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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.