Re: [GPG] Matthew and "Q"
When I say "'Q' material" I always try to put the "Q" in scare quotes, but maybe the quote marks are interpreted differently, and thus that intended meaning is missed.
Also, if the only thing we had to go on was the statistical results, then I would agree in calling what I proposed a "guess". Also, I partly agree that the data we have here is so thin that anything we say is often little more than a guess. However, I think I have enough support in this case to at least call it a 'hypothesis'.
--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "David @ Comcast" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
> 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
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 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!
'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.
>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.
> 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've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.