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

[Synoptic-L] Why does 122 look like 112?

Expand Messages
  • David Gentile
    I thought I d find some specifics to help figure this out. Now, I m getting out of my area, so your thoughts will be greatly appreciated. The 3 most
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 1, 2001
      I thought I'd find some specifics to help figure this out. Now, I'm getting
      out of my area, so your thoughts will be greatly appreciated.

      The 3 most influential observations in calling 112 like 122 are:
      AUTON - both very low frequency (020 and 120 are high)
      AUTOU - both very high frequency (200 and the double tradition very low)
      GINOMAI - both very high frequency (222, 211 220 120 and 200 lowest)

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois
      M.S. Physics
      PhD Management Science candidate

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "When you have eliminated the impossible,
      whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
      - Sherlock Holmes,
      in The Sign of Four, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

      "Why sometimes I've believed as many as
      six impossible things before breakfast."
      - The Red Queen,
      in Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David Gentile
      Looking at GINOMAI in the triple tradition (where nobody has a zero) The number of time the word occurs is: M - 24 K - 39 L - 45 It s percentage of total words
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 2, 2001
        Looking at GINOMAI
        in the triple tradition (where nobody has a zero)
        The number of time the word occurs is:
        M - 24
        K - 39
        L - 45

        It's percentage of total words is:
        M - 2.23%
        K - 3.08%
        L - 4.06%
        222- 1.5%
        211 - 1.2%
        112 - 6.28%
        221 - 4.48%
        122 - 4.54%
        121 - 2.99%

        First we notice Luke, or a source of Luke likes this word. We see it a lot
        in 002 too.

        Let's work through this one with the assumption of Luke using Mark.

        222 - 1.5%, 221 - 4.48% Mark - 3.08%
        - Luke must have dropped this word a lot in places Matthew kept it.

        121 - 2.99% - but they both dropped it together about as often as they
        normally drop a word together. They kept Mark's approximate 3% use of this
        word in 121.

        122 - 4.54% - Hmm. Luke must have kept it more often when Matthew dropped
        it.

        Luke managing to keep it more when Matthew drops it,
        and drop it more when Matthew keeps it is certainly odd.

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside, Illinois
        M.S. Physics
        PhD Management Science candidate

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "When you have eliminated the impossible,
        whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
        - Sherlock Holmes,
        in The Sign of Four, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

        "Why sometimes I've believed as many as
        six impossible things before breakfast."
        - The Red Queen,
        in Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll



        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 12/2/2001 5:53:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, GentDave@worldnet.att.net writes:
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 2, 2001
          In a message dated 12/2/2001 5:53:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          GentDave@... writes:

          << 122 - 4.54% - Hmm. Luke must have kept it more often when Matthew dropped
          it.

          Luke managing to keep it more when Matthew drops it,
          and drop it more when Matthew keeps it is certainly odd.>>


          I can't honestly say that I followed the statistical argument you made to
          arrive at this conclusion, but the conclusion itself sounds oddly like an
          argument traditionally employed by adherents of the 2 DH in support of their
          theory, but which really supports the GH. The argument is:

          Mark's order of pericopes is always supported by either Matt or Luke (where
          Matt supports Mark's order, Luke frequently departs from it, but where Matt
          abandons Mark's order, Luke religiously adheres to it -- and vice versa.)
          Thus one of the two later gospels always follows the order of Mark's
          pericopes, and therefore both seem to be using Mark as a primary source.

          It is, of course, the statement I placed in parentheses that is the problem
          here for the theory of Markan priority, even though it was identified (very
          significant!) -- and is rather consistently alluded to -- by supporters of
          that theory. The idea that Luke and Matt working independently (or even
          supposing that one knew and used the other's work) made a conscious decision
          to make sure that Mark's order of pericopes was always supported by someone
          is so unmotivatable as to be patently absurd. On the other hand, the
          phenomenon identified is well explained on the GH where Mark follows at times
          the order of pericopes in Matt and at other times the order found in Lk.

          Leonard Maluf


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • David Gentile
          Hello Leonard, You could well be correct about the ordering. I ve not looked into it carefully. I tend to think Mark had 2 sources, one more Matthew-like and
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 2, 2001
            Hello Leonard,

            You could well be correct about the ordering. I've not looked into it
            carefully. I tend to think Mark had 2 sources, one more Matthew-like and one
            more Luke-like, but not Matthew and Luke.

            The example with GINOMAI, does not work perfectly on the GH, either. I tried
            it.

            The results again:
            M - 24
            K - 39
            L - 45

            It's percentage of total words is:
            M - 2.23%
            K - 3.08%
            L - 4.06%
            222- 1.5%
            211 - 1.2%
            112 - 6.28%
            221 - 4.48%
            122 - 4.54%
            121 - 2.99%

            Here is the problem, in general. Let's look at the pairs, and see what we
            would need to assume, if they were using the other.
            Matthew reduces the percentage found in Mark. 222+221 < 122 + 121
            or Mark increases Matthew 222 + 221 > 211.
            This is normal.

            But Luke DECREASES the percentage found in Mark 222 + 122 < 221 + 121
            or
            Mark decreases the percentage found in Luke 222 + 122 < 112

            Also,
            Matthew decreases the percentage in Luke 222 < 112 + 122
            or Luke DECREASES the percentage in Matthew 222 < 211 + 221

            The Matthew-Mark relation is easy to explain on any simple hypothesis.
            But, no simple hypothesis explains the Luke relations.
            The following does explain it:
            B => L
            B => K => M
            If B had an even higher frequency than Luke, and Luke and Mark both removed
            them, but Mark was more vigorous in his removal, and then Matthew removed
            even more, we get the results we find.

            M - 2.23%
            K - 3.08%
            L - 4.06%
            222- 1.5% - low because all 3 editors are independently dropping. (They'd
            all have to keep it)
            211 - 1.2% - low because Matthew does not add much
            112 - 6.28% - high, because Mark dropping them causes them to be
            concentrated here
            221 - 4.48% - high, because Luke dropping them causes them to be
            concentrated here
            122 - 4.54% - high, because Matthew dropping them causes them to be
            concentrated here
            121 - 2.99% - average, because even though Matthew and Luke are dropping, we
            need them to independently drop it, to get into this category.

            Dave Gentile
            Riverside, Illinois
            M.S. Physics
            PhD Management Science candidate

            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
            "When you have eliminated the impossible,
            whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
            - Sherlock Holmes,
            in The Sign of Four, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

            "Why sometimes I've believed as many as
            six impossible things before breakfast."
            - The Red Queen,
            in Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <Maluflen@...>
            To: <GentDave@...>; <C>
            Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 9:13 AM
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Why does 122 look like 112?


            > In a message dated 12/2/2001 5:53:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            > GentDave@... writes:
            >
            > << 122 - 4.54% - Hmm. Luke must have kept it more often when Matthew
            dropped
            > it.
            >
            > Luke managing to keep it more when Matthew drops it,
            > and drop it more when Matthew keeps it is certainly odd.>>
            >
            >
            > I can't honestly say that I followed the statistical argument you made to
            > arrive at this conclusion, but the conclusion itself sounds oddly like an
            > argument traditionally employed by adherents of the 2 DH in support of
            their
            > theory, but which really supports the GH. The argument is:
            >
            > Mark's order of pericopes is always supported by either Matt or Luke
            (where
            > Matt supports Mark's order, Luke frequently departs from it, but where
            Matt
            > abandons Mark's order, Luke religiously adheres to it -- and vice versa.)
            > Thus one of the two later gospels always follows the order of Mark's
            > pericopes, and therefore both seem to be using Mark as a primary source.
            >
            > It is, of course, the statement I placed in parentheses that is the
            problem
            > here for the theory of Markan priority, even though it was identified
            (very
            > significant!) -- and is rather consistently alluded to -- by supporters of
            > that theory. The idea that Luke and Matt working independently (or even
            > supposing that one knew and used the other's work) made a conscious
            decision
            > to make sure that Mark's order of pericopes was always supported by
            someone
            > is so unmotivatable as to be patently absurd. On the other hand, the
            > phenomenon identified is well explained on the GH where Mark follows at
            times
            > the order of pericopes in Matt and at other times the order found in Lk.
            >
            > Leonard Maluf
            >


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.