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

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

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/2/2001 5:53:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, GentDave@worldnet.att.net writes:
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 4 , Dec 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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.