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

Re: Testing the 3ST

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