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

RE: [GPG] Matthew and "Q"

Expand Messages
  • David @ Comcast
    Dave Gentile wrote: Dave Inglis has been trying out some different mathematical approaches and we ve been looking at the results. I ll spare everyone the
    Message 1 of 34 , May 7 5:34 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave Gentile wrote:

      "Dave Inglis has been trying out some different mathematical approaches and
      we've been looking at the results. I'll spare everyone the details of the
      changes, due to probable lack of interest. However, I thought it might be of
      interest that some variations seem a little more favorable to the
      Mark-without-Q hypothesis. I would not go so far as to say we have
      conclusive evidence, but it did get me thinking about the problem again."

      "Let's suppose, as Mark Goodacre has argued and as some statistical
      investigation has suggested, that Sondergut Matthew and Matthew's "Q"
      material were produced by the same process - that is both were original
      creations by the same author."

      "A while back we noted a statistically significant result. If you take
      Luke's two main additions, the sermon on the plain, and the travel narrative
      and look at the length of exact quotes there, and then also look at the
      length of exact quotes found outside of these sections, the difference in
      length is statistically significant, suggesting that these two sets of
      agreements were produced by different processes. I.e. the two main sections
      were produced by the original authors of Luke, whereas the longer agreements
      were produced by later copyists."

      I agree with what Dave G is saying here, except that I don't like the use of
      terms like ""Q" material" when the existence (or not) of Q is part of what
      the statistical investigations he refers to are trying to determine. From my
      statistical analysis of the same source material as Dave G has been looking
      at, I would say there are strong statistical indications that:

      1. The material unique to each of Matthew, Mark, and Luke was written
      by different people.

      2. The unique material in Matthew was written by the same person who
      wrote the material common to Matthew and Luke that is not shared with Mark.

      We can therefore at least say that the material common to Matthew and Luke
      must have been available to whoever created Luke as we know it today. This
      does not actually impose any ordering on when this common material and the
      unique portions of Matthew and Luke were actually written down, and it does
      include the possibility (as mentioned by Dave G) that a number of people
      could have imported into Luke different sections of what today we see as the
      common Matthew - Luke material.

      Where I depart from Dave G is in his attempt to try to understand the
      motives for why the synoptic authors did what they did. As we know almost
      nothing about the date and place of writing any of the synoptic material (we
      at least think we know directionality, but not much more), whether the
      synoptics were each written in one session or over an extended period (maybe
      even years), whether the authors were alone or with other people at the
      time, whether they wrote themselves or dictated, whether they knew (or at
      least knew something about) the other synoptic authors, what feelings (if
      any) they had for the other authors, etc., then I don't see how it's helpful
      to basically guess at how or why the synoptics were created.

      David Inglis

      Lafayette, CA, 94549



      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2102 - Release Date: 05/07/09
      05:57:00




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave Gentile
      ... Dave: Better , is a subjective judgment. Personally I d prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that s just my subjective judgment.
      Message 34 of 34 , May 15 7:32 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron:

        >
        > Dave,
        >
        > What you propose is clearly not impossible. But it is certainly not as good
        > as the original. What you present here is a brief general call to
        > repentance, followed by scenarios of people eager to repent. In our extant
        > Luke there is a warning of wrath and fire, so that by verse 10 one can sense
        > the crowds feeling guilty and ready to make amends. It parallels an
        > evangelistic meeting where there is a lengthy build-up of emotion before a
        > challenge to commitment. Luke was a good storyteller!

        Dave:

        'Better', is a subjective judgment. Personally I'd prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that's just my subjective judgment.

        Consistency, and sticking with a theme is a less subjective measure.


        Ron:

        >
        > But there remains the jump in the opposite direction, between verses 3 & 4.
        > In the extant text vv. 4-6 represent a temporary departure from the theme of
        > repentance so that Luke can portray the Jewish scriptures as hinting at the
        > salvation of the Gentiles (v.6).

        I really don't see this as much of a jump, if any. v3 mentions forgiveness (group not named), and the quote from Isaiah's 'punchline' is about salvation (for all). "Forgiveness -> salvation" seems like theme continuity to me.

        I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.

        Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.