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

Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    The 3ST as I ve expounded it involves at its heart the hypothesis that the Double Tradition had two sources: part of it represents Luke copying Matthew
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The 3ST as I've expounded it involves at its heart the hypothesis that the
      Double Tradition had two sources: part of it represents Luke copying Matthew
      directly, and the other part comes from an Aramaic sayings source.

      One of the predictions which can be made from this hypothesis is that if it
      is true we should expect in general to find the text of Matthew and Luke to
      be closer in the former case because (a) it only involves a single editor
      and (b) it does not necessitate translation.

      To test this prediction I have identified (with some computer help!) every
      Double Tradition string of more than ten consecutive Greek words identical
      in Matthew and Luke.

      I found 35 such strings varying from 11 to 27 words long. In material deemed
      to have originated with Matthew there are 23 strings with a total of 364
      words, and in material deemed to have originated in the sayings source there
      are 12 strings with a total of 205 words. I had actually allocated around
      60% of the DT to the sayings source, so a random selection with this split
      should have ended up with string words roughly in the ratio 2/3. The actual
      ratio of 364/205 therefore backs up the prediction. The text of Matthew and
      Luke does tend on the whole to be closer when Luke is editing Matthew than
      when both are editing the sayings source. (Of course my criteria for
      splitting the Double Tradition pericopes did not include assessing the
      closeness of the texts of Matthew and Luke.)

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron Price On: Testing the 3ST From: Bruce [I went to Ron s web site in search of the following information, but not readily
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        In Response To: Ron Price
        On: Testing the 3ST
        From: Bruce

        [I went to Ron's web site in search of the following information, but not
        readily finding it there, I am applying direct to the author for
        enlightenment. / Bruce]

        RON: The 3ST as I've expounded it involves at its heart the hypothesis that
        the Double Tradition had two sources: part of it represents Luke copying
        Matthew directly, and the other part comes from an Aramaic sayings source.

        BRUCE: Some would say an Aramaic sayings source lies behind Matthew. Is that
        your view also?

        RON: One of the predictions which can be made from this hypothesis is that
        if it is true we should expect in general to find the text of Matthew and
        Luke to be closer in the former case because (a) it only involves a single
        editor and (b) it does not necessitate translation.

        BRUCE: On this additional information, the answer to my previous question
        would seem to be Yes, but I am puzzled as to the scenario. I imagine that it
        is this: An Aramaic sayings source lies behind Matthew, and Matthew is a
        translation of at least parts of that source from Aramaic into Greek. Other
        parts of the sayings source are unused by Matthew, and remain only in the
        original source. Luke possessed both Matthew and his source, and used, not
        only the parts of the source taken over by Matthew, but also at least some
        of those parts of the source NOT taken over by Matthew. In other words, all
        of Luke that is not taken from Mark is taken, either at first or second
        hand, from a source older than Matthew and probably also older than Mark. Is
        this a correct reconstruction of the 3ST position?

        RON: To test this prediction I have identified (with some computer help!)
        every Double Tradition string of more than ten consecutive Greek words
        identical in Matthew and Luke. / I found 35 such strings varying from 11 to
        27 words long. In material deemed to have originated with Matthew there are
        23 strings with a total of 364 words, and in material deemed to have
        originated in the sayings source there are 12 strings with a total of 205
        words. I had actually allocated around 60% of the DT to the sayings source,
        so a random selection with this split should have ended up with string words
        roughly in the ratio 2/3. The actual ratio of 364/205 therefore backs up the
        prediction. The text of Matthew and Luke does tend on the whole to be closer
        when Luke is editing Matthew than when both are editing the sayings source.
        (Of course my criteria for splitting the Double Tradition pericopes did not
        include assessing the closeness of the texts of Matthew and Luke.)

        BRUCE: The last part eliminates the obvious possible circularity in method,
        and is welcome accordingly. But what exactly IS the criterion for
        separation? Previous opinion? If so, whose?

        And are there not other tests of the hypothesis that might be applied prior
        to this one? For instance, if Matthew has translated, and thus perhaps
        edited, his early source, then the Matthean part of this material (we can
        call it Double Tradition if Ron likes) ought at least at some points to be
        theologically later than the original source itself, and perhaps in part
        also later than that source as we know it via Luke. Is this the case? Taking
        the respective Birth narratives, which are Double Tradition in the sense
        that both Matthew and Luke have them, and Mark does not, I can only suspect
        that the Lukan form, not the Matthean form, is the later. For instance, in
        Luke the miraculous conception topos is extended from Jesus also to John the
        B, who is made to be Jesus's cousin, and John is made to acknowledge Jesus,
        not on the banks of the Jordan, let alone later in his ministry, but already
        in the womb. This is surely a later literary construction than the Matthean
        account, no? Then if this examination is relevant, the 3ST as Ron here
        outlines it seems to fail the test. What the test shows is that in this
        material, Luke is later than Matthew.

        Is there another passage, or couple of passages, which Ron would like to
        offer as tests for the possibility that Luke, where Lk is NOT paralleled by
        Matthew, is earlier in content than Luke where Lk IS paralleled by Matthew?

        More generally, I guess I would like to see a list of the 35 test passages,
        together with their assignments to either Mt or Ar. Is there one somewhere
        on the 3ST site?

        Does one portion of this material as Ron has divided it show more or fewer
        Aramaisms, or possible mistranslations from the Aramaic, than the other?
        Again: If OT quotations are included, are the passages derived from Mt close
        to the Septuagint, and those taken direct from the Aramaic source (which was
        presumably not getting its Scriptures from a Greek translation of them) not?

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        http://www.umass.edu/wsp
      • Dave Gentile
        ... passages, ... somewhere ... Ron, I d be interested as well. At least from initial appearances, this result would not serve to separate your idea from mine
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 9, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce writes:

          >
          > More generally, I guess I would like to see a list of the 35 test
          passages,
          > together with their assignments to either Mt or Ar. Is there one
          somewhere
          > on the 3ST site?
          >

          Ron,

          I'd be interested as well. At least from initial appearances, this
          result would not serve to separate your idea from mine in any way,
          since I think we'd both make about the same predictions here. But it
          might be helpful in seperating our ideas from the Mark-without-Q
          idea.

          Although - I'm not sure how much we can gather from a long
          agreement. It might mean that there was no saying source for that
          passage, or it might mean that Luke was satisfied with Matthew's
          rendition of the saying source. Still, that should produce a
          statistical bias, I can see how this is a positive result for your
          specific division of the material.

          One other concern - one of the criteria you use, I believe, is that
          narrative material belongs to Matthew, in general. Wouldn't these
          tend to be longer? And might that then tend to produce longer
          stretches of agreement? That would make the confirmation a bit
          circular. I agree with your "narrative" criteria, I'm just concerned
          that this may be a proxy for it.

          For other listeners -

          Ron and I both favor some form of the 3-source hypothesis. The main
          difference is that Ron favors an authentic early saying source, and
          I favor a scenario in which the author of the gospel of Matthew
          forges a saying source in the name of the disciple Matthew, in order
          to justify the creation of the "gospel of Matthew".

          In both my scenario, and Ron's Luke considers the saying source to
          be old and consideres Matthew to be contemporary. I did some work
          towards separating the ideas here -

          http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Q_forgery.html

          but I've not revisited the idea for awhile. (I've been occupied with
          a paper in the philosophy of science area, dealing with Bayesian
          statistics)

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside, IL
        • Ron Price
          ... RON: Yes, for I contend that the logia was in Aramaic, and that Matthew used the logia. ... RON: Matthew translated almost all of the logia. ... RON: But
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 9, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            > BRUCE: Some would say an Aramaic sayings source lies behind Matthew. Is that
            > your view also?

            RON: Yes, for I contend that the logia was in Aramaic, and that Matthew used
            the logia.

            > BRUCE: ....... I am puzzled as to the scenario. I imagine that it
            > is this: An Aramaic sayings source lies behind Matthew, and Matthew is a
            > translation of at least parts of that source from Aramaic into Greek.

            RON: Matthew translated almost all of the logia.

            > BRUCE: Other parts of the sayings source are unused by Matthew, and remain
            > only in the original source.

            RON: But Luke translated most of the logia, and Mark about half of it. Thus
            the synoptic writers between them translated virtually all of it.

            > BRUCE: Luke possessed both Matthew and his source, and used, not
            > only the parts of the source taken over by Matthew, but also at least some
            > of those parts of the source NOT taken over by Matthew. In other words, all
            > of Luke that is not taken from Mark is taken, either at first or second
            > hand, from a source older than Matthew and probably also older than Mark. Is
            > this a correct reconstruction of the 3ST position?

            RON: Not all of Luke. He added lots of his own material as well as what he
            took from the logia, from Mark or from Matthew.

            > BRUCE: The last part eliminates the obvious possible circularity in method,
            > and is welcome accordingly. But what exactly IS the criterion for
            > separation? Previous opinion? If so, whose?

            RON: Previous opinion doesn't come into it, at least not directly, because
            this part of what I'm proposing is new. The criteria are mainly literary:
            narratives, pericopes which are distinctly Matthean in style, or which
            appear to depend on the Matthean context are deemed to have originated with
            Matthew; doublets in Matt or Luke, and aphorisms which are consistent with
            them, are deemed to have originated in the logia.

            > BRUCE:
            > And are there not other tests of the hypothesis that might be applied prior
            > to this one?

            RON: Yes. But the purpose of my email was to bring to light a new test.

            > BRUCE: For instance, if Matthew has translated, and thus perhaps
            > edited, his early source, then the Matthean part of this material (we can
            > call it Double Tradition if Ron likes) ought at least at some points to be
            > theologically later than the original source itself, and perhaps in part
            > also later than that source as we know it via Luke. Is this the case?

            RON: Yes indeed. Mt 11:25-27 // Lk 10:21-22 is a good example of probable
            post-70 theology (the logia was written ca. 45 CE).

            > BRUCE: Taking
            > the respective Birth narratives, which are Double Tradition in the sense
            > that both Matthew and Luke have them, and Mark does not, I can only suspect
            > that the Lukan form, not the Matthean form, is the later. For instance, in
            > Luke the miraculous conception topos is extended from Jesus also to John the
            > B, who is made to be Jesus's cousin, and John is made to acknowledge Jesus,
            > not on the banks of the Jordan, let alone later in his ministry, but already
            > in the womb. This is surely a later literary construction than the Matthean
            > account, no? Then if this examination is relevant, the 3ST as Ron here
            > outlines it seems to fail the test. What the test shows is that in this
            > material, Luke is later than Matthew.

            RON: True. Indeed the 3ST is dependent on the hypothesis that Luke is later
            than Matthew.

            > BRUCE:
            > Is there another passage, or couple of passages, which Ron would like to
            > offer as tests for the possibility that Luke, where Lk is NOT paralleled by
            > Matthew, is earlier in content than Luke where Lk IS paralleled by Matthew?

            RON: Ken Olson mentioned two such passages in one of his emails to
            Synoptic-L dated 12 Feb 2004.

            > BRUCE:
            > More generally, I guess I would like to see a list of the 35 test passages,
            > together with their assignments to either Mt or Ar. Is there one somewhere
            > on the 3ST site?

            RON: It isn't there yet. But here's the list with Matthew ref., Luke ref.,
            xQ (from Matthew) or sQ (from the logia), then the number of consecutive
            identical words. Using NA27 or UBS3 or equivalent text it should be easy to
            find the strings.

            3:7-8 // 3:7-8 / xQ / 12
            3:9-10 // 3:8-9 / xQ / 24
            3:10 // 3:9 / xQ / 20
            3:11-12 // 3:16-17 / xQ / 15
            4:6 // 4:11 / xQ / 11
            6:24 // 16:13 / sQ / 26
            6:29-30 // 12:27-28 / sQ / 13
            7:3 // 6:41 / sQ / 14
            7:7-8 // 11:9-10 / sQ / 24
            7:11 // 11:13 / sQ / 11
            8:9 // 7:8-9 / xQ / 25
            8:20 // 9:58 // sQ / 24
            9:37-38 // 10:2 / sQ / 15
            11:5-6 // 7:22-23 / xQ / 11
            11:7-8 // 7:24-25 / xQ / 19
            11:8-10 // 7:25-27 / xQ / 18
            11:10 // 7:27 / xQ / 14
            11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12
            11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12
            11:25 // 10:25 / xQ / 11
            11:25-27 // 10:21-22 / xQ / 27
            11:27 // 10:22 / xQ / 11
            12:27 // 11:19 / xQ / 15
            12:28 // 11:20 / xQ / 13
            12:30 // 11:23 / sQ / 15
            12:41 // 11:32 / sQ / 24
            12:42 // 11:31 / sQ / 16
            12:43 // 11:24 / xQ / 14
            12:45 // 11:26 / xQ / 14
            13:17 // 10:24 / sQ / 11
            13:33 // 13:21 / sQ / 13
            23:37 // 13:34 / xQ / 14
            23:37-38 // 13:34-35 / xQ / 12
            24:47-48 // 12:44-45 / xQ / 14
            24:50-51 // 12:46 / xQ / 26

            > BRUCE:
            > Does one portion of this material as Ron has divided it show more or fewer
            > Aramaisms,

            RON: I don't know. This would be a really major exercise and beyond my
            linguistic skills.

            > BRUCE: ..... or possible mistranslations from the Aramaic, than the other?

            RON: Yes. The logia material appears to have more mistranslations.

            > BRUCE:
            > Again: If OT quotations are included, are the passages derived from Mt close
            > to the Septuagint,

            RON: If we go by the list of quotations at the end of UBS3 there are 'Q'
            quotations at Lk 4:4, 8, 10-11, 12, 7:27 and 13:35; and separately Mt 10:35
            and 15:14. The Lukan quotations here are LXX, and all assigned by me to
            Luke's copying of Matthew.

            > BRUCE: ..... and those taken direct from the Aramaic source (which was
            > presumably not getting its Scriptures from a Greek translation of them) not?

            RON: The last two are from the logia. Mt 15:14 is not from LXX. In Mt 10:35
            //Lk 12:53 it is not clear whether the synoptic use of NUMFH was influenced
            by the LXX or was simply common usage in the 1st. century.

            Ron Price

            Derbyshire, UK

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic On: Testing the 3ST From: Bruce Ron, On slowly working my way through your list of 35 passages which reflect source A, whether meditated by
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 10, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic
              On: Testing the 3ST
              From: Bruce

              Ron,

              On slowly working my way through your list of 35 passages which reflect
              source A, whether meditated by Matthew or used directly by Luke, I find that
              one of them, namely 11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12, is duplicated on your list, so
              that we actually have only 34 passages. Correct?

              In addition to these, if I understand you correctly, there are also some
              passages in Mark which you regard as derived from A, some of them perhaps
              also used by Matthew and/or Luke, but some unique to Mark. I infer that if
              we had these A-based Markan passages also, we would have before us a
              complete inventory of A insofar as it can now be recovered (according to the
              3ST) from extant texts. (And your opinion seems to be that, among them,
              Mark, Matthew, and Luke made use of virtually all of A).

              Do you then have a list of those Mark passages?

              Thanks,

              Bruce
            • Ron Price
              ... that ... tend ... Dave, The narrative pericopes tend to be longer, but it seems that they tend to be copied less faithfully. At least this is my
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 12, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave Gentile wrote:

                > .......
                > One other concern - one of the criteria you use, I believe, is
                that
                > narrative material belongs to Matthew, in general. Wouldn't these
                tend
                > to be longer?

                Dave,

                The narrative pericopes tend to be longer, but it seems that they
                tend to be copied less faithfully. At least this is my interpretation of the
                following:

                In the material derived from Mark I have found only ten strings common to
                Matthew and Luke which have more than ten words (format Matthew // Luke /
                number of consecutive common words):

                3:3 // 3:4 / 14
                8:2 // 5:12-13 / 18
                12:4 // 6:4 / 11
                14:19 // 9:16 / 12
                16:21 // 9:22 / 14
                16:25 // 9:24 / 16
                17:17 // 9:41 / 12
                22:44 // 20:42-3 / 15
                24:19 // 21:23 / 11
                24:34 // 21:32 / 13

                These 10 cases in the Markan set of data can be compared with the 23 I found
                in the part of the Double Tradition assigned to xQ, which is less than a
                fifth of the size of the Mark-related data!

                Ron Price

                Derbyshire, UK

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              • Dave Gentile
                At some point I might try to investigate how significant these numbers are, but I ll wait until I can devote more time to it. For now, I m thinking through
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 12, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  At some point I might try to investigate how significant these
                  numbers are, but I'll wait until I can devote more time to it.

                  For now, I'm thinking through alternative explanations, assuming
                  these numbers are significant. What is interesting is that sQ
                  probably contains more direct quotes of Jesus, and we might expect
                  those to be more similar than other text. Your finding of the
                  opposite does seem to require an explanation, and an Aramaic saying
                  source would be one such explanation.

                  An alternative - the more narrative sections of Mt/Lk agreement,
                  things that look Matthian, in your view – what if these are mostly
                  the result of redaction of Luke, not a product of the original
                  author of Luke. The redactor then did what he did well; he copied
                  from Matthew to Luke, resulting in identical strings. I suppose the
                  first argument against this alternative is that we don't have the un-
                  redacted version of Luke.

                  And although obviously the later authors are less faithful to Mark
                  than their other source(s), at least by this measure, it also still
                  seems that the total length of the section could be important. One
                  piece of information that might be useful here – how many contiguous
                  blocks of material are there in xQ and how many are in sQ? How many
                  total words in sQ? xQ? This would give us the average length of the
                  contiguous passages of general agreement. Although, ideally we'd
                  want the total length of each contiguous passage, and the length of
                  any identical strings found in it. I think from that one could
                  construct a comparison, which would not be at all biased by the
                  length of the contiguous passages of general agreement. We would
                  count of the number of possible 10 word agreements in each, and the
                  number of actual agreements. Here an 11 word string would count as 2
                  potential 10 word strings, etc... Using this procedure, my intuition
                  would be that the effect would be diminished, eliminated, or even
                  reversed.

                  Note that a negative result here is not a bad thing for the 3SH in
                  general, but I suppose it would show a lack of support for the idea
                  of independent translation of sQ. Luke might then have just worked
                  from Matthew's translated version, or something along those lines.

                  Dave Gentile
                  Riverside, IL



                  --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dave Gentile wrote:
                  >
                  > > .......
                  > > One other concern - one of the criteria you use, I believe, is
                  > that
                  > > narrative material belongs to Matthew, in general. Wouldn't these
                  > tend
                  > > to be longer?
                  >
                  > Dave,
                  >
                  > The narrative pericopes tend to be longer, but it seems that they
                  > tend to be copied less faithfully. At least this is my
                  interpretation of the
                  > following:
                  >
                  > In the material derived from Mark I have found only ten strings
                  common to
                  > Matthew and Luke which have more than ten words (format Matthew //
                  Luke /
                  > number of consecutive common words):
                  >
                  > 3:3 // 3:4 / 14
                  > 8:2 // 5:12-13 / 18
                  > 12:4 // 6:4 / 11
                  > 14:19 // 9:16 / 12
                  > 16:21 // 9:22 / 14
                  > 16:25 // 9:24 / 16
                  > 17:17 // 9:41 / 12
                  > 22:44 // 20:42-3 / 15
                  > 24:19 // 21:23 / 11
                  > 24:34 // 21:32 / 13
                  >
                  > These 10 cases in the Markan set of data can be compared with the
                  23 I found
                  > in the part of the Double Tradition assigned to xQ, which is less
                  than a
                  > fifth of the size of the Mark-related data!
                  >
                  > Ron Price
                  >
                  > Derbyshire, UK
                  >
                  > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  >
                • Ron Price
                  ... Dave, There are about 14 contiguous xQ-material blocks in Matthew, where each block could perhaps be said to represent a pericope. There are 11 contiguous
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 14, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave Gentile wrote:

                    > .......
                    > And although obviously the later authors are less faithful to Mark
                    > than their other source(s), at least by this measure, it also still
                    > seems that the total length of the section could be important. One
                    > piece of information that might be useful here – how many contiguous
                    > blocks of material are there in xQ and how many are in sQ?

                    Dave,

                    There are about 14 contiguous xQ-material blocks in Matthew, where each
                    block could perhaps be said to represent a pericope. There are 11 contiguous
                    sQ blocks in the logia (separated by non-Double-Tradition sayings). But
                    these contain about 60 sayings.

                    > How many total words in sQ?

                    If we define sQ (as I now do) as that part of the Double Tradition which
                    came from the logia, then sQ has 2381 Greek words of the 2762 Greek words in
                    my current reconstruction of the logia.

                    > xQ?

                    The xQ material in Matthew consists of about 1770 Greek words.

                    Thus sQ/xQ is about 4/3 (a correction of my previous estimate of 5/3).

                    Ron Price

                    Derbyshire, UK

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  • Dave Gentile
                    Ron, I was thinking of blocks that would need to be defined by being contiguous in both Matthew and Luke. These blocks could be a pericope, or a single saying
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 14, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ron,

                      I was thinking of blocks that would need to be defined by being
                      contiguous in both Matthew and Luke. These blocks could be a
                      pericope, or a single saying found in both Matthew and Luke, but in
                      a different context.

                      Those blocks are then assigned to sQ or xQ in whole or in part. The
                      resulting number of blocks in each sQ and zQ are what we would wish
                      to count, I belive (as well as determine their length).

                      Dave Gentile
                      Riverside, IL

                      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Dave Gentile wrote:
                      >
                      > > .......
                      > > And although obviously the later authors are less faithful to
                      Mark
                      > > than their other source(s), at least by this measure, it also
                      still
                      > > seems that the total length of the section could be important.
                      One
                      > > piece of information that might be useful here – how many
                      contiguous
                      > > blocks of material are there in xQ and how many are in sQ?
                      >
                      > Dave,
                      >
                      > There are about 14 contiguous xQ-material blocks in Matthew, where
                      each
                      > block could perhaps be said to represent a pericope. There are 11
                      contiguous
                      > sQ blocks in the logia (separated by non-Double-Tradition
                      sayings). But
                      > these contain about 60 sayings.
                      >
                      > > How many total words in sQ?
                      >
                      > If we define sQ (as I now do) as that part of the Double Tradition
                      which
                      > came from the logia, then sQ has 2381 Greek words of the 2762
                      Greek words in
                      > my current reconstruction of the logia.
                      >
                      > > xQ?
                      >
                      > The xQ material in Matthew consists of about 1770 Greek words.
                      >
                      > Thus sQ/xQ is about 4/3 (a correction of my previous estimate of
                      5/3).
                      >
                      > Ron Price
                      >
                      > Derbyshire, UK
                      >
                      > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                      >
                    • E Bruce Brooks
                      To: Synoptic In Response To: Previous 3ST Thread From: Bruce The discussion between Dave and Ron has its statistical interest, but it is almost supernaturally
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 14, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To: Synoptic
                        In Response To: Previous 3ST Thread
                        From: Bruce

                        The discussion between Dave and Ron has its statistical interest, but it is
                        almost supernaturally hard to follow, due to the near identity of the "sQ"
                        and "xQ" abbreviations. Relying on Ron's clarification of 9 Dec, which went

                        "xQ (from Matthew) or sQ (from the logia),"

                        I interpret the 3ST to say that Luke is accessing the supposed Aramaic Logia
                        in two ways, either via Matthew's previous translation into Greek (xQ), or
                        directly, by his own translation from the Aramaic (sQ). If so, and
                        representing the Aramaic source by A, we have this contrast:

                        (1) A > Lk [direct]
                        (2) A > Mt > Lk [indirect]

                        Why not simply call the first case A material, and the second, mediated case
                        B material?

                        Respectfully suggested. And if only for my own convenience, I proceed to
                        implement it with Ron's previously provided list of 35 "strings" of 10 or
                        more identical Greek words in Mt/Lk. I have grouped strings that occur in
                        the same narrative unit, and labeled the units, because otherwise I can't
                        make sense of the proposal.

                        A. Luke draws on A [Ron's "sQ]: 12 strings in 7 units

                        A1. Sermon on the Mount
                        6:24 // 16:13 / sQ / 26 [no man can serve two masters]
                        6:29-30 // 12:27-28 / sQ / 13 [not even Solomon . . .]
                        7:3 // 6:41 / sQ / 14 [the speck in your brother's eye]
                        7:7-8 // 11:9-10 / sQ / 24 [ask and it will be given you]
                        7:11 // 11:13 / sQ / 11 [if you know how to give good gifts . . .]
                        A2. Foxes Have Holes
                        8:20 // 9:58 // sQ / 24
                        A3. The [Missionary] Laborers are Few
                        9:37-38 // 10:2 / sQ / 15
                        A4. He Who Is Not With Me
                        12:30 // 11:23 / sQ / 15
                        A5. Curses By:
                        12:41 // 11:32 / sQ / 24 [the men of Nineveh]
                        12:42 // 11:31 / sQ / 16 [the Queen of the South]
                        A6. The Good Fortune of the Disciples
                        13:17 // 10:24 / sQ / 11 [many desired to hear what you hear]
                        A7. Simile of the Leaven
                        13:33 // 13:21 / sQ / 13

                        [NB: All from the first half of Matthew. Anything significant here?]

                        B. Luke uses Matthew's translation of A [Ron's xQ]: 23 strings in 13 units

                        B1. Preaching of John
                        3:7-8 // 3:7-8 / xQ / 12
                        3:9-10 // 3:8-9 / xQ / 24
                        3:10 // 3:9 / xQ / 20
                        B2. Baptism of Jesus by John
                        3:11-12 // 3:16-17 / xQ / 15
                        B3. Temptation of Jesus by Satan
                        4:6 // 4:11 / xQ / 11
                        B4. Tale of the Centurion
                        8:9 // 7:8-9 / xQ / 25
                        B5. Signs of Jesus's Power, as Message to John
                        11:5-6 // 7:22-23 / xQ / 11 [the blind see, etc]
                        B6. Jesus Speaks of John
                        11:7-8 // 7:24-25 / xQ / 19
                        11:8-10 // 7:25-27 / xQ / 18
                        11:10 // 7:27 / xQ / 14 [Isaiah quotation]
                        B7. Woes to Galilean Churches
                        11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12
                        11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12
                        B8. Thanks to the Father
                        11:25 // 10:25 / xQ / 11
                        11:25-27 // 10:21-22 / xQ / 27 [ . . who has concealed it from the wise]
                        B9. All Things are Delivered to Jesus
                        11:27 // 10:22 / xQ / 11
                        B10. Beelzebul Controversy
                        12:27 // 11:19 / xQ / 15
                        12:28 // 11:20 / xQ / 13 [then the Kingdom of God has come upon you]
                        B11. The Unclean Spirit Returns
                        12:43 // 11:24 / xQ / 14
                        12:45 // 11:26 / xQ / 14
                        B12. Lament for Jerusalem
                        23:37 // 13:34 / xQ / 14
                        23:37-38 // 13:34-35 / xQ / 12 [cursing of Jerusalem]
                        B13. Parable of the Evil Servant
                        24:47-48 // 12:44-45 / xQ / 14 [cursing of Israel]
                        24:50-51 // 12:46 / xQ / 26 [the Master will condemn the faithless]

                        [NB: *Almost* all from the first half of Matthew]

                        COMMENTS

                        1. The A source cannot be a "logia" in the usual sense of "logia of Jesus,"
                        since it also contains logia of John, not to mention Satan. The problem of
                        John, as it seems to me, bedevils this hypothesis as it also does the Q
                        hypothesis. Only a narrative of Jesus would have a place for this material.
                        For that matter, a good many of the sayings of Jesus attributed to A have
                        chiefly narrative import, eg the Lament Over Jerusalem. If we subtract these
                        non-logia materials from the proposed Logia, how much is actually left?

                        2. All the units in question have Matthean parallels in Luke. The hypothesis
                        for the B material is that Luke is using Matthew. The hypothesis for the A
                        material is that Luke is abandoning Matthew and instead using Matthew's A
                        source directly. Why? I would like to see the reason for the abandonment
                        expounded for at least one of the A units.

                        3. Taking the above A and B materials together, forgetting about Matthew and
                        Luke and looking at the Aramaic source as a whole, my first impression is
                        that it certainly contains a lot of pronouncements of doom. The overall
                        impression is rather severe. Even from the Sermon on the Mount, everybody's
                        favorite Nice Jesus part of Matthew, the extracts here included tend to be
                        divisive and minatory. If there was a tradition of Jesus as a hellfire
                        preacher, the Aramaic text here proposed might be intelligible as coming out
                        of that tradition. Apart from items listed above, I get a not dissimilar
                        impression from the full inventory of the Aramaic source on Ron's web site.
                        Comment?

                        Bruce
                      • Dave Gentile
                        Bruce, Thanks for the inventory. That is helpful. If we had total word length for for each of the As, A1-A7, and for each of the Bs, B1- B13, then we d be
                        Message 11 of 24 , Dec 14, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bruce,

                          Thanks for the inventory. That is helpful. If we had total word
                          length for for each of the As, A1-A7, and for each of the Bs, B1-
                          B13, then we'd be ready to crunch a few numbers.

                          Interesting observation about these being from the first half of
                          Matthew...significant I'm sure, but I'm not sure how to explain it.
                          The first thing which comes to mind is that Luke found his own voice
                          as he wrote.

                          On hellfire in the saying source - that is one of the most
                          noticeable changes when moving from Mark to Matthew, in my opinion.
                          Thus I tend to associate this with Matthew's style. Since I think
                          the saying source and Matthew had the same author, this makes
                          perfect sense, from my point of view. I believe Ron would say that
                          the author of the gospel of Matthew adopted this style from the
                          saying source with which he agreed in large part.

                          Dave Gentile
                          Riverside, IL
                        • E Bruce Brooks
                          To: Synoptic In Response To: Dave G On: Hellfire in Matthew From: Bruce On the Aramaic material identified by Ron Price as lying behind Matthew and (at one
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 14, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            To: Synoptic
                            In Response To: Dave G
                            On: Hellfire in Matthew
                            From: Bruce

                            On the Aramaic material identified by Ron Price as lying behind Matthew and
                            (at one remove) also behind Luke:

                            DAVE: Interesting observation about these being from the first half of
                            Matthew...significant I'm sure, but I'm not sure how to explain it. The
                            first thing which comes to mind is that Luke found his own voice as he
                            wrote.

                            BRUCE: Or it might be simpler than that. Just by way of speculation:

                            Matthew on the whole, not unlike Mark, has written a two-part Gospel, the
                            second half of which is more or less oriented around the Crucifixion. The
                            material in the first half of Mark and Matthew is less interested in the
                            Crucifixion than in the message of Jesus. Of course, by the time you get to
                            the Gospel of John, the Crucifixion IS the message of Jesus, but as many
                            including von Soden have noticed, there is more of a split personality in
                            the earlier Gospels. Suppose (as the distribution here noticed might imply)
                            that Matthew is relying on a separate source for the material here being
                            considered, and suppose again that that source was in Aramaic; that its
                            material is less likely to have been packaged for the wider Near Eastern
                            community. Such a source might be relatively near the original situation
                            (and in Matthew, it might have been incongruously spliced into a
                            Crucifixion-oriented narrative).

                            What, on Ron's account of it, does that source contain? Essentially and
                            predominantly, warnings about what awaits the wrongdoer at some not distant
                            time. So far Jesus. How about John the Baptist? Same. Those who resist
                            temptations, who keep from evil, who remain alert and watchful, will survive
                            the coming wrath. The message attributed to the two apocalyptic preachers in
                            this material is essentially identical. Might we not here have a snapshot of
                            Jesus before he (or his posthumous apologists) had theorized him too far out
                            of his own original teaching? While he was still recognizably part of the
                            John movement? Might this not explain why the otherwise incongruous John
                            material keeps turning up in reconstructions of Jesus sayings? I find this a
                            useful and suggestive possibility.

                            I will tentatively call it the Hellfire Source, or H for short. I don't at
                            this moment assume that it corresponds exactly with Ron's 72-saying
                            hypothetical Aramaic source, just that it is in somewhat the same direction.

                            Such a possibility would be refuted if the few items from late in the
                            Matthean scheme, as previously inventoried, were Crucifixion-oriented. Are
                            they? The Lament over Jerusalem might be so considered. But the last item,
                            Mt 24:50-51 is still about the need to be prepared for the imminent End -
                            not the end of Jesus, on which no reliance is here placed, but on the End of
                            the World, for which the hearer already knows how to prepare, and requires
                            only to be motivated to actually carry out those preparations.

                            With a few adjustments here and there, it seems to me possible. Other
                            opinions always welcome.

                            Bruce
                          • Ron Price
                            ... Bruce, Your interpretation is wrong. The 23 xQ strings I mentioned were never in the logia. They are strings of Matthean text which Luke copied directly
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Bruce Brooks wrote:

                              > A. Luke draws on A [Ron's "sQ]: 12 strings in 7 units
                              > .......
                              > B. Luke uses Matthew's translation of A [Ron's xQ]: 23 strings in 13 units
                              > .......
                              > COMMENTS
                              >
                              > 1. The A source cannot be a "logia" in the usual sense of "logia of Jesus,"
                              > since it also contains logia of John, not to mention Satan. The problem of
                              > John, as it seems to me, bedevils this hypothesis as it also does the Q
                              > hypothesis.

                              Bruce,

                              Your interpretation is wrong. The 23 xQ strings I mentioned were never in
                              the logia. They are strings of Matthean text which Luke copied directly from
                              Matthew. I am at a loss as to how you could misunderstand me so badly.
                              Somewhere along the line I obviously didn't make myself clear enough. My
                              proposal is that the xQ material (xQ is shorthand for ex-Q, i.e. taken out
                              of Q) does *not* come from the logia, but originates with Matthew. There is
                              no reference either to JnB or to Satan in the logia, and therefore the 3ST
                              as proposed *does* solve the "problem of John"!

                              Ron Price

                              Derbyshire, UK

                              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                            • Ron Price
                              ... Bruce, Your survey is interesting, but you may wish to update it in the light of my previous posting. ... Yes, I believe the logia does give such an
                              Message 14 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Bruce Brooks wrote:

                                > What, on Ron's account of it, does that source contain?

                                Bruce,

                                Your survey is interesting, but you may wish to update it in the light of my
                                previous posting.

                                > ....... Might we not here have a snapshot of
                                > Jesus before he (or his posthumous apologists) had theorized him too far out
                                > of his own original teaching?

                                Yes, I believe the logia does give such an insight.

                                > While he was still recognizably part of the
                                > John movement? Might this not explain why the otherwise incongruous John
                                > material keeps turning up in reconstructions of Jesus sayings?

                                But here you appear to be in the company of many who have been misled by the
                                Q hypothesis. The incongruous John material keeps cropping up because Q
                                supporters take a simplistic view of the Double Tradition, which leads them
                                to deduce that this material was in Q, which makes it appear that it might
                                have been earlier than Mark. As I see it, Mark wanted an impressive but
                                brief way to open his story of the gospel of Jesus, and he chose to
                                highlight JnB as the forerunner of Jesus. All the other gospel writers
                                retained the Markan role for JnB. But decades before the first gospel was
                                composed, any influence JnB might have had on Jesus is difficult to detect
                                in the logia sayings penned by Jesus' earliest followers.

                                Ron Price

                                Derbyshire, UK

                                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                              • E Bruce Brooks
                                To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron On: xQ From: Bruce RON: Somewhere along the line I obviously didn t make myself clear enough. My proposal is that the xQ
                                Message 15 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  To: Synoptic
                                  In Response To: Ron
                                  On: xQ
                                  From: Bruce

                                  RON: Somewhere along the line I obviously didn't make myself clear enough.
                                  My proposal is that the xQ material (xQ is shorthand for ex-Q, i.e. taken
                                  out of Q) does *not* come from the logia, but originates with Matthew.

                                  BRUCE: Still not clear, and to me, still enigmatic terminologically. If xQ
                                  means "out of Q" (rather than out of the "logia") then how exactly can it
                                  "originate with Matthew?" Do we have an equation xQ = xM?

                                  This most recent comment might be construed as meaning that there is a Q
                                  somewhere in the 3ST. But that is evidently not the case; the non-Synoptic
                                  source in the 3ST is apparently supposed to overlap with Q as conventionally
                                  understood, but to be smaller (and also to include material NOT usually
                                  assigned to Q). I have gone again to the web page, and there I read:

                                  "On the previous page I proposed that the early collection of Jesus' sayings
                                  was roughly a subset of Q as normally understood, and labelled it "sQ",
                                  meaning '(pure) sayings-Q'. In this theory the author of Matthew's gospel
                                  (hereafter "Au_Matt") used two written sources: sQ and Mark, and the author
                                  of Luke's gospel (hereafter "Au_Luke") used three written sources: sQ, Mark
                                  and Matthew. I argued that Au_Luke took from Matthew some of the material
                                  usually allocated to Q. This included the following pericopae: Mt 3:7-12;
                                  4:1-11; 8:5-13; 11:2-19; 20-23; 25-27; 12:22-29,31-32; 43-45; 22:1-10;
                                  23:37-39; 24:45-51; 25:14-28,30. [1] The remaining double tradition material
                                  is assigned to sQ. "

                                  One way to understand this is to assume that sQ (the revised, smaller Q) +
                                  xQ (material formerly, but not in the 3ST, allocated to Q) = Q. That is, the
                                  conventional Q is being divided into Matthean original material and stuff
                                  that really IS in an outside written source. We might then gloss

                                  sQ = "still in Q"
                                  xQ = "taken out of Q; not in an outside source used by aMt"

                                  If this is correct, then as earlier suggested, I think other labels would be
                                  better; say A and M. "Q" is a letter which, at this hour of the day, is very
                                  hard to control, at least with the wider readership. The phrase "out of"
                                  also seems to be a problem; it does not always seem to have the meaning
                                  which a horse breeder would assign to it. It seems to be doing duty for "in"
                                  as well as "not in," which is perhaps unlikely to advance understanding. Why
                                  not pick another?

                                  Bruce
                                • Ron Price
                                  ... Dave, Down to pericope or saying level there are I think 73 such blocks. ... I count 18 sub-blocks in xQ and 57 in sQ (thus indicating that only 2 blocks
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dave Gentile wrote:

                                    > I was thinking of blocks that would need to be defined by being
                                    > contiguous in both Matthew and Luke. These blocks could be a
                                    > pericope, or a single saying found in both Matthew and Luke, but in
                                    > a different context.

                                    Dave,

                                    Down to pericope or saying level there are I think 73 such blocks.

                                    > Those blocks are then assigned to sQ or xQ in whole or in part. The
                                    > resulting number of blocks in each sQ and zQ are what we would wish
                                    > to count, I belive (as well as determine their length).

                                    I count 18 sub-blocks in xQ and 57 in sQ (thus indicating that only 2 blocks
                                    were split between xQ and sQ). As for counting the length of each block in
                                    both Matthew and Luke, I could do the counts if and when you actually want
                                    to make use of the information.

                                    Ron Price

                                    Derbyshire, UK

                                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                  • Dave Gentile
                                    ... Replying to my own post - We would also need the length of the blocks in sQ and xQ that are not in A and B. i.e the blocks which do not contain identical
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >
                                      > Thanks for the inventory. That is helpful. If we had total word
                                      > length for for each of the As, A1-A7, and for each of the Bs, B1-
                                      > B13, then we'd be ready to crunch a few numbers.

                                      Replying to my own post -

                                      We would also need the length of the blocks in sQ and xQ that are not
                                      in A and B. i.e the blocks which do not contain identical strings of
                                      at least 10 words.

                                      Dave Gentile
                                      Riverside IL
                                    • Dave Gentile
                                      No need to do all the word counting yet. I think we have enough information for a hand-waving approximate calculation. I have to take the cat to the vet, but
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        No need to do all the word counting yet. I think we have enough
                                        information for a hand-waving approximate calculation.

                                        I have to take the cat to the vet, but I'll come back to this soon.

                                        Dave Gentile
                                        Riverside, IL



                                        --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Dave Gentile wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > I was thinking of blocks that would need to be defined by being
                                        > > contiguous in both Matthew and Luke. These blocks could be a
                                        > > pericope, or a single saying found in both Matthew and Luke, but
                                        in
                                        > > a different context.
                                        >
                                        > Dave,
                                        >
                                        > Down to pericope or saying level there are I think 73 such blocks.
                                        >
                                        > > Those blocks are then assigned to sQ or xQ in whole or in part.
                                        The
                                        > > resulting number of blocks in each sQ and zQ are what we would
                                        wish
                                        > > to count, I belive (as well as determine their length).
                                        >
                                        > I count 18 sub-blocks in xQ and 57 in sQ (thus indicating that
                                        only 2 blocks
                                        > were split between xQ and sQ). As for counting the length of each
                                        block in
                                        > both Matthew and Luke, I could do the counts if and when you
                                        actually want
                                        > to make use of the information.
                                        >
                                        > Ron Price
                                        >
                                        > Derbyshire, UK
                                        >
                                        > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                        >
                                      • Ron Price
                                        ... RON: O.K. I see why you re confused. The hypothetical document Q never existed. *I* took the xQ material out of Q, and assigned it where it really
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > BRUCE: Still not clear, and to me, still enigmatic terminologically. If xQ
                                          > means "out of Q" (rather than out of the "logia") then how exactly can it
                                          > "originate with Matthew?" Do we have an equation xQ = xM?

                                          RON: O.K. I see why you're confused. The hypothetical document Q never
                                          existed. *I* took the xQ material out of Q, and assigned it where it really
                                          belonged, i.e. to Matthew.

                                          > BRUCE: This most recent comment might be construed as meaning that there is a
                                          > Q somewhere in the 3ST. But that is evidently not the case;

                                          RON: Indeed. Q is a figment of the imagination resulting from a simplistic
                                          analysis of the Double Tradition.

                                          > BRUCE: ..... the
                                          > conventional Q is being divided into Matthean original material and stuff
                                          > that really IS in an outside written source. We might then gloss
                                          >
                                          > sQ = "still in Q"
                                          > xQ = "taken out of Q; not in an outside source used by aMt"

                                          RON: Phew. I think we may be nearly there.

                                          > BRUCE: Why not pick another [label for the sayings source]?

                                          RON: I have already back-tracked on my use of the label "sQ", which I now
                                          retain only for a certain subset of the Double Tradition. However I can see
                                          the advantage of not using the letter "Q" at all in labels relating to a
                                          theory which dispenses with the document widely known as "Q". The difficulty
                                          is that most folk know about Q. It seemed easier to start by relating what
                                          is new in my proposal to what is known and what it replaces.

                                          Ron Price

                                          Derbyshire, UK

                                          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                        • Dave Gentile
                                          O.K. - a back of the envelop calculation (or really some quick cutting and pasting with a spreadsheet) - xQ: 18 blocks 1770 words average length 98 words 1602
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            O.K. - a back of the envelop calculation (or really some quick
                                            cutting and pasting with a spreadsheet) -

                                            xQ:

                                            18 blocks
                                            1770 words
                                            average length 98 words
                                            1602 possible 10 word agrements
                                            23 actual agreements
                                            1.5% point extimate of frequency
                                            Low end of 95th percentile credibility range = 1.03%
                                            High end = 2.03%

                                            sQ:
                                            57 blocks
                                            2381 words
                                            average length 42 words
                                            1881 possible 10 word agrements
                                            12 actual agreements
                                            0.69% point extimate of frequency
                                            Low end of 95th percentile credibility range = 0.41%
                                            High end = 1.03%

                                            The edges of the credibility ranges just touch but do not overlap.
                                            So there is something like a 2.5% chance that this is finding is due
                                            to random chance.

                                            Doing the actual word counts would add very little information to
                                            this picture, since the average block length seems to be quite
                                            adaquate for these purposes.

                                            Thus - we seem to have a signficant result. And so far, two
                                            suggested explinations for it.

                                            Dave Gentile
                                            Riverside, IL
                                          • Dave Gentile
                                            ... A correction to the quick calculation - I had the spreadsheet set for a 90th percentile confidence range, not 95th. I also needed to double the number I
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Dec 15, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...>
                                              wrote:
                                              >
                                              > O.K. - a back of the envelop calculation (or really some quick
                                              > cutting and pasting with a spreadsheet) -
                                              >

                                              A correction to the quick calculation - I had the spreadsheet set for
                                              a 90th percentile confidence range, not 95th. I also needed to double
                                              the number I gave, for another reason. As a result, there is more like
                                              a 10% chance these numbers are just random chance (not 2.5% as
                                              previously stated). Appologies for the error.

                                              So the result seems significant at the 90th percentile, but just
                                              barely. However, this (combined with Ron's other observations) still
                                              suggests to me that sQ and xQ, by in large, are the result of two
                                              different processes.

                                              Dave Gentile
                                              Riverside, IL
                                            • Ron Price
                                              ... Dave, Thanks for your efforts, but you may need to find another envelope - should be plenty around at this time of year :-) ... Or another spreadsheet.
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Dec 16, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dave Gentile wrote:

                                                > O.K. - a back of the envelop calculation

                                                Dave,

                                                Thanks for your efforts, but you may need to find another envelope - should
                                                be plenty around at this time of year :-)

                                                > (or really some quick cutting and pasting with a spreadsheet) -

                                                Or another spreadsheet.

                                                > xQ:
                                                >
                                                > 18 blocks
                                                > 1770 words
                                                > average length 98 words
                                                > 1602 possible 10 word agrements
                                                > .......
                                                > sQ:
                                                > 57 blocks
                                                > 2381 words
                                                > average length 42 words
                                                > 1881 possible 10 word agrements
                                                > 12 actual agreements

                                                Firstly, what I found was the set of strings common to Matthew and Luke
                                                having *more than* ten contiguous words, i.e. 11+
                                                Thus 1602 should be replaced by 1584 and 1881 by 1824.

                                                Secondly you appear to be comparing apples and pears in the agreements. The
                                                numbers 1584 and 1824 represent counts of the number of possible 11-word
                                                strings (some of which will be overlapping). What I had counted were the
                                                numbers and lengths of all the strings having more than ten words (none of
                                                which overlap with each other by definition). The total number of words in
                                                the xQ and sQ strings were 364 and 205 respectively. Therefore my actual
                                                numbers of 11-word strings (some of which will overlap) are 364 - 10*23 =
                                                134 and 205 - 10*12 = 85 respectively. So in xQ there are 134 contiguous
                                                11-word strings out of a possible 1584, and in sQ there are 85 contiguous
                                                11-word strings out of a possible 1824. (All this neglects the fact that the
                                                blocks have different lengths, but I agree that the approximation that they
                                                have equal lengths is unlikely to make much difference to the results.)

                                                Ron Price

                                                Derbyshire, UK

                                                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                              • Dave Gentile
                                                ... 23 actual agreement ... Luke ... Dave: O.K. I ll change the calculation from 10+ to 11+. I d expect this is a small effect. ... agreements. The ... 11-word
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Dec 17, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  >
                                                  > > xQ:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > 18 blocks
                                                  > > 1770 words
                                                  > > average length 98 words
                                                  > > 1602 possible 10 word agrements
                                                  23 actual agreement

                                                  > > .......
                                                  > > sQ:
                                                  > > 57 blocks
                                                  > > 2381 words
                                                  > > average length 42 words
                                                  > > 1881 possible 10 word agrements
                                                  > > 12 actual agreements

                                                  Ron:
                                                  >
                                                  > Firstly, what I found was the set of strings common to Matthew and
                                                  Luke
                                                  > having *more than* ten contiguous words, i.e. 11+
                                                  > Thus 1602 should be replaced by 1584 and 1881 by 1824.
                                                  >

                                                  Dave:
                                                  O.K. I'll change the calculation from 10+ to 11+. I'd expect this is
                                                  a small effect.

                                                  Ron:
                                                  > Secondly you appear to be comparing apples and pears in the
                                                  agreements. The
                                                  > numbers 1584 and 1824 represent counts of the number of possible
                                                  11-word
                                                  > strings (some of which will be overlapping). What I had counted
                                                  were the
                                                  > numbers and lengths of all the strings having more than ten words
                                                  (none of
                                                  > which overlap with each other by definition).

                                                  Dave:
                                                  I had given that some thought. Counting that way seems to greatly
                                                  inflate the significance, and I don't think it is correct, although
                                                  granted I did not formulate a precise argument as to why it is
                                                  correct or not. Done the way you suggest, you get something like
                                                  99.999 percentile significance, which does not seem to be the right
                                                  order of magnitude for the numbers we're dealing with. Plus,
                                                  considering a few extreme cases leads to absurd looking conclusions.
                                                  So, without precise argument, I conclude we should not count that
                                                  way.

                                                  Rather, I would put it this way - there are 1824 places a string
                                                  could start, and 12 places one actually does start.

                                                  Then using the revised numbers, the finding is significant at the
                                                  89th percentile, just short of one typical arbitrary cut-off.
                                                  Regardless, it still adds something when combined with your other
                                                  arguments.

                                                  Here I should also note that I used a Bayesian credibility interval,
                                                  rather that a traditional confidence interval. They give nearly the
                                                  same result, although they say something subtly different. But in
                                                  this case if we are looking for that last 1%, the other method might
                                                  give results more to our liking, or it might be slightly worse.

                                                  Finally, one other potential problem - How was the "11+" criteria
                                                  selected? Was that the first number you tried, or did you try other
                                                  string length cutoffs first?

                                                  Dave Gentile
                                                  Riverside, IL
                                                • Ron Price
                                                  ... Dave, Thanks for carrying out this investigation. ... Good question. I first tried 18+ and realized there were so few strings that the result was going to
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Dec 18, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Dave Gentile wrote:

                                                    > Then using the revised numbers, the finding is significant at the
                                                    > 89th percentile, just short of one typical arbitrary cut-off.
                                                    > Regardless, it still adds something when combined with your other
                                                    > arguments.

                                                    Dave,

                                                    Thanks for carrying out this investigation.

                                                    > Finally, one other potential problem - How was the "11+" criteria
                                                    > selected? Was that the first number you tried, or did you try other
                                                    > string length cutoffs first?

                                                    Good question. I first tried 18+ and realized there were so few strings that
                                                    the result was going to be too sensitive to the choice of cut-off. I wanted
                                                    to choose a cut-off which was significantly lower than 18+, yet not so low
                                                    as to necessitate too much effort (my procedure being part computerized and
                                                    part manual). It also had to be not too near 14 as I had already observed an
                                                    apparently more-than-average number of strings of this length with known
                                                    assignment, and didn't want the result to be biased. I had also by this
                                                    stage determined to use a single computer run, for which (as it happens) an
                                                    odd number cut-off was more 'efficient'. Hence the 11+.

                                                    Ron Price

                                                    Derbyshire, UK

                                                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.