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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Source Theories and the HHB Concordance

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    ... David, It would be interesting to know your slightly different take on the end conclusions. Ron Price, Derbyshire, UK http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      David Mealand wrote:

      > I have a slightly different take on the end conclusions
      > from using the 50 more frequent words (noting the
      > absence of the most frequent from HHB) and using a
      > different method to get two dimensional displays
      > of the relation between the 19 groups .....

      David,

      It would be interesting to know your slightly different take on the end
      conclusions.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

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




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave
      Bob: I m not David, but within-group consistency, as a statistical expression, generally refers to a statistical measure of variability, relative to sample
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 4, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob: I'm not David, but "within-group consistency," as a statistical
        expression, generally refers to a statistical measure of variability,
        relative to sample size.



        Dave G: Yes, but I guess my point was why do we want to know this?



        BRUCE: I'm not Dave either, but I seem to recognize the ANOVA (analysis of
        variance) contrast between within-sample and between-sample. No?



        Dave G: Yes. So we would want to know this for doing ANOVA. And, David M. reminds me that he is looking at using CA.



        David M: I would really like to separate material
        of different genre, but I don't think the HHB data are amenable
        to that.



        Dave G: If the time is invested in building the tables of data counts, there are undoubtedly other investigations that could be conducted using the method I employed. Ron and I did one on his categories at one point, for example. As it stands, I think the design may really only be sufficient for distinguishing between the 6 basic triangle hypotheses. I believe the study eliminates 5 of them, leaving only Mark first, Matthew second, and Luke third as a possibility. There is a suggestion within the result of complexity beyond that, but the design does not allow for definite statements beyond this. If data tables were constructed tailored for testing more complex hypotheses, this could perhaps be done, although at some point the text samples would get too small to get significant results in this way.



        David Gentile

        Riverside, IL


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Mealand
        In reply to Ron The output from Correspondence Analysis on the HHB data tallies with almost all of the correlations found by David G s method. It does, though,
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 4, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          In reply to Ron

          The output from Correspondence Analysis
          on the HHB data tallies with almost
          all of the correlations found by David G's method.
          It does, though, place 102 still quite close to the
          202, 201, 200 group and not entirely on its own.

          The main item I note is that 202 i.e.the set of
          the same words in passages paralleled in
          Matthew and Luke is in a distinct place
          on the far right of my plot. It is not separate
          from its group, but it is the furthest out.

          At one time I thought this might be due
          to this being mainly sayings, but 201 and 102
          are also mainly sayings and not so far out.
          Also the contrast at the opposite end is with
          sets of Markan words not favoured by Matthew
          or Luke (or either), it seems not to be due to a
          narrative versus sayings contrast, as many narrative
          passages of Mark such as those in 222 are
          much closer to 202. So I don't think
          the distinct location of 202 due to genre
          in this case.

          As 202 is further out than 200 (Matthew solo)
          I am inclined, on this and other grounds,
          to think it a separate source used by
          Matthew (and by Luke).

          David M.


          ---------
          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


          --
          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
        • David Mealand
          One clarification: I agree that there is a genre element in the contrast between the mainly Markan and the mainly Matt//Lk groups, but I don t think it is the
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 4, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            One clarification:

            I agree that there is a genre element
            in the contrast between the mainly Markan
            and the mainly Matt//Lk groups, but I don't think
            it is the only thing going on there.

            David M.


            ---------
            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


            --
            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
          • gentdave1
            David, My perfered interpretation of my results is that there is a saying source involved in there somewhere as well. So, on that point, we really don t
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 4, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              David,

              My perfered interpretation of my results is that there is a saying source involved in there somewhere as well. So, on that point, we really don't differ. And that may well be what your method is highlighting for us.

              I think my analysis presents a problem only for a pure 2SH where Luke makes no use of Matthew at all.

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, IL
            • grig035
              ... source involved in there somewhere as well. So, on that point, we really don t differ. And that may well be what your method is highlighting for us. ...
              Message 6 of 17 , Dec 23, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "gentdave1" <GentDave@...> wrote:
                >
                > David,
                >
                > My perfered interpretation of my results is that there is a saying
                source involved in there somewhere as well. So, on that point, we really
                don't differ. And that may well be what your method is highlighting for
                us.
                >
                > I think my analysis presents a problem only for a pure 2SH where Luke
                makes no use of Matthew at all.
                >
                > Dave Gentile
                > Riverside, IL
                >

                As one who has been a grateful lurker here, and far too busy with the
                holidays to participate as much as I would like, and not as much a
                specialist as many others here, I want to thank those who applied
                themselves to my query during these weeks. Much appreciated.

                Ironically, as one who has generally felt comfortable with the
                mainstream theory positing a "Q" ("quelle") document for the parallel
                sayings in Matt./Luke, I've found that this discussion and Mr. Gentile's
                persuasive stats have made me revisit some of my assumptions. Strictly
                as devil's advocate (so to speak ;-)), instead of my coming at this as
                one persuaded that a "Q" document is behind the parallel tradition, can
                anyone here who is conversant with Mr. Gentile's stats use those stats
                to persuade, for the sake of argument, a hypothetical "Q" skeptic that
                however probable the occasional Luke consultation of Matt. now looks
                with these new stats, there are still remaining indications that some
                ur-document such as "Q" must still be part of the equation.

                If so, please, what are those indications and how are they still
                consistent with Mr. Gentile's findings?

                Again, thanks for the avid discussion.

                Geoffrey Riggs
              • GentDave@att.net
                ...   I think you might get some discussion on this point. Most here, or at least the more vocal people feel Luke used Matthew in some way. Beyond that -
                Message 7 of 17 , Dec 23, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  > are [there] still remaining indications that some
                  > ur-document such as "Q" must still be part of the equation[?]
                  >
                  > If so, please, what are those indications and how are they still
                  > consistent with Mr. Gentile's findings?
                  >
                  > Again, thanks for the avid discussion.
                  >
                  > Geoffrey Riggs

                   
                  I think you might get some discussion on this point. Most here, or at least the more vocal people feel Luke used Matthew in some way. Beyond that - there is not a lot of agreement that I've noticed.
                   
                  Staying only with the statistical study, there is certainly room for and even hints of a saying source in the results. The problem is that genera could also be an explanation for these results. So the conclusion is that while the study can not demonstrate the need for a saying source, it certainly leaves room for one.
                   
                  Leaving the study, there are other arguments to make, most of which I'll leave to other people to make if they wish. But my own argument has been from Luke's behavior. Luke follows the wording of the sayings very closely. However, the order he follows not at all. It has been noted by some that the order of "Q" material in Luke and Matthew is correlated. However, if you take out the narrative parts of the hypothetical "Q" (which I suspect have a different history than the sayings), you find that the order of the sayings in Matthew and Luke do not correlate at all. This random scatter might make an argument for an oral source, but then the closeness of the wording might argue otherwise.
                   
                  If Luke uses Matthew and regards Matthew as a contemporary document, and not a historical one, then I find it odd that Luke quotes Matthew so precisely, as if he were preserving the words Jesus actually spoke. On the other hand, if Luke thought Matthew was an old historical source, then I think the way he rips it apart is odd. I would expect it to be treated more like he treats Mark.
                   
                  If, however, Luke worked from an un-ordered Matthian-themed list of sayings which he believed to be genuinely historical, then Luke's behavior makes perfect sense. From Luke's point of view, he has words actually spoken by Jesus, and he treats then with respect. On the other hand, as it is just a list with no intrinsic order, he feels free to place them where he wills for literary advantage.
                   
                  So, for me at least, a saying source is still part of the solution.
                   
                  Dave Gentile

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • grig035
                  ... least the more vocal people feel Luke used Matthew in some way. Beyond that - there is not a lot of agreement that I ve noticed. ... and even hints of a
                  Message 8 of 17 , Dec 23, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, GentDave@... wrote:
                    >
                    > > are [there] still remaining indications that some
                    > > ur-document such as "Q" must still be part of the equation[?]
                    > >
                    > > If so, please, what are those indications and how are they still
                    > > consistent with Mr. Gentile's findings?
                    > >
                    > > Again, thanks for the avid discussion.
                    > >
                    > > Geoffrey Riggs
                    > >
                    >
                    > I think you might get some discussion on this point. Most here, or at
                    least the more vocal people feel Luke used Matthew in some way. Beyond
                    that - there is not a lot of agreement that I've noticed.
                    >
                    > Staying only with the statistical study, there is certainly room for
                    and even hints of a saying source in the results. The problem is that
                    genera could also be an explanation for these results. So the conclusion
                    is that while the study can not demonstrate the need for a saying
                    source, it certainly leaves room for one.
                    >
                    > Leaving the study, there are other arguments to make, most of which
                    I'll leave to other people to make if they wish. But my own argument has
                    been from Luke's behavior. Luke follows the wording of the sayings very
                    closely. However, the order he follows not at all. It has been noted by
                    some that the order of "Q" material in Luke and Matthew is correlated.
                    However, if you take out the narrative parts of the hypothetical "Q"
                    (which I suspect have a different history than the sayings), you find
                    that the order of the sayings in Matthew and Luke do not correlate at
                    all. This random scatter might make an argument for an oral source, but
                    then the closeness of the wording might argue otherwise.
                    >
                    > If Luke uses Matthew and regards Matthew as a contemporary document,
                    and not a historical one, then I find it odd that Luke quotes Matthew so
                    precisely, as if he were preserving the words Jesus actually spoke. On
                    the other hand, if Luke thought Matthew was an old historical source,
                    then I think the way he rips it apart is odd. I would expect it to be
                    treated more like he treats Mark.
                    >
                    > If, however, Luke worked from an un-ordered Matthian-themed list of
                    sayings which he believed to be genuinely historical, then Luke's
                    behavior makes perfect sense. From Luke's point of view, he has words
                    actually spoken by Jesus, and he treats then with respect. On the other
                    hand, as it is just a list with no intrinsic order, he feels free to
                    place them where he wills for literary advantage.
                    >
                    > So, for me at least, a saying source is still part of the solution.
                    >
                    > Dave Gentile

                    Thanks very much. To the board in general as well as to Mr. Gentile: If
                    we view Luke's rearrangement of the order of Q material found in Matthew
                    as asymptomatic of his characteristic treatment of Mark, then is it
                    possible that the simple list of sayings that Luke used -- with all
                    their evident statistical resonances with additional non-Q Matthew
                    material -- was indeed from a source very similar to Matthew but not
                    Matthew itself? In other words, could Q simply be an ur-Matthew that
                    antedated our known Matthew and that only consisted of the Q passages?

                    Or does that explanation simply overlook too much else that points away
                    from such an explanation? Am I also, perhaps, unconsciously allowing
                    myself to be swayed by the interpretation sometimes given to Papias's
                    remarks that seem to imply to some that Papias only know a Matthew that
                    consisted of sayings, period. Yes, I know that not all view "logia" as
                    meaning sayings.

                    Conversely, are there some here that see Gentile's statistics as bearing
                    out entirely the supposition -- which would have been surprising to many
                    a generation or so ago -- that lock, stock and barrel of the original Q
                    were first set down in Matthew as we know it today after all. And thus
                    Luke is working entirely from a source we can readily study today -- the
                    known Gospel of Matthew.

                    Personally, I still have to wonder -- if that's the case -- how come
                    Luke would rearrange Matthew material so much more radically than he
                    does Mark material. Or is that a hang-up I can sensibly put aside?

                    Thoughts anyone?

                    Thanks all,

                    Geoffrey Riggs
                  • David Inglis
                    I spent quite a while using different selections of words: the n most frequent, those only appearing in all HHB categories, those appearing in most
                    Message 9 of 17 , Dec 24, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I spent quite a while using different selections of words: the 'n' most
                      frequent, those only appearing in all HHB categories, those appearing in
                      most categories, those with the greatest variation in relative frequency,
                      ignoring those with little variation in relative frequency, etc., etc., etc.
                      I eventually gave up because there was too much variation in results
                      depending on which words were chosen for the analysis. Nevertheless, I would
                      say that my results generally support the Mk -> Mt -> Lk trajectory, but
                      with 'wrinkles' in other directions that depended on the words I selected.



                      From my work on Marcion I've become increasingly convinced that the form of
                      Lk that we see (at least, I can't speak for Mk or Mt) was forged over a
                      considerable period, during which the order of some passages changed (e.g.
                      Nazareth <-> Capernaum), some passages were removed, and others added. So, I
                      can see some opportunity for passages in early Lk to have been added to Mt,
                      and passages in Mk or Mt to have been added to later Lk. The problem this
                      gives anyone using the HHB (or similar) data is that although it's split up
                      into categories based on sharing or words or passages across synoptic,
                      within each category there are almost certainly words from different periods
                      of time, written by different people, that are impossible to detect. As a
                      result, different word selections may well change the directionality
                      evidence. So, for me, I still believe that this sort of directionality
                      evidence is useful, but it is more limited than I once thought. I think it
                      best to say that it's just one of many useful indicators, all of which have
                      to be taken into account to have a hope of getting the true picture.



                      David Inglis

                      Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                      Of David Mealand
                      Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 1:41 AM
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Source Theories and the HHB Concordance

                      Yes I think it would be nice to check for homogeneity
                      but it could probably only be done on some of the larger blocks.
                      This is partly because I like the reassurance partitioning
                      provides, partly I would really like to separate material
                      of different genre, but I don't think the HHB data are amenable
                      to that. I note though that DG does quite rightly pay attention to
                      genre at the interpretative stage.

                      I have a slightly different take on the end conclusions
                      from using the 50 more frequent words (noting the
                      absence of the most frequent from HHB) and using a
                      different method to get two dimensional displays
                      of the relation between the 19 groups, but I think that
                      DG's analysis definitely deserves attention.

                      David M.

                      ---------
                      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Tony Buglass
                      Just back from midnight communion - feeling well-frozen and well-blessed! Happy Christmas to all of you and yours, Blessings, Rev Tony Buglass Superintendent
                      Message 10 of 17 , Dec 24, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Just back from midnight communion - feeling well-frozen and well-blessed!

                        Happy Christmas to all of you and yours,
                        Blessings,
                        Rev Tony Buglass
                        Superintendent Minister
                        Calderdale Methodist Circuit

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Tony Buglass
                        Of course, I intended to change the subject line to Christmas Greetings - I refer you to the comment about being well frozen - the brain stopped working...
                        Message 11 of 17 , Dec 24, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Of course, I intended to change the subject line to "Christmas Greetings" - I refer you to the comment about being "well frozen" - the brain stopped working...

                          Blessings, all!
                          Rev Tony Buglass
                          Superintendent Minister
                          Calderdale Methodist Circuit

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Maluflen@aol.com
                          DAVE GENTILE: Leaving the study, there are other arguments to make, most of which I ll leave to other people to make if they wish. But my own argument has been
                          Message 12 of 17 , Dec 26, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            DAVE GENTILE:
                            Leaving the study, there are other arguments to make, most of which
                            I'll leave to other people to make if they wish. But my own argument
                            has been from Luke's behavior. Luke follows the wording of the sayings
                            very closely. However, the order he follows not at all. It has been
                            noted by some that the order of "Q" material in Luke and Matthew is
                            correlated. However, if you take out the narrative parts of the
                            hypothetical "Q" (which I suspect have a different history than the
                            sayings), you find that the order of the sayings in Matthew and Luke do
                            not correlate at all.

                            LEONARD:
                            This last comment is an overstatement. What you do not find between
                            Matthew and Luke, in terms of the sayings of Jesus they offer, is
                            perfect alignment. On the other hand, there certainly is significant
                            correlation, as well as some non-correlation, between Matthew and Luke
                            in the sayings material as a whole. For instance, if you begin with
                            focusing on the five major discourses in Matthew, Luke generally has
                            material corresponding to these -- in parts of his Gospel that also
                            correspond generally to their sequence in Matthew (sermon on the
                            mount/plain, commissioning of the twelve, eschatological discourse,
                            etc.).

                            DAVE:
                            If Luke uses Matthew and regards Matthew as a contemporary document,
                            and not a historical one, then I find it odd that Luke quotes Matthew
                            so precisely, as if he were preserving the words Jesus actually spoke.
                            On the other hand, if Luke thought Matthew was an old historical
                            source, then I think the way he rips it apart is odd. I would expect it
                            to be treated more like he treats Mark.

                            LEONARD:
                            Responding to the first sentence above, there are any number of reasons
                            why Luke might have thought the sayings of Jesus in Matthew are worth
                            quoting precisely, to the extent that they are indeed so quoted, even
                            if the hypothesis that Luke considered Matthew a “contemporary”, and
                            “not a historical” document were sound. The hypothesis that sayings
                            believed to preserve words that Jesus actually spoke would for that
                            reason be recorded by Luke without alteration also rests on modern (not
                            to say Protestant/fundamentalistic) presuppositions that are probably
                            quite irrelevant to the behavior of the Evangelists. The
                            presuppositions in the final two sentences above are also problematic.
                            The idea that Luke could calmly asses Matthew as a contemporary
                            document that could be treated casually compared to a “historical” Mark
                            that would require more respectful treatment flies in the face of the
                            historical evidence from very soon after the composition of Luke. How
                            could Luke’s audience be expected to concur with this evaluation of
                            Matthew, and yet an ecclesiastical consensus emerges, without
                            challenge, just a few years later, to the effect that Matthew was the
                            first Gospel written? The evidence of strangely different treatment by
                            Luke of Matthew and Mark respectively is most convincingly handled by
                            the assumption that Luke did not know or use Mark, and that the
                            symmetry between Luke-Mark double tradition and Matthew-Mark double
                            tradition results from a single author, Mark, making use of the two
                            traditional gospels, one Jewish-Christian and the other
                            Gentile-Christian, for his own conciliatory, catechetical-liturgical
                            and dramatic purposes.

                            Leonard Maluf
                          • gentdave1
                            ... LEONARD: This last comment is an overstatement. What you do not find between Matthew and Luke, in terms of the sayings of Jesus they offer, is perfect
                            Message 13 of 17 , Dec 27, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > However, if you take out the narrative parts of the
                              > hypothetical "Q" (which I suspect have a different history than the
                              > sayings), you find that the order of the sayings in Matthew and Luke do
                              > not correlate at all.
                              >
                              >

                              LEONARD:
                              This last comment is an overstatement. What you do not find between
                              Matthew and Luke, in terms of the sayings of Jesus they offer, is
                              perfect alignment. On the other hand, there certainly is significant
                              correlation, as well as some non-correlation, between Matthew and Luke in the sayings material as a whole. For instance, if you begin with focusing on the five major discourses in Matthew, Luke generally has material corresponding to these -- in parts of his Gospel that also correspond generally to their sequence in Matthew (sermon on the mount/plain, commissioning of the twelve, eschatological discourse, etc.).

                              Dave: It was a precise statement, indicating something that is mathematically true about the ordering of the non-narrative "Q" sayings. If you simply number the sayings, the order of the sayings do not correlate significantly.

                              Of course it is still possible that what you say is also true. We could achieve a zero total correlation by taking blocks of sayings and moving them around, but still have perfect correlation within the blocks. So this is not really a test for "zero information" in common between the two sets. It might be interesting to test some of these blocks. Does the order of sayings within the blocks correlate? Another test would be to see how often pairs are in the same order, etc...

                              Let's suppose we find a relation (or without bothering to do any math, look at the sermons, for example, and note what seems to be a fair amount of common content. What would this tell us? If Luke was using Matthew then we still have him doing a fairly rigorous job of rearranging the sayings. On the other hand, if they both work from a saying source it tells us that, to some extent at least, sections of the list of sayings seemed to group together in the source. Possibly we could suppose that there was even some sort of sub-list, which constituted a sermon in the source. Although, my speculation would be that this structure is something Luke picked up after contact with Matthew. If Luke-A was re-written to Luke-B after Matthew as Bruce suggests, then my guess would be that the sermon is added to Luke at this point, and that Luke borrows some things that might previously have been elsewhere in his text and adds them here.

                              Outside of the sermons, what commonalities in ordering do you perceive?

                              LEONARD:
                              The hypothesis that sayings
                              believed to preserve words that Jesus actually spoke would for that
                              reason be recorded by Luke without alteration also rests on modern (not
                              to say Protestant/fundamen talistic) presuppositions that are probably
                              quite irrelevant to the behavior of the Evangelists.

                              Dave: I'm relying more on Luke's opening, when he tells us he wants to go back to the beginning. I think he does have respect for what he regards as historical facts. He is certainly not above inventing things to suit his literary and Theological needs, but he may feel somewhat constrained to present as history, what he (and probably much of his audience) regard as established history.

                              LEONARD:
                              How could Luke's audience be expected to concur with this evaluation of Matthew, and yet an ecclesiastical consensus emerges, without
                              challenge, just a few years later, to the effect that Matthew was the
                              first Gospel written?

                              Dave: My thesis is this:

                              A list of saying appears on the scene, say around 80 AD for example, it is in Aramaic and Greek "translation" (although it may be in large part back translation) which claims to be words spoken by Jesus as remembered by "Matthew" and written down by him at the time, in Aramaic. From this list, and from Mark, the gospel of Matthew is composed around the year 80.

                              Luke knows the gospel of Matthew is contemporary, and is convinced (incorrectly I believe) that the saying list is authentic. His behavior of quoting the sayings, while paying relatively little attention to the rest of Matthew then seems very intelligible.

                              The later ecclesiastical consensus is then explicable too. Matthew's gospel is regarded as the most authoritative, relying on both the supposed first written source, and Mark (which it "corrects"). A short hand of this gets passed down as "Matthew wrote first".

                              LEONARD:

                              The evidence of strangely different treatment by
                              Luke of Matthew and Mark respectively is most convincingly handled by
                              the assumption that Luke did not know or use Mark, and that the
                              symmetry between Luke-Mark double tradition and Matthew-Mark double
                              tradition results from a single author, Mark, making use of the two
                              traditional gospels, one Jewish-Christian and the other
                              Gentile-Christian, for his own conciliatory, catechetical- liturgical
                              and dramatic purposes.

                              Dave: The statistical study is nearly proof that this did not happen.

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