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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.