; and do that which is good in Thy sight" (Tosephta
      Berakhoth 111, 7), as merely a faint echo of Jesus' prayer;
      while the other parallels from talmudic literature which are
      usually cited are not at all relevant according to their view.
      They do not mention the formula, "May it be Thy will", in this
      context.

      It would appear that Strack and Billerbeck are right and that,
      notwithstanding the affinity of Rabbi Eliezer's prayer to that
      of Jesus, there is a fundamental novelty in the conception of
      the latter. When the Jewish petitioner surrenders his wish to
      the will of God, he nevertheless does not abandon it
      altogether. His request still stands, and, if it remains
      conditional upon God's will, this is only because he trusts
      that it shall, indeed, be God's will to grant the request. We
      do not have here the same categorical surrender in which the
      petitioner's request is completely given up. If Jesus'
      conception represents the "highest moment in the history of
      prayers", then it also seriously undermines the value of
      prayer. For if, from the very outset, the petitioner has
      already abandoned all hope of his request's being granted if
      it does not conform to the will of God, why is he praying at
      all? For Rabbinic Judaism, prayer only exists to be heard and
      answered. There is simply no point to a prayer which is not
      nourished by a sense of assurance that it is not being offered
      in vain. There is unquestionably an element of paradox in all
      prayer, and this element is certainly not lacking in the
      Jewish view of prayer. But the outlook which is expressed in
      the prayers of Jesus reduces the very possibility of prayer to
      absurdity, and it is not shared by Rabbinic Judaism (pp.
      86-87).


The statement that "in the passive form used by Jesus ("May Thy will be
done"), no room is left for man as an active agent performing God's
will" strikes me as very strange, especially in the light of Matthew's
"on earth as it is in heaven" which seems to have in view someone other
than God doing God's will as faithfully as it is done "in heaven".

But is it true the passive form of the expression "May it be your will"
obliterates any idea of human beings having a part in fulfilling the
petition at Matt. 6:10//Lk 2?  Can anyone point me to a discussion of
the passive voice that would validate Heinemann's claim?

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jeffrey,

   I'm not sure we should read the sentence quite so devotionally as the authors
are suggesting.

   I apologize that I have no single source to cite, but I believe it is
culturally and historically quite possible to read "Thy will be done on earth as
it is in heaven" as a call for the arrival of the Blessed Age of the Messiah. 
The apocalyptic age would be ushered in by the direct intervention of Yahweh in
history.  It would purge all evil from earth, making it possible for God's will
to be done on earth (as perfectly) as it is in heaven.

   Rev. Chuck Jones
   Atlanta, Georgia

"Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

   The statement that "in the passive form used by Jesus ("May Thy will be
done"), no room is left for man as an active agent performing God's
will" strikes me as very strange, especially in the light of Matthew's
"on earth as it is in heaven" which seems to have in view someone other
than God doing God's will as faithfully as it is done "in heaven".

But is it true the passive form of the expression "May it be your will"
obliterates any idea of human beings having a part in fulfilling the
petition at Matt. 6:10//Lk 2? Can anyone point me to a discussion of
the passive voice that would validate Heinemann's claim?

       .




---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
To: "Synoptic@yahoo" <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Crosstalk2" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>; "biblical-studies"
<biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com>; "christian_origins"
<christian_origins@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:14 PM
Subject: [XTalk] IOU: Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2


> Apologies for cross posting, but I'd like to take advantage of the
> widest possible audience:
>
> I've just finished  reading Joseph Heinemann's "The Background of Jesus'
> Prayer in the Jewish Liturgical Tradition" (pp. 81-89  in _The Lord's
> Prayer and Jewish Liturgy_, J. Petuchowski and M. Brocke, eds.) and I
> came across this statement on p. 86:
>
>
>     Similarly, K. G. Kuhn (_Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und dem
>     Reim_ [Tubingen, 1950, pp. 21-22] emphasizes the contrast
>     between the NT passages quoted [i.e., Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark
>     14:36 and Matt. 6:9 ff] and the Jewish conception, in which
>     men "perform Thy will". This conception is found, for example,
>     in the Palestinian version of the Eighteen Benedictions. In
>     Rabbinic Judaism, the role of mankind in general, and of the
>     Jewish people in particular, is to perform the will of God,
>     whereas in the passive form used by Jesus ("May Thy will be
>     done"), no room is left for man as an active agent performing
>     God's will (p. 87).
>
> This is preceded by:
>
>     There is reason to inquire whether the formula, "May it be Thy
>     will" [of 1st century Jewish private prayers], expressed the
>     same kind of abject deference and surrender to the will of God
>     which is found in the prayer of Jesus: "Not as I will, but as
>     Thou wilt" (Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36), as well as in the
>     verse: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt.
>     6:9 ff.). Heiler considers those verses to be "the highest
>     moment in the history of prayer", and regards the passing over
>     of the petitioner's prayer "into the complete surrender in
>     which the wish is suppressed" as the great innovation of
>     Jesus.'
>
>     Strack and Billerbeck also hold that there is no Jewish
>     prototype for such utter surrender by the worshipper (except
>     the words of Judah, in I Maccabees 3:60, "As may be the will
>     in heaven, so shall He do"-but this is not a prayer). They
>     regard the short prayer of Rabbi Eliezer, "May Thy will be
>     done in heaven above, and grant relief to those who revere
>     Thee; and do that which is good in Thy sight" (Tosephta
>     Berakhoth 111, 7), as merely a faint echo of Jesus' prayer;
>     while the other parallels from talmudic literature which are
>     usually cited are not at all relevant according to their view.
>     They do not mention the formula, "May it be Thy will", in this
>     context.
>
>     It would appear that Strack and Billerbeck are right and that,
>     notwithstanding the affinity of Rabbi Eliezer's prayer to that
>     of Jesus, there is a fundamental novelty in the conception of
>     the latter. When the Jewish petitioner surrenders his wish to
>     the will of God, he nevertheless does not abandon it
>     altogether. His request still stands, and, if it remains
>     conditional upon God's will, this is only because he trusts
>     that it shall, indeed, be God's will to grant the request. We
>     do not have here the same categorical surrender in which the
>     petitioner's request is completely given up. If Jesus'
>     conception represents the "highest moment in the history of
>     prayers", then it also seriously undermines the value of
>     prayer. For if, from the very outset, the petitioner has
>     already abandoned all hope of his request's being granted if
>     it does not conform to the will of God, why is he praying at
>     all? For Rabbinic Judaism, prayer only exists to be heard and
>     answered. There is simply no point to a prayer which is not
>     nourished by a sense of assurance that it is not being offered
>     in vain. There is unquestionably an element of paradox in all
>     prayer, and this element is certainly not lacking in the
>     Jewish view of prayer. But the outlook which is expressed in
>     the prayers of Jesus reduces the very possibility of prayer to
>     absurdity, and it is not shared by Rabbinic Judaism (pp.
>     86-87).
>
>
> The statement that "in the passive form used by Jesus ("May Thy will be
> done"), no room is left for man as an active agent performing God's
> will" strikes me as very strange, especially in the light of Matthew's
> "on earth as it is in heaven" which seems to have in view someone other
> than God doing God's will as faithfully as it is done "in heaven".
>
> But is it true the passive form of the expression "May it be your will"
> obliterates any idea of human beings having a part in fulfilling the
> petition at Matt. 6:10//Lk 2?  Can anyone point me to a discussion of
> the passive voice that would validate Heinemann's claim?
>
> Jeffrey
>
> --
> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
> Chicago, Illinois
> e-mail jgibson000@...


Hello, my friend. I have ended my sabbatical (health reasons) and am glad to
see..er..read you again.  I see you are continuing your extensive study of
theLord's Prayer.  This is going to make a great book or paper. As is my
habit, I can only weigh in with the Aramaic vox Iesu where this part of the
petition is yhw) cbynk...yihwe tsebyanak...'Let happen.... your
wish/desire."  There are usages of these words in the Targum of Isaiah
65:12; 66:4; Job 21:14and Proverbs 8:24.  As is often the case the Aramaic
idiom may differ somewhat from the Greek and subsequent translations.


Jack

Chuck Jones wrote:

> Jeffrey,
>
>   I'm not sure we should read the sentence quite so devotionally as the
authors are suggesting.
>
>   I apologize that I have no single source to cite, but I believe it is
culturally and historically quite possible to read "Thy will be done on earth as
it is in heaven" as a call for the arrival of the Blessed Age of the Messiah. 
The apocalyptic age would be ushered in by the direct intervention of Yahweh in
history.  It would purge all evil from earth, making it possible for God's will
to be done on earth (as perfectly) as it is in heaven.

I understand that it is quite possible to read the petition as doing such a
call. Indeed, Jeremias and many others have read it this way.  The question I'm
raising is whether it is impossible to read it otherwise, and if so, why.

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...