I've been looking at some of the individual words, to try to understand the
relationships a little better. It is definitely a worth-while exercise,
although time-consuming. Here are the pairs I've investigated, at least
Some showed some clear patterns, while others did not. I'll start with
102-202. The first thing to note is that this relationship is much less
significant than say the 200-202 relation. The likelihood ratio of the fit
vs. unfit models for 102-202 was about 1/100. For 200-202 it is about
1/100,000,000. Viewed that way, its quite a difference. Looking at 5 of the
top 8 words that make 102 look like 202 reviles a clear pattern. Second
person pronouns, like UMIN, were common in the sayings, but not in the
narrative. While third person pronouns, and the proper name Jesus were
common in the narrative, but not in the sayings. Clearly this has to do with
who is speaking, and can not be considered an authorship effect.
However, when I checked 002-102 to see if this sort of effect set them
apart, I found no clear pattern. It also was not clear if that effect was
pushing 211-201 apart. However, since the newer method makes better use of
all the data, including the less frequent words, a different effect was
visible in 211-201. Topic seems to be a factor. For example "talents" came
up as very different, between 211 and 201, because all the references to
"talents" are in one parable, and all 201.
200-202 was another interesting one. A number of phases appear multiple
times in Matthew, or at least near copies of the phase do. KRISIS , for
example, is used by Matthew multiple times, and some of them are 200, some
202. Clearly these phrases come from one source. Either they are Matthew's
creation, or Matthew liked the Q saying and repeated it, in various ways.
DENDRON was another interesting one to look at. For some reason Matthew
seems to like trees. The good fruit / bad fruit saying gets repeated. The
mustard seed shrub, becomes a tree, and Matthew is the only one (besides
John), who mentions trees in the palm Sunday entrance.
Clearly the categories are intimately related, but its possible that would
change if more multiple near-parallels were classified as 202 instead of
Finally, I looked at 201-202. Here I was wondering why the categories were
not closer than they are. They are related at the .01 level, but not the
Clearly what separates these to some extend in an editing effect, although
its not clear whether Luke or Matthew did the editing. There are a number of
words that occur often in 201, and never in 202. Either Matthew added these
word to a Q source, or Luke removed all trace of them from Matthew.
My assessment is that both the FH, and the 3SH with a smaller sQ are big
winners, with this new information. I also think, given time, one could gain
a lot of insight studying the behavior of the individual words contributing
to various relationships.
Ph.D. Management Science candidate
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...