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

Re: [GTh] Mark/Thomas Parallels (Thomas Order)

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Mike, Thanks for your suggestion to check the backlist. Among the rest, I did note your 13 May 10 message (#9378) declaring the topic of computational analysis
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike,

      Thanks for your suggestion to check the backlist. Among the rest, I did note
      your 13 May 10 message (#9378) declaring the topic of computational analysis
      closed. Verdict accepted and apology herewith tendered; I will continue my
      own investigation elsewhere.

      For those equally new to the GThomas list, but interested in reviewing
      previous discussion on the open GThomas archive, there were three principal
      threads. "Probability of No Mark Parallels For 29 Sayings in Thomas" began
      with #8594 (1 Feb 09, Rick Van Vliet), ran for quite a spell, faded out, and
      then resumed on 2 May 2010. "The Markan Gap in Thomas" began with #9356 (11
      May 2010, Mike Grondin). "Parallelomania" (#9352, Rick Hubbard) was perhaps
      usefully balanced by a later caution about "Parallelophobia."

      Among many other things of interest, I liked Rick Van Vliet's demonstration
      that the Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test fails ingloriously to detect manifestly
      nonrandom distribution of A among B; I recall that Willi Feller made an
      equally ludicous mistake about the pattern of V-bomb hits in London (which
      he thought random, though to her credit, Florence David, who was on that
      ground and analyzing the data at that time, got it right: bivariate
      Gaussian). My hope to find the "Jesus Seminar" list that people were talking
      about (though the actual specifications seem to have shifted somewhat during
      the conversation) was at last seemingly gratified by Mike Grondin's posting
      at

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files/T5G.pdf

      (the code seems to refer to The Five Gospels), which varies significantly
      from the Koester list previously mentioned. That long a gap in Mark-related
      Thomas passages (on the chart, it is GThos 68-98 inclusive) is definitely
      merkw├╝rdig, but there is no such gap in the Koester distribution, which
      tests out (I am elsewhere informed) as indeed insigificantly different from
      a random result. Koester recognizes Mark similarities at Thomas 71 and 79,
      which (if correct) plugs the gap statistically.

      Of course the assumption of Thomas literary unity underlying the various
      statistical tests employed in this discussion may not be correct. If there
      are internal compositional (not just formal) boundaries, the whole
      statistical map would have to be redrawn.

      Next thing to do along this line, I should think (I make this remark for the
      GPG small audience, such matters being precluded for GThomas), is to
      examine, and adjudicate, the differences of opinion as to what is a "Markan"
      contact. Tim Lewis directed attention some time back to Tuckett's article
      (Thomas and the Synoptics, NT 30 #2 (April 1988) 132-157), which spends some
      time demonstrating that, inter alia, the Mustard Seed mention in Thomas 20
      is clearly closer to Mark than to the later Second Tier Gospel variants. On
      the other hand, Tuckett finds Thomas 5 and 16 to be closer to Luke.
      Directionality perhaps still to be determined.

      And so on.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.