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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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.