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

Re: [GTh] Correlation of Sequence Order in GTh-Q1 Twin Sayings

Expand Messages
  • Paul Lanier
    Hi Mike, Thanks, but can I please take credit for the mistake? I think I need to be more careful with cites!    By the way, my last post contains
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 31, 2008
      Hi Mike,
      Thanks, but can I please take credit for the mistake? I think I need to be more careful with cites! 
       
      By the way, my last post contains an error. The parallel to QS 41 is GTh 21, not GTh 20:
       
      <-GTh 20 // QS 41 ------------> Q2.11      is incorrect
      <-GTh 20 // QS 41 ------------> Q2.11      is correct
       
      Sorry for this. I am building a database of the parallels so I can rearrange them quickly. I would like to get a better feel for the sequences produced by different assumptions.
       
      regards, Paul  

      --- On Thu, 7/31/08, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

      From: Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...>
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Correlation of Sequence Order in GTh-Q1 Twin Sayings
      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 12:15 AM






      Hi Paul,

      Sorry I muddied the waters with my "corrections" that turned out to
      be misunderstandings, but at least I'm clear now about the source
      of data from Mack's book, namely:

      (1) p.109 (which lists 7 "sayings clusters" and the Q-segments that
      comprise them) and (2) Appendix B (which relates Q-segments to
      Thomas sayings, inter alia).

      If one were to make the mistake I did of checking the data against
      "An Outline of the Contents of Q" on p.165, or "The Complete Book
      of Q" on pp.81-102, it might easily be confusing, because neither of
      those reference _sayings clusters_ specifically, even though they
      employ the _same names_ (e.g., "Jesus' Teaching") that Mack uses
      for sayings clusters - which I think is inherently confusing. Anyway,
      I'd rather blame him. (:-)

      Cheers,
      Mike


















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Paul Lanier
      Hi Richard, Thank you for your comments. In general, I agree on the uncertainties of reconstructing Q. For example, I wonder about elements of Q ending up in
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 1, 2008
        Hi Richard,

        Thank you for your comments. In general, I agree on the uncertainties
        of reconstructing Q. For example, I wonder about elements of Q ending
        up in Matthew or Luke, but not in both. That seems an obvious concern.
        I do not know how scholars resolve that one. I wish all NT scholarship
        were viewable online, but of course it isn't!

        I am optimistic about the chances of developing methods which can
        recover more information. I think the order of sayings may offer one
        possibility for that. It seems natural that the order of sayings would
        often be conserved, and that rearrangements reflect the authors' aims.
        It should, I think, be possible to reconstruct sequences of sayings
        according to various assumptions and see if the results make sense. We
        will have to see about this.

        I also agree any approach is largely subjective. I would also
        argue this is true for any historical reconstruction. The subjective
        bias of the researcher is unavoidable.

        Here are my thoughts on your other points:

        > I see no a priori reason to prioritize the relation
        > between Q1 and Thomas. For any model to be
        > convincing it should be able to account for all of
        > these links between the synoptic tradition and Thomas.

        Agreed. Better to start with manageable chunks first! If Q1 and Thomas
        represent the earliest traditions (or derive from a common ancestor)
        then it makes sense to try starting with how Thomas and Q1 relate to
        each other.

        I would say also that Davies' conclusion about Mark depending on
        Thomas has to be incorporated.

        > I see no reason to limit your analyses to the sayings that
        > Patterson calls twins, while ignoring the siblings.
        > This distinction (unless I am mistaken) does not rest
        > upon firm criteria, but is quite subjective.

        I started with Patterson's twins because the sayings themselves are
        more conserved. Hopefully that reduces one variable. Of course
        Patterson's categories are guides, not rigid. I agree that problems
        exist with this approach, but it is still very useful. I would suggest
        the correlation between GTh Twin Saying Number and Q1 Cluster Number
        supports both Patterson's and Mack's approaches on this. Otherwise the
        observed correlation is due to some unknown reason, or it is just
        coincidence.

        > we have serious text critical problems in both Q and Thomas

        Agreed. I need to get a copy of The Complete Gospels, with both Thomas
        and Q in SV. That at least offers a consensus translation of both.

        The problem of the Thomas text may never be solved completely. One
        almost complete fourth century Coptic manuscript and a few second
        century Greek fragments! Attestation for the synoptics is far better,
        yet no one thinks it is possible to reconstruct the "original" (if
        that is even a meaningful concept).

        > in analyzing the similarity in order you are looking at
        > the clusters as defined by Mack instead of the position
        > of the saying in Q. The clusters are nothing more than a
        > convenient way for us to organize the contents of Q.
        > Apart from the fact that there are alternatives to
        > Mack's clustering, your analyses would be much more convincing
        > if the relationship you find is at the level of the sayings
        > instead of the clusters. For example, why did the compiler of Q
        > take sayings from Thomas (with present GTh positions ranging
        > from 25 to 69) for his cluster of QS 8-14, but apparently not
        > at all in order within the cluster.

        I think Mack's clusters do reflect the order of Q sayings. Within each
        cluster the sayings are ordered. What I believe Mack has discovered
        are the authors' organizing principles of Q1 and Q2. Q1 seeks to
        establish a revision of Jesus' core teachings as well as guidelines
        for the Q community. At this level Thomas sayings are supplemented and
        reinterpreted to some extent. According to Mack, the clusters were
        arrived at through much analysis. He does not go into detail on it,
        but he does say:

        "Recent studies have shown that it is possible to be quite precise
        about the reasons for the clusters and their arrangement in the larger
        collection. One can see blocks of material organized by theme, sayings
        that illustrate or comment on others, and small units of what the
        Greeks would have called a complete argumentation." Mack goes on to
        say that identification of seams - where literary units join - helps
        to identify clusters (BL Mack 1993: The Lost Gospel.
        HarperSanFrancisco, 106-107).

        Similarly, Davies argues that Mark organized Thomas sayings. In both
        Q1 and Mark, several parallel Thomas sayings occupy a prominent place
        at the front of the gospel. The sayings are reordered and reinterpreted.

        All of this hangs together so well that I just don't see how it can be
        coincidence. The very reasonable explanation is that Thomas sayings
        were used, with modification, by the authors of both Q1 and Mark.
        Mark's very important contribution was his creation of a plausible
        storyline that placed the sayings within a supportive doctrinal
        framework. The modifications reflect a community shift away from
        wisdom to and toward doctrine. Later the authors of Matthew and Luke
        did the same thing, using Mark and Q as their sources. Mark's shift
        toward doctrine was extended toward community authority. In all of
        these the author naturally shifts the order of some sayings to support
        the purpose for which he wrote. I think also that in this process
        content increased for two reasons: to support developing doctrine and
        to satisfy the curiosity of followers. We observe similar processes today.

        > I think you should replace GTh 92 by GTh 94. It is clear that
        > the parallel between Q and Thomas is greater for GTh 94 than GTh 92.

        Agreed. I wonder if that reflects the insertion of GTh 93 in the
        middle of an authentic GTh saying. Both "In the past..." and "Don't
        give what is holy to dogs..." sound like later additions, attacking
        some group with which the author disagrees.

        I used the conclusions of Mack and Patterson simply because it
        maintains objectivity on my part. Otherwise I think a valid objection
        would be that an observed correlation is based on edited data pairs
        that have not been shown to be outliers.

        I will continue working on this after I complete a better database for
        the parallel sayings. That ought to allow quicker testing of
        assumptions, viewing results in context of saying content, and fewer
        errors.

        regards,
        Paul
      • rj.godijn
        ... Agreed! I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus that common order is one of the best ways to show literary dependence. However, scholars like
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 2, 2008
          --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Lanier" <jpaullanier@...> wrote:
          >
          > I am optimistic about the chances of developing methods which can
          > recover more information. I think the order of sayings may offer one
          > possibility for that.

          Agreed! I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus that
          common order is one of the best ways to show literary dependence.
          However, scholars like Patterson have suggested that sometimes common
          Thomas-Synoptic order may be the result of Thomas scribes changing
          the order of the sayings under Synoptic influence. This might for
          example have happened with 32-33, 65-66, 43-45 and 93-94. The
          possibility of later scribal rearrangement of sayings complicates
          matters.


          > I would say also that Davies' conclusion about Mark depending on
          > Thomas has to be incorporated.

          Unfortunately Davies' thesis concerning Mark's dependence on Thomas
          has not really gained much of a following (although I think some of
          his suggestions are quite interesting). In contrast to your analyses
          Davies did not limit his study to close parallels, but also including
          some parallels like Thomas 22:6-7 with Mark 9:43-48, which did not
          even make Patterson's cousin list. Also, Davies does not seem to have
          used common order as a criterion.

          One further point: There is one twin parallel that you missed: the
          mustard seed (GTh 20). In my previous message I erroneously gave this
          as an example of a sibling, but it is in fact a twin! This is another
          Q1-Thomas twin (in addition to GTh 94) that Patterson failed to list
          as Q parallel on page 95. Unfortunately this saying does not appear
          to fit in your scheme of common order between Thomas and Q1.

          Richard Godijn
        • Paul Lanier
          ... Hi Richard, For GTh 32-33, Patterson notes this cluster presents a host of difficulties. He offers: relatively late scribal activity is probably the
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 3, 2008
            --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "rj.godijn" <rj.godijn@...> wrote:

            > scholars like Patterson have suggested that sometimes
            > common Thomas-Synoptic order may be the result of
            > Thomas scribes changing the order of the sayings
            > under Synoptic influence. This might for example
            > have happened with 32-33, 65-66, 43-45 and 93-94.

            Hi Richard,

            For GTh 32-33, Patterson notes "this cluster presents a host of
            difficulties." He offers: "relatively late scribal activity is
            probably the best way to acount for the synoptic-like sequence Thom 32
            -> [33:1] -> 33:2-3." Patterson's thesis is that, in general, GTh is
            independent of the synoptics. Thus he sometimes posits an earlier
            tradition from which both GTh and the synoptics derive. On GTh 33, he
            says "it is quite possible that Thomas drew the saying from the same
            traditional sources that were available to Q." That suggestion is
            compatible with what the suggestion that both GTh and Q1 derive from
            a common source.

            Patterson also argues against Schrage's contention that GTh 45 and GTh
            93 derive from the synoptics. For GTh 65-66 it is more difficult for
            Patterson to maintain his thesis.

            I would suggest these difficulties disappear if allowance is made for
            two-way transmission of sayings. This is a familiar pattern for NT
            MSS, in which an earlier MS is "corrected" to make it consistent with
            a later one.

            > The possibility of later scribal rearrangement of sayings
            complicates matters.

            Indeed! I do not know if anyone has developed a general method for
            identifying two-way transmissions, such as accretions and corrections.
            With NT MSS, of course, the text variations are so complex that MSS
            are grouped into families. I would think the same thing happened with
            the earliest GTh and Q MSS. If we had more MSS I think we would see
            this more easily.

            > Davies does not seem to have used common order criterion.

            Davies concludes Mark depends on Thomas for two general reasons: The
            sayings in Mark are more developed. Also they are grouped into
            distinct units. This suggests, in general, that Mark used Thomas. But I
            would guess the extreme elaboration of some sayings, coupled with their
            very similar wording in the synoptics, points to dependence of Thomas
            on the synoptics for those sayings. I am thinking especially of GTh 64
            and 65.

            > There is one twin parallel that you missed: the
            > mustard seed (GTh 20). In my previous message
            > I erroneously gave this as an example of a sibling,
            > but it is in fact a twin! This is another Q1-Thomas
            > twin (in addition to GTh 94) that Patterson failed to list
            > as Q parallel on page 95. Unfortunately this saying does
            > not appear to fit in your scheme of common order
            > between Thomas and Q1.

            Patterson discusses GTh 20 as a Synoptic Twin (pp. 20-21), where he
            calls it "a Mark/Q overlap" and refers to a study by Laufen. GTh 20
            appears as a Synoptic Twin in the table on pp. 95-97, however he does
            not include it there as a Q parallel. He does say parallels for GTh
            20:1-4 include Mk 4:30-32, Mt 13:31-32 and Lk 13:18-19. Mack includes
            Lk 13:18-21 as a parallel to both GTh 20 and GTh 96 (The Lost Gospel,
            Appendix B). I am wondering what is meant by "Mark/Q overlap." In any
            case for now I think I have to stick with the schemas of Patterson and
            Mack in order to maintain objectivity.

            regards, Paul
          • Michael Grondin
            ... Not exactly. Due to a small number of common conventions, there may be more commonality in general, but the description of the translation process doesn t
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 3, 2008
              Paul wrote:
              > I need to get a copy of The Complete Gospels, with both Thomas
              > and Q in SV. That at least offers a consensus translation of both.

              Not exactly. Due to a small number of common conventions, there
              may be more commonality in general, but the description of the
              translation process doesn't indicate any consensus beyond that.
              Greek experts did Q and Coptic experts (Meyer and Patterson)
              did GTh. Evidently, the different language guys didn't coordinate
              their translations of Q and GTh, either with respect to Greek words
              or with respect to textual parallels.
              Case in point: "What did you go out to see?"

              TCG Q/Lk 7.25: "A man dressed in fancy clothes?"
              TCG GTh 78.2: "... a person dressed in soft clothes?"
              (Mack's QS17: "A man in soft clothes?")

              The Greek word is 'anthrwpos', which the Greek SV experts (in
              agreement with their non-SV colleagues) sometimes translated as
              'man'. But in Meyer's view, 'anthrwpos' should _never_ be translated
              as 'man', and, since he also believed that 'anthrwpos' was invariably
              the word behind Coptic 'rwme' (which it wasn't, though it may have been
              in this case), his translation never has 'man/men' - even where the SV
              canonical parallel has it. The two groups probably couldn't have reached
              agreement if they'd tried. Ironically, then, there's a few cases like this
              where a non-SV translation of a GTh saying may be more consistent
              (and properly so) with the SV canonical parallel than the SV GTh is.

              Regards,
              Mike G.
            • rj.godijn
              ... Paul, a Mark/Q overlap means that Q theorists assume that the logion is found in both Q and Mark. I am not aware of any current Q reconstruction that does
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 4, 2008
                --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Lanier" <jpaullanier@...> wrote:
                >
                > Patterson discusses GTh 20 as a Synoptic Twin (pp. 20-21), where he
                > calls it "a Mark/Q overlap" and refers to a study by Laufen. GTh 20
                > appears as a Synoptic Twin in the table on pp. 95-97, however he
                > does not include it there as a Q parallel. He does say parallels
                > for GTh 20:1-4 include Mk 4:30-32, Mt 13:31-32 and Lk 13:18-19.
                > Mack includes Lk 13:18-21 as a parallel to both GTh 20 and GTh 96
                > (The Lost Gospel, Appendix B). I am wondering what is meant by
                > "Mark/Q overlap." In any case for now I think I have to stick with
                > the schemas of Patterson and Mack in order to maintain objectivity.
                >
                > regards, Paul

                Paul, a Mark/Q overlap means that Q theorists assume that the logion
                is found in both Q and Mark. I am not aware of any current Q
                reconstruction that does not include the parable of the mustard seed.
                By the way, for those of us who favor the Farrer theory (Markan
                priority, but no Q; Luke used Matthew) Mark/Q overlaps are explained
                as Matthean redaction of Mark, which is then taken over by Luke.
                Since the overlap between Luke and Matthew is considered to be too
                great for independent redaction of Mark by Matthew and Luke to be
                plausible, Q theorists must assume that Q also had the parable of the
                mustard seed.

                I think sticking to the shemas of Patterson and Mack means that you
                include GTh 20, because Patterson considers it a GTh/Q twin, but made
                a mistake in not including it as a Q parallel in his list (the same
                goes for GTh 94).

                Richard
              • Paul Lanier
                ... Hi Richard, Of course that is consistent with the view that both Mark and Q derive from Thomas. Maybe I should call this the Five Source Theory! ... I
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 5, 2008
                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "rj.godijn" <rj.godijn@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > a Mark/Q overlap means that Q theorists assume
                  > that the logion is found in both Q and Mark.

                  Hi Richard,

                  Of course that is consistent with the view that both Mark and Q derive
                  from Thomas. Maybe I should call this the Five Source Theory!

                  > I am not aware of any current Q econstruction that
                  > does not include the parable of the mustard seed...
                  > I think sticking to the schemas of Patterson and Mack
                  > means that you include GTh 20, because Patterson
                  > considers it a GTh/Q twin, but made a mistake in not
                  > including it as a Q parallel in his list (the same
                  > goes for GTh 94).

                  I agree. I will revise the file I uploaded to include GTh 20 and GTh
                  94. The revised Pearson correlation for Q1a has p <= 0.00444, and for
                  Q1b p <= 0.148. This would leave the regression for Q1a significant at
                  the 99% confidence interval, but that for Q1b not significant at the
                  95% confidence interval.

                  Unless, that is, a new series (Q1c) begins following GTh 96.

                  This would produce the following sequence:

                  GTh26 = QC1.01 = QS12 = Q1a
                  GTh34 = QC1.01 = QS11 = Q1a
                  GTh45 = QC1.01 = QS13 = Q1a
                  GTh54 = QC1.01 = QS8 = Q1a
                  GTh68 = QC1.01 = QS8 = Q1a
                  GTh69 = QC1.01 = QS8 = Q1a
                  GTh73 = QC1.02 = QS20 = Q1a
                  GTh86 = QC1.02 = QS19 = Q1a
                  GTh92 = QC1.03 = QS27 = Q1a
                  GTh94 = QC1.03 = QS27 = Q1a
                  GTh21 = QC1.03 = QS27 = Q1b
                  GTh33 = QC1.04 = QS35 = Q1b
                  GTh51 = QC1.04 = QS35 = Q1b
                  GTh61 = QC1.04 = QS35 = Q1b
                  GTh76 = QC1.05 = QS40 = Q1b
                  GTh96 = QC1.06 = QS46 = Q1b
                  GTh20 = QC1.06 = QS46 = Q1c
                  GTh55 = QC1.07 = QS52 = Q1c
                  GTh101 = QC1.07 = QS52 = Q1c

                  Here for each set - Q1a, Q1b and Q1c - an increase in GTh Saying Number
                  is associated with increase or sameness of Q1 Cluster Number.
                  Obviously there is a question of forcing linear sequences by starting
                  over when it is convenient to do so. This involves starting over twice
                  out of 18 opportunities. If this can be described by a binomial
                  distribution, then P <= 0.001 (0-2 successes, 18 trials,
                  TrialP(success) = 0.5. However this I think this underestimates P, as
                  for most data pairs (GTh, QC) the probability is greater than 0.5 that
                  another data pair has greater than or same Q Cluster Number. If the
                  effective TrialP(success) >= 0.31, then P <= 0.05. I will have to see
                  if I can find or simulate
                  a statistical method for this.

                  And of course I have to point out that the boundary between Q1b and
                  Q1c is another catch-saying, QS46!

                  regards, Paul
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.