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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.