Re: [GTh] Correlation of Sequence Order in GTh-Q1 Twin Sayings
- 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.
--- 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
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 12:15 AM
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. (:-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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 relationAgreed. Better to start with manageable chunks first! If Q1 and Thomas
> 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.
represent the earliest traditions (or derive from a common ancestor)
then it makes sense to try starting with how Thomas and Q1 relate to
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 thatI started with Patterson's twins because the sayings themselves are
> Patterson calls twins, while ignoring the siblings.
> This distinction (unless I am mistaken) does not rest
> upon firm criteria, but is quite subjective.
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
> we have serious text critical problems in both Q and ThomasAgreed. 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 atI think Mack's clusters do reflect the order of Q sayings. Within each
> 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.
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.
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 thatAgreed. I wonder if that reflects the insertion of GTh 93 in the
> the parallel between Q and Thomas is greater for GTh 94 than GTh 92.
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
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Paul Lanier" <jpaullanier@...> wrote:
>Agreed! I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus that
> 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.
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
> I would say also that Davies' conclusion about Mark depending onUnfortunately Davies' thesis concerning Mark's dependence on Thomas
> Thomas has to be incorporated.
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.
- --- In email@example.com, "rj.godijn" <rj.godijn@...> wrote:
> scholars like Patterson have suggested that sometimesHi Richard,
> 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.
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 sayingscomplicates 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
> There is one twin parallel that you missed: thePatterson discusses GTh 20 as a Synoptic Twin (pp. 20-21), where he
> 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.
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.
- Paul wrote:
> I need to get a copy of The Complete Gospels, with both ThomasNot exactly. Due to a small number of common conventions, there
> and Q in SV. That at least offers a consensus translation of both.
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.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Paul Lanier" <jpaullanier@...> wrote:
>Paul, a Mark/Q overlap means that Q theorists assume that the logion
> 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
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
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).
- --- In email@example.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.
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 thatI agree. I will revise the file I uploaded to include GTh 20 and GTh
> 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).
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!