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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST

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