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

[Synoptic-L] All results

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    Attached are the results from Alpha-Iota. I created some new variables. E2XX is Matthew, etc. There are also categories with one X . They include what you
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Attached are the results from Alpha-Iota.

      I created some new variables. E2XX is Matthew, etc.
      There are also categories with one "X". They include what you would think,
      except 002, 200, and 020 are not added into any of these categories.
      Example 20X = 202 + 201. (no 200)
      Obviously categories will correlate with things they contain. i.e. XX2 =
      002. So these should be ignored,
      0XX categories and 212 should be regarded with caution.
      Following Stephen Carlson's suggestion, only confidence levels that say
      <.0001 should be regarded
      with high confidence.
      a cluster analysis graph is included at the end for a visual summary of the
      data.

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

      (See attached file: sasprint3.txt)
    • Brian E. Wilson
      David Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, Impressive and useful. Many thanks. Best wishes, BRIAN WILSON ... Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        David Gentile wrote --
        >
        >Attached are the results from Alpha-Iota.
        >
        Dave,
        Impressive and useful. Many thanks.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • David Gentile
        ... Hi Brian, I think you mis-read these. #4 is anti-correlated at 99.99%. Also, as I guess you discovered what was a significant correlation in A-D that
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian Wilson wrote:

          >
          > (1) 222 <==> 202 with 88% confidence level
          > (2) 221 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence level
          > (3) 122 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence level
          > (4) 121 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence leve
          >

          Hi Brian,
          I think you mis-read these. #4 is anti-correlated at 99.99%.

          Also, as I guess you discovered what was a significant correlation in A-D
          that should really not have disappeared, did disappear. The odds of any pair
          being false at that level should have been about 50 to 1 against. In fact
          E-I was negative enough to just about cancel A-D. Odd. As Stephen Carlson
          pointed out we have almost 200 pairings, so at the 90% level, we'd expect
          about 20 false positives. Plus comparison of A-D to E-I showed false
          positives are concentrated in the more unexpected results. So, I
          think we need to say that we can not reject the hypothesis that 202 and 222
          are uncorrelated. Additionally, if the Mark-Q overlap categorization problem
          had any effect, it would be to make them look more alike than they really
          are.

          I took a look at a scatter plot. There are outliers, but they are in all
          directions. The core group looks like a pretty good round shot-gun blast
          scatter.

          The idea of an original document with both 202 and 222 was looking pretty
          good, based on A-D.

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





          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • David Gentile
          ... Also, just in the interest of avoiding confusing anyone about what the current results are, #2, #3, and #4 are negative correlations. Dave Gentile
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 9, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            > >
            > >(1) 222 <==> 202 with 88% confidence level
            > >(2) 221 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence level
            > >(3) 122 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence level
            > >(4) 121 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence leve
            > >
            > >Each of these is therefore a strong correlation.
            >
            > Not the one with the 88% confidence level, though.
            >
            > Stephen Carlson

            Also, just in the interest of avoiding confusing anyone about what the
            current results are, #2, #3, and #4 are negative correlations.

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


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Ron Price
            ... Brian, Sorry, but you have completely misread Dave s correlations. (1) is a weak correlation, weakly attested and therefore meaningless. (2),(3),(4) are
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 9, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian Wilson wrote:

              >The following are four of the correlations observed by Dave Gentile.
              >They are all to be found on the 202 row of Dave's tables --
              >
              >(1) 222 <==> 202 with 88% confidence level
              >(2) 221 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence level
              >(3) 122 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence level
              >(4) 121 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence leve
              >
              >Each of these is therefore a strong correlation. Moreover, each shows
              >that the word frequencies in the triple tradition are strongly
              >correlated with the word frequencies in the double tradition.

              Brian,
              Sorry, but you have completely misread Dave's correlations.
              (1) is a weak correlation, weakly attested and therefore meaningless.
              (2),(3),(4) are negative correlations, strongly attested, whose simplest
              explanation is that Mark was not the author of the double tradition
              material. This should not surprise anybody, and certainly not proponents
              of 2ST, 3ST or Farrer.

              Ron Price

              Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

              e-mail: ron.price@...

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Ron Price
              ... Dave, If we assume that Matthew (200) is very unlikely to correlate with Lukan redaction (102), any correlation here must come from a 200-202 agreement.
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 9, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                David Gentile wrote:

                >I think 200 with x02 is an even bigger problem for the 2ST, Matthew's
                >sondergut seems to be in Q.

                Dave,
                If we assume that Matthew (200) is very unlikely to correlate with
                Lukan redaction (102), any correlation here must come from a 200-202
                agreement. This is consistent with Farrer. It is also consistent with
                3ST, which postulates that part of the double tradition originated with
                Matthew. It is not, as you say, consistent with 2ST.

                > Do you think this would argue a proto-Mt over the 3ST?

                I don't understand what you are taking as an indicator of proto-Mt.

                Ron Price

                Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                e-mail: ron.price@...

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Brian E. Wilson
                ... Dave Gentile replied -- ... I agree. I think I now see that I have been mis-reading the tables much of the time in what I have written recently to the
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Brian Wilson wrote:
                  >
                  > (1) 222 <==> 202 with 88% confidence level
                  > (2) 221 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence level
                  > (3) 122 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence level
                  > (4) 121 <==> 202 with 99.99% confidence leve
                  >
                  Dave Gentile replied --
                  >
                  >Hi Brian, I think you mis-read these. #4 is anti-correlated at 99.99%.
                  >
                  I agree. I think I now see that I have been mis-reading the tables much
                  of the time in what I have written recently to the List. I will go back
                  to square one on this. Thanks for the correction.

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON

                  >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                  Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                  > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                  > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                  _

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • David Gentile
                  ... Hello Ron, Yes, 200 is strongly related to 202 suggesting the same origin. We agree the 2ST has a problem here. It could be argued, however, that 202 just
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ron Price wrote:

                    >
                    > Dave,
                    > If we assume that Matthew (200) is very unlikely to correlate with
                    > Lukan redaction (102), any correlation here must come from a 200-202
                    > agreement. This is consistent with Farrer. It is also consistent with
                    > 3ST, which postulates that part of the double tradition originated with
                    > Matthew. It is not, as you say, consistent with 2ST.
                    >
                    > > Do you think this would argue a proto-Mt over the 3ST?
                    >
                    > I don't understand what you are taking as an indicator of proto-Mt.
                    >
                    > Ron Price
                    >

                    Hello Ron,
                    Yes, 200 is strongly related to 202 suggesting the same origin. We agree the
                    2ST has a problem here. It could be argued, however, that 202 just
                    represented words Matthew liked from Q. This is not consistent with the way
                    the other results seem to behave, but it is still something to consider.

                    The statement that 200 correlated with x02 is an even stronger one.
                    Matthew's sondergut relates to Luke's Q. Nothing except that same origin for
                    at least part of the material seems to work here. So, even a bigger problem
                    for the 2ST.

                    But there is more to look at. 102 correlates strongly with 202. On the FH,
                    if Luke is redacting Matthew, we would not expect this. Luke's redactions
                    should not look like his source. But it has been argued that 202 could be
                    Luke pleasing words causing the correlation with 102.

                    However, we can make a stronger statement, and say 102 correlates with 20x.
                    Luke's redactions correlate with Matthew's Q. There is no reason for this on
                    the FH. We would expect the opposite, based on the other results.

                    If we believe the results, I think we must reject a pure 2ST and a pure FH.

                    What is consistent with both of these results, is if Luke and Matthew both
                    used a proto-Matthew, that originated 200 and 202. Now 102 will and 201 will
                    both be original at times. Luke's Q looks like 200 because 200 is the style
                    of the document he copied. But Matthew's Q also looks like 102, because 102
                    often reflects the style of the document Matthew copied.

                    Let me try the 3ST:
                    102-20x would be explained by both looking like Q.
                    200-x02 would be explained by Luke copying Matthew

                    The 3ST does indeed seem to work. Given that my concept of a proto-Matthew
                    has something like your sQ in the sermon, the 2 ideas are going to be very
                    difficult to separate. I think the only way I could argue p-Mt over 3ST
                    here, is to say that there is no hint of a separation here. There is no sign
                    that 200 and 202 might be at least in part from different sources. That 200
                    looks enough like 202, so that it even looks like x02, is a fairly strong
                    healthy relationship. On the 3ST only a limited amount of 202 comes from
                    Matthew. Is this enough to cause x02-200? Luke's double tradition is mostly
                    the Q he preserves, his changes to Q, then add some of his changes to
                    Matthew. Wouldn't the expected differences be likely to overwhelm any
                    resemblance Luke's double tradition had to Matthew in determining the
                    correlation?

                    Now look at 200-211 and 200-210. No correlation. If Matthew produced both,
                    this is not what we would expect. However, if 211 and 210 are Matthew, and
                    202 and 200 are proto-Matthew, 102 is Luke's redaction and/or preservation
                    of proto-Mt, and 201 is Matthew's redaction and/or preservation of proto-Mt,
                    then I think we have the solution which best fits all observations.

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


                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Ron Price
                    ... Dave, Yes, if confirmed by results from the rest of the alphabet, this will need to be considered. However insofar as 202 represents words in passages
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dave Gentile wrote:

                      >Yes, 200 is strongly related to 202 suggesting the same origin. We agree the
                      >2ST has a problem here. It could be argued, however, that 202 just
                      >represented words Matthew liked from Q. This is not consistent with the way
                      >the other results seem to behave, but it is still something to consider.

                      Dave,
                      Yes, if confirmed by results from the rest of the alphabet, this will
                      need to be considered.
                      However insofar as 202 represents words in passages Matthew took from
                      Q, I suggest they are not so much words which Matthew liked, as words
                      which he didn't dislike strongly enough to replace them. It seems to me
                      therefore that they would reflect Q's vocabulary much more than
                      Matthew's vocabulary.

                      >But there is more to look at. 102 correlates strongly with 202. On the FH,
                      >if Luke is redacting Matthew, we would not expect this. Luke's redactions
                      >should not look like his source. But it has been argued that 202 could be
                      >Luke pleasing words causing the correlation with 102.

                      Likewise here we have words which Luke didn't dislike strongly enough
                      to replace them. I would expect these to be much closer to the
                      vocabulary of the source.

                      >If we believe the results, I think we must reject a pure 2ST and a pure FH.

                      Yes, indeed!

                      >Let me try the 3ST:
                      >102-20x would be explained by both looking like Q.
                      >200-x02 would be explained by Luke copying Matthew
                      >The 3ST does indeed seem to work.

                      You're doing a great job!

                      >Given that my concept of a proto-Matthew has something like
                      >your sQ in the sermon, the 2 ideas are going to be very difficult to separate.

                      In theory it should be easy (though in practice it might be too
                      tedious to contemplate). For my division of the double tradition into xQ
                      (Luke-pleasing Matthean pericopae) and sQ is already on record. Thus it
                      should be possible to split the 202 words into two sets: 202-xQ and
                      202-sQ. If I'm right, the 202-xQ should correlate strongly with 200 and
                      the 202-sQ should not show any correlation with 200.

                      >On the 3ST only a limited amount of 202 comes from
                      >Matthew. Is this enough to cause x02-200? Luke's double tradition is mostly
                      >the Q he preserves, his changes to Q, then add some of his changes to
                      >Matthew. Wouldn't the expected differences be likely to overwhelm any
                      >resemblance Luke's double tradition had to Matthew in determining the
                      >correlation?

                      On the 3ST, about 40% of the double tradition comes from Matthew.
                      However it does contain all the narrative parts, which might perhaps be
                      expected to have a more distinctive vocabulary.
                      At 40%, the correlation should be SQR(0.4) = 0.63 of the 100% value,
                      if I've understood the statistics correctly.

                      >Now look at 200-211 and 200-210. No correlation. If Matthew produced both,
                      >this is not what we would expect.

                      You're comparing Matthew's general vocabulary with the vocabulary he
                      used when replacing Markan words with his own. I wouldn't expect this to
                      correlate as well as two examples of general Matthean vocabulary,
                      because Matthean redacted words in this context are limited to a set
                      corresponding to a set of Markan words which Matthew disliked.
                      In any case I'm not convinced we can make any significant deductions
                      from *lack* of correlation.

                      Ron Price

                      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                      e-mail: ron.price@...

                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • David Gentile
                      ... I agree. That seems to be the way the results behave for the most part. Relations based on redaction seem to have faded out as more data has been added.
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ron Price wrote:

                        >
                        > Dave,
                        > Yes, if confirmed by results from the rest of the alphabet, this will
                        > need to be considered.
                        > However insofar as 202 represents words in passages Matthew took from
                        > Q, I suggest they are not so much words which Matthew liked, as words
                        > which he didn't dislike strongly enough to replace them. It seems to me
                        > therefore that they would reflect Q's vocabulary much more than
                        > Matthew's vocabulary.

                        I agree. That seems to be the way the results behave for the most part.
                        Relations based on redaction seem to have faded out as more data has been
                        added.

                        >
                        > In theory it should be easy (though in practice it might be too
                        > tedious to contemplate). For my division of the double tradition into xQ
                        > (Luke-pleasing Matthean pericopae) and sQ is already on record. Thus it
                        > should be possible to split the 202 words into two sets: 202-xQ and
                        > 202-sQ. If I'm right, the 202-xQ should correlate strongly with 200 and
                        > the 202-sQ should not show any correlation with 200.

                        This seems like it would work. Unrelated - I'm also thinking of trying to
                        count the Mark/Q overlaps, as they are marked in the margins of my source.
                        I'm not sure how to count, however. For starters, I thought counting the
                        222s and 202/020s that are flagged as Mark/Q overlap might be a good idea.

                        >
                        > >On the 3ST only a limited amount of 202 comes from
                        > >Matthew. Is this enough to cause x02-200? Luke's double tradition is
                        mostly
                        > >the Q he preserves, his changes to Q, then add some of his changes to
                        > >Matthew. Wouldn't the expected differences be likely to overwhelm any
                        > >resemblance Luke's double tradition had to Matthew in determining the
                        > >correlation?
                        >
                        > On the 3ST, about 40% of the double tradition comes from Matthew.
                        > However it does contain all the narrative parts, which might perhaps be
                        > expected to have a more distinctive vocabulary.
                        > At 40%, the correlation should be SQR(0.4) = 0.63 of the 100% value,
                        > if I've understood the statistics correctly.

                        If Luke's additions are merely uncorrelated to his source, then all it does
                        is dilute the correlation. But if, as we might expect, Luke's changes
                        anti-correlate, then they would tend to cancel. But, given that 102 does not
                        look that much like 002, I'd guess 102 is mostly Q. (or whatever Luke's
                        source was).

                        As far as distinct vocabulary - the method, in effect, weights common words
                        more heavily, so I think that limits any difference.

                        >
                        > >Now look at 200-211 and 200-210. No correlation. If Matthew produced
                        both,
                        > >this is not what we would expect.
                        >
                        > You're comparing Matthew's general vocabulary with the vocabulary he
                        > used when replacing Markan words with his own. I wouldn't expect this to
                        > correlate as well as two examples of general Matthean vocabulary,
                        > because Matthean redacted words in this context are limited to a set
                        > corresponding to a set of Markan words which Matthew disliked.
                        > In any case I'm not convinced we can make any significant deductions
                        > from *lack* of correlation.
                        >

                        For the first part, if we think an author can vary his choice of common
                        words that dramatically, across many words, then the whole exercise is
                        pointless. But I agree with the second point. A lack of a correlation is not
                        a strong conclusion. Plus, more of the alphabet could easily turn any of the
                        uncorrelated ones positive or negative.

                        The cluster groupings look at mathematical distance, so they would, in
                        effect, take into account anti-correlations, correlations, and un-correlated
                        results. It is interesting that 211&210 form the most unique cluster in its
                        estimation, however. Once all the data is gathered we might be able to try
                        some other techniques like t-tests, and see what we get.

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



                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Ron Price wrote to Brian Wilson -- ... Ron, I agree. I will start again on this. Best wishes, BRIAN WILSON ... Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York
                        Message 11 of 24 , Dec 11, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ron Price wrote to Brian Wilson --
                          >
                          >Sorry, but you have completely misread Dave's correlations.
                          >
                          Ron,
                          I agree. I will start again on this.

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                          Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                          > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                          > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                          _

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Ron Price
                          ... Dave, I think it would be interesting to divide Mark (defining y=0,1 or 2) into y2y- Mk/Q overlap and the remainder: y2y- original Mk , and see whether
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 11, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dave Gentile wrote:

                            > I'm ..... thinking of trying to
                            >count the Mark/Q overlaps, as they are marked in the margins of my source.
                            >I'm not sure how to count, however. For starters, I thought counting the
                            >222s and 202/020s that are flagged as Mark/Q overlap might be a good idea.

                            Dave,
                            I think it would be interesting to divide Mark (defining y=0,1 or 2)
                            into y2y-'Mk/Q overlap' and the remainder: y2y-'original Mk', and see
                            whether the former (if there's enough data here) correlates better with
                            the latter or with 202 (i.e. assured Q). Even better would be to use
                            202-sQ in the comparison rather than 202, thus cutting out what I see as
                            Matthew's own contribution to 202.

                            Ron Price

                            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                            e-mail: ron.price@...

                            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Brian E. Wilson
                            ... Ron Price replied -- ... Dave, You don t need to look in the margins to find and categorize the Mark-Q overlaps. The Concordance lists these for you (28 of
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 11, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dave Gentile wrote:
                              >
                              >I'm ..... thinking of trying to count the Mark/Q overlaps, as they are
                              >marked in the margins of my source. I'm not sure how to count, however.
                              >For starters, I thought counting the 222s and 202/020s that are flagged
                              >as Mark/Q overlap might be a good idea.
                              >
                              Ron Price replied --
                              >
                              >Dave,
                              > I think it would be interesting to divide Mark (defining y=0,1 or
                              >2) into y2y-'Mk/Q overlap' and the remainder: y2y-'original Mk', and
                              >see whether the former (if there's enough data here) correlates better
                              >with the latter or with 202 (i.e. assured Q). Even better would be to
                              >use 202-sQ in the comparison rather than 202, thus cutting out what I
                              >see as Matthew's own contribution to 202.
                              >
                              Dave,
                              You don't need to look in the margins to find and categorize the
                              Mark-Q overlaps. The Concordance lists these for you (28 of them in the
                              Concordance as a whole) in section 6.2 on pages xxvi-xxxii of Volume I,
                              divides them into five classes ("A" to "E"), and gives reasons for the
                              categories it assigns to each class.

                              Best wishes,
                              BRIAN WILSON

                              >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                              Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                              > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                              > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                              _

                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Mark Goodacre
                              David claims that some of the results necessitate the rejection of the Farrer Theory and the Two-Source Theory, at least in their pure forms , as follows.
                              Message 14 of 24 , Dec 12, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                David claims that some of the results necessitate the rejection of
                                the Farrer Theory and the Two-Source Theory, at least in their "pure
                                forms", as follows. Apologies for quoting the whole section but it's
                                good to get the comments on the table:

                                On 10 Dec 2001 at 5:18, David Gentile wrote:

                                > Yes, 200 is strongly related to 202 suggesting the same origin. We
                                > agree the 2ST has a problem here. It could be argued, however, that
                                > 202 just represented words Matthew liked from Q. This is not
                                > consistent with the way the other results seem to behave, but it is
                                > still something to consider.
                                >
                                > The statement that 200 correlated with x02 is an even stronger one.
                                > Matthew's sondergut relates to Luke's Q. Nothing except that same
                                > origin for at least part of the material seems to work here. So, even
                                > a bigger problem for the 2ST.
                                >
                                > But there is more to look at. 102 correlates strongly with 202. On the
                                > FH, if Luke is redacting Matthew, we would not expect this. Luke's
                                > redactions should not look like his source. But it has been argued
                                > that 202 could be Luke pleasing words causing the correlation with
                                > 102.
                                >
                                > However, we can make a stronger statement, and say 102 correlates with
                                > 20x. Luke's redactions correlate with Matthew's Q. There is no reason
                                > for this on the FH. We would expect the opposite, based on the other
                                > results.
                                >
                                > If we believe the results, I think we must reject a pure 2ST and a
                                > pure FH.

                                Now if this is right, there are clearly lots of people, including me,
                                with some rethinking to do! However, one of the things that sticks
                                out to me in the above is that we basically have positive
                                correlations between 201, 202 and 102, or, in other words, between
                                QC, Matthew's QD and Luke's QD. In this context I'd want to raise
                                the question I've raised a couple of times before re. (a) genre and
                                (b) content. Similar content may determine similar wording, and all
                                the more so if that similar content belongs particularly to one
                                genre. Now the double tradition material is, as we all know,
                                especially rich in sayings material. There is far more sayings
                                material proportionally in the double tradition than in other sets.
                                This could surely have caused the kinds of correlations that in fact
                                we see, wouldn't it? So in the end, all we have in those
                                correlations is a confirmation that we have similar content + similar
                                genre for the material, something we knew before we started.

                                What, though, of the correlation with 200? The question of genre
                                again applies. It is well known that M is also sayings-rich. Of
                                course we don't have the same actual content here, yet there is
                                striking overlap between M and Q. Only consider the Sermon on the
                                Mount and ask yourself whether you'd be able to distinguish between
                                the vocabulary of M and the vocabulary of Q in Matthew 5.

                                Is there anything in such observations?

                                Thanks
                                Mark
                                -----------------------------
                                Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                                Birmingham B15 2TT UK

                                http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                http://NTGateway.com


                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • dgentil@sears.com
                                Mark Goodacre writes: ============== David claims that some of the results necessitate the rejection of the Farrer Theory and the Two-Source Theory, at least
                                Message 15 of 24 , Dec 12, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mark Goodacre writes:

                                  ==============
                                  David claims that some of the results necessitate the rejection of
                                  the Farrer Theory and the Two-Source Theory, at least in their "pure
                                  forms",
                                  ==============

                                  Well, I did qualify it with, "If you believe the results". Perhaps I should
                                  have included "and their interpretation".
                                  As I've said, the correlations only show relations, not why the relations
                                  are there.

                                  ==============
                                  I'd want to raise
                                  the question I've raised a couple of times before re. (a) genre and
                                  (b) content.
                                  ==============

                                  Given the common nature of the words it is focused on, content seems very
                                  unlikely to be important.
                                  But common words might have different frequencies by genre, so you raise a
                                  valid point.
                                  Looking over the correlations 002 and 201 have a significant negative, so
                                  it is not just grouping sayings together.
                                  But I suppose that does not mean the genre has no influence on the result.

                                  Perhaps we could examine the words and see if, on balance, we think
                                  they might be more "sayings-oriented". However, I suspect this would be
                                  highly subjective.

                                  Maybe we need to have (large) writing samples, that include sayings,
                                  and narrative from the same and from different sources in order to test the
                                  method.

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









                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Mark Goodacre
                                  ... Thanks for always being ready with speedy and helpful replies to my queries. Is there any chance you could unpack the above for me a bit? To give an
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Dec 12, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 12 Dec 2001 at 15:07, dgentil@... wrote:

                                    > Given the common nature of the words it is focused on, content seems
                                    > very unlikely to be important.

                                    Thanks for always being ready with speedy and helpful replies to my
                                    queries. Is there any chance you could unpack the above for me a
                                    bit? To give an example of the way I was thinking, 221, 222, 122 and
                                    related sets all have accounts of (say) the Feeding of the Five
                                    Thousand, which will contribute certain content specific words; 202,
                                    102, 201 and related sets will not have accounts of Feeding of the
                                    Five Thousand, so will lack these. And vice versa and so on. Does
                                    that have any impact on the results?

                                    > But common words might have different
                                    > frequencies by genre, so you raise a valid point. Looking over the
                                    > correlations 002 and 201 have a significant negative, so it is not
                                    > just grouping sayings together. But I suppose that does not mean the
                                    > genre has no influence on the result.

                                    That was one of the things that encouraged me to raise the point.
                                    Relatively speaking, L material is less sayings-rich than Q and M,
                                    though it does of course have much sayings material.

                                    There's another thing that might affect the results for M and L, but
                                    I'd need to check the Synoptic Concordance to see how far this might
                                    be the case. M material is often appears in the midst of triple
                                    tradition contexts, Peter walking on the water, the commissioning of
                                    Peter, Pilate's wife's dream etc. Do items like this get classified
                                    by the Synoptic Concordance as 200 or 211? This is less the case
                                    with L material. But L material also has a particular quirk in that
                                    it sometimes very difficult to say when a given pericope should be
                                    classed as L and when it should be classed as special Lucan versions
                                    of triple trad., e.g. Luke 4.16-30 (Rejection at Nazareth) Luke 5.1-
                                    11 (call of Peter) and 7.36-50 (Anointing). Do words in these
                                    pericopae get classed 002 or 112? Again, this kind of thing would
                                    impact the results. (This relates to the questions Brian was asking
                                    about classification a little ago).

                                    One more thought. Coming back also to the discussion of so-called
                                    Mark-Q overlap material, why treat this differently from any other
                                    material, none of which has been divided into different sub-
                                    categories? Surely one just takes agreements between Matthew, Mark
                                    and Luke as 222, agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark as
                                    212, agreements between Matthew and Mark against Luke as 221 etc.
                                    Treating this sub-set of material any differently can surely bias the
                                    overall results for all of these categories? Or am I missing
                                    something here? I may have missed the justification for singling out
                                    this material for special treatment.

                                    Mark


                                    Mark
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                                    Birmingham B15 2TT UK

                                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                    http://NTGateway.com


                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                  • David Gentile
                                    Hello Mark, You raise a couple of different points. Let me try to address these. ... Customer service is part of my job. :o) Is there any chance you could
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Dec 12, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hello Mark,

                                      You raise a couple of different points. Let me try to address these.

                                      >
                                      > > Given the common nature of the words it is focused on, content seems
                                      > > very unlikely to be important.
                                      >
                                      > Thanks for always being ready with speedy and helpful replies to my
                                      > queries.

                                      Customer service is part of my job. :o)

                                      Is there any chance you could unpack the above for me a
                                      > bit? To give an example of the way I was thinking, 221, 222, 122 and
                                      > related sets all have accounts of (say) the Feeding of the Five
                                      > Thousand, which will contribute certain content specific words; 202,
                                      > 102, 201 and related sets will not have accounts of Feeding of the
                                      > Five Thousand, so will lack these. And vice versa and so on. Does
                                      > that have any impact on the results?

                                      I was going to try to use your example, but I only have A-O, so
                                      PENTAKISCILISI is not available.
                                      I tried to find an equally unique word, "beheaded" APOKEFALIZO. This word is
                                      obviously localized by topic, but has a low frequency, so it did not get a
                                      frequency table in my source, so it has no effect. Flipping to another page,
                                      "courtyard", AULH, does get a frequency table. M,K,L = 3,3,2.
                                      This is somewhat specific, but less so than "beheaded". The frequency of the
                                      word is near zero, and we are looking at variation in frequency. Something
                                      that close to zero can not vary very much from its average, so it can only
                                      effect the results a little. A word like "become" GINOMAI, is obviously not
                                      restricted to any one place. It's frequency is M,K,L = 75,54,131. Since it
                                      has a high frequency, it can vary more from the average, and effect the
                                      results more. So the results are mostly based on common words, that are not
                                      likely to be localized. It could be that sayings use more common words than
                                      narrative, however.


                                      >
                                      > There's another thing that might affect the results for M and L, but
                                      > I'd need to check the Synoptic Concordance to see how far this might
                                      > be the case. M material is often appears in the midst of triple
                                      > tradition contexts, Peter walking on the water, the commissioning of
                                      > Peter, Pilate's wife's dream etc. Do items like this get classified
                                      > by the Synoptic Concordance as 200 or 211? This is less the case
                                      > with L material. But L material also has a particular quirk in that
                                      > it sometimes very difficult to say when a given pericope should be
                                      > classed as L and when it should be classed as special Lucan versions
                                      > of triple trad., e.g. Luke 4.16-30 (Rejection at Nazareth) Luke 5.1-
                                      > 11 (call of Peter) and 7.36-50 (Anointing). Do words in these
                                      > pericopae get classed 002 or 112? Again, this kind of thing would
                                      > impact the results. (This relates to the questions Brian was asking
                                      > about classification a little ago).

                                      I'd have to look into that. My guess is that it would be more noise than
                                      anything else.
                                      If some 200 leaked into 211, or 211 into 200, all it should do is tend to
                                      make them look a little more alike.


                                      >
                                      > One more thought. Coming back also to the discussion of so-called
                                      > Mark-Q overlap material, why treat this differently from any other
                                      > material, none of which has been divided into different sub-
                                      > categories? Surely one just takes agreements between Matthew, Mark
                                      > and Luke as 222, agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark as
                                      > 212, agreements between Matthew and Mark against Luke as 221 etc.
                                      > Treating this sub-set of material any differently can surely bias the
                                      > overall results for all of these categories? Or am I missing
                                      > something here? I may have missed the justification for singling out
                                      > this material for special treatment.

                                      I think the issue is where Mark has a parallel to M/L, but at a "different"
                                      location, then they call it 202/020 instead of 222, so it would be
                                      interesting to count them, just to see what they might have effected by
                                      their choice in categorization. I'm also interested in it, because I think
                                      it might possibly be different than the other material. As you know, I think
                                      there are a total of 5 or 6 documents. The only material that might show
                                      signs of the 6th document would be there, in my view. I thought the 220
                                      sections might show some differences, but I don't think they do. Without the
                                      sixth document I'm currently thinking:

                                      A=> B
                                      A => K
                                      A + B => L
                                      K + B => M

                                      Dave Gentile
                                      Riverside, Illinois
                                      M.S. Physics
                                      Ph.D. management Science candidate



                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • Mark Goodacre
                                      ... Yes, I see that that may well be the case. I suppose the L one is more troubling in the sense that the more one divided L material from Lucan redaction of
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Dec 13, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On 13 Dec 2001 at 0:17, David Gentile wrote:

                                        > I'd have to look into that. My guess is that it would be more noise
                                        > than anything else. If some 200 leaked into 211, or 211 into 200, all
                                        > it should do is tend to make them look a little more alike.

                                        Yes, I see that that may well be the case. I suppose the L one is
                                        more troubling in the sense that the more one divided L material from
                                        Lucan redaction of triple tradition, the more those categories would
                                        be driven apart. It's one of the fascinating things about L material
                                        -- it has given rise to the most radical theories (creation on the
                                        basis of Mark / Matthew, e.g. Goulder) and very conservative ones (L
                                        parallels to Mark so different from Mark that it represents a
                                        distinct source conservatively followed).

                                        > I think the issue is where Mark has a parallel to M/L, but at a
                                        > "different" location, then they call it 202/020 instead of 222, so it
                                        > would be interesting to count them, just to see what they might have
                                        > effected by their choice in categorization.

                                        The different location issue simply takes for granted the Two-Source
                                        Theory, for it's an element in the attempts to define Mark-Q overlaps
                                        that they sometimes appear in different relative locations, e.g.
                                        Beelzebub, Mustard Seed. However, many Mark-Q overlaps do not appear
                                        in different locations, especially the whole Matthew 3-4 // Mark 1 //
                                        Luke 3-4 complex, where the most impressive of the alleged overlaps
                                        occur. So that doesn't help much.

                                        It's a bit of a hobby-horse of mine, but one of the real difficulties
                                        with talking about Mark-Q overlaps as a category of Synoptic material
                                        is that this categorises the data in accordance with the demands of
                                        the theory. That might not be a problem if it were not for the fact
                                        that this leads to an unrealistic assessment of the Minor Agreements
                                        ("too minor") and illegitimately allows the argument about Luke's
                                        lack of Matthaean additions to Mark in triple tradition material to
                                        be made. So for the purposes of categorising data, I'd maintain that
                                        it's vital not to separate out Mark-Q overlap lest the results are
                                        biased towards the Two-Source Theory or variants of it.

                                        > I'm also interested in it, because I think it might possibly be
                                        > different than the other material.

                                        The interest is fine, but is there not a problem if one isolates a
                                        particular group of source-critically delineated material for special
                                        analysis? It is OK within the Synoptic Concordance for them to draw
                                        attention to Mark-Q overlap because they are explicitly assuming and
                                        working with the Two-Source Theory; but it is less appropriate when
                                        one is analysing data independent of that assumption.

                                        Mark

                                        -----------------------------
                                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
                                        Birmingham B15 2TT UK

                                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                        http://NTGateway.com


                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • dgentil@sears.com
                                        Mark Goodacre wrote: =============================== It s a bit of a hobby-horse of mine, but one of the real difficulties with talking about Mark-Q overlaps
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Dec 13, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Mark Goodacre wrote:

                                          ===============================
                                          It's a bit of a hobby-horse of mine, but one of the real difficulties
                                          with talking about Mark-Q overlaps as a category of Synoptic material
                                          is that this categorizes the data in accordance with the demands of
                                          the theory. That might not be a problem if it were not for the fact
                                          that this leads to an unrealistic assessment of the Minor Agreements
                                          ("too minor") and illegitimately allows the argument about Luke's
                                          lack of Matthaean additions to Mark in triple tradition material to
                                          be made. So for the purposes of categorizing data, I'd maintain that
                                          it's vital not to separate out Mark-Q overlap lest the results are
                                          biased towards the Two-Source Theory or variants of it.

                                          > I'm also interested in it, because I think it might possibly be
                                          > different than the other material.

                                          The interest is fine, but is there not a problem if one isolates a
                                          particular group of source-critically delineated material for special
                                          analysis? It is OK within the Synoptic Concordance for them to draw
                                          attention to Mark-Q overlap because they are explicitly assuming and
                                          working with the Two-Source Theory; but it is less appropriate when
                                          one is analyzing data independent of that assumption.

                                          Mark
                                          ===============================

                                          Hello Mark,

                                          If you tried to separate it first, then tested it and found there was no
                                          reason to separate it, you could always include it in latter runs. Breaking
                                          it out, would mean we could test to see if it looked like Mark, Matthew, Q,
                                          or something else.
                                          It is at least somewhat identifiable by objective criteria before any
                                          hypothesis is formed. The pattern of agreement with Matthew as the middle
                                          term is clearly different. This may or may not mean it has a different
                                          history than the rest of the text, but without breaking it out to study it,
                                          we might not have the opportunity to try to find out if it is different.

                                          Just as a general complaint about the 2ST, I think the Mark/Q overlaps make
                                          it an incomplete hypothesis. It's fine to say that they both had the
                                          material, but then it seems to me that it should demand that you choose one
                                          of the following:
                                          A) Mark used Q
                                          B) Q used Mark
                                          C) They used a common source


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




                                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                        • David Inglis
                                          I would like to make a suggestion regarding the use of Dave Gentile s results. We seem to be getting close to the point at which we will have to say: We all
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Dec 13, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I would like to make a suggestion regarding the use of Dave Gentile's
                                            results. We seem to be getting close to the point at which we will have to
                                            say: "We all agree what the results are, e.g. we agree on the values of the
                                            correlations, but we don't yet agree on the interpretation of these values".
                                            For example, although I've seen several statements about whether a
                                            particular +ve or -ve correlation supports a particular theory, I haven't
                                            seen anyone suggest a complete mapping between the results and a theory. It
                                            seems to me that unless there is general agreement regarding what pattern of
                                            results supports what theory then this whole effort will have been wasted,
                                            and all that will happen is that the arguement will change, and instead of
                                            disagreeing about the parallels in the text, we'll just be disagreeing about
                                            which results support which theory.

                                            So, I would like to suggest the following. Because each of the different
                                            synoptic theories should result in different sets of agreements and
                                            disagreements within the synoptics, I would like the proponents of each
                                            theory to identify what results they would expect to see from Dave's
                                            analysis. There are 19 basic results (222, 221, 220, etc.), and each of
                                            them can have 3 different values: -ve correlation, no correlation, +ve
                                            correlation. We should therefore be able to build up a matrix showing the
                                            predicted results for each theory, as shown in the following example
                                            (results just picked at random, with the 'NA' values indicating where a
                                            theory doesn't predict a value for a particular result.):

                                            222 221 220 212 etc
                                            2SH +ve None +ve N/A
                                            2DH None None -ve -ve
                                            FH N/A -ve +ve +ve
                                            etc.

                                            Note: If a theory CAN'T predict results that differ from other theories,
                                            then there's no way of determining whether the results support that theory
                                            or not, and (IMHO) the theory should as a result be dropped unless some
                                            other different (external?) evidence supports the theory against the others.
                                            Once this is done and the final results are in we then have a way of finally
                                            deciding which theory or theories are still viable, but until it's done I
                                            can't see that all this discussion is really going anywhere.

                                            Dave Inglis
                                            david@...
                                            3538 O'Connor Drive
                                            Lafayette, CA, USA



                                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                          • Brian E. Wilson
                                            David Inglis wrote -- ... David, I agree that it would be a good idea for advocates of each hypothesis to try and state how they relate Dave Gentile s findings
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Dec 14, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              David Inglis wrote --
                                              >
                                              > I would like to suggest the following. Because each of the different
                                              >synoptic theories should result in different sets of agreements and
                                              >disagreements within the synoptics, I would like the proponents of each
                                              >theory to identify what results they would expect to see from Dave's
                                              >analysis. There are 19 basic results (222, 221, 220, etc.), and each
                                              >of them can have 3 different values: -ve correlation, no correlation,
                                              >+ve correlation.
                                              >
                                              David,
                                              I agree that it would be a good idea for advocates of each
                                              hypothesis to try and state how they relate Dave Gentile's findings to
                                              the synoptic hypothesis they favour. I admit I am still working at
                                              understanding the concepts involved. I dare to think, however, that
                                              there just might be over one hundred and fifty different correlation
                                              coefficients of pairs of HHBC categories (like 0.08648 for the
                                              categories 222 and 202) in the basic table, quite apart from additional
                                              correlation coefficients involving the combined categories (like 0.28569
                                              for the combined categories X12 and 0X2). This count allows for the
                                              table displaying twice every correlation of two different HHBC
                                              categories.

                                              Best wishes,
                                              BRIAN WILSON

                                              >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                                              Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                                              > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                                              > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                                              _


                                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                            • Brian E. Wilson
                                              Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, According to some of its advocates, the 2DH includes the possibility that Mark used Q. It allows you to chose option (A) if you
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Dec 14, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dave Gentile wrote --
                                                >
                                                >Just as a general complaint about the 2ST, I think the Mark/Q overlaps
                                                >make it an incomplete hypothesis. It's fine to say that they both had
                                                >the material, but then it seems to me that it should demand that you
                                                >choose one of the following:
                                                >A) Mark used Q
                                                >B) Q used Mark
                                                >C) They used a common source
                                                >
                                                Dave,
                                                According to some of its advocates, the 2DH includes the
                                                possibility that Mark used Q. It allows you to chose option (A) if you
                                                so wish. H. T. Fleddermann apparently considers that he expounds the
                                                2DH. (H. T. Fleddermann, "Mark and Q" -- Leuven, 1995, pages 1-2).
                                                Fleddermann posits that all three synoptists used Q, and that Mt and Lk
                                                independently used Mk. Fleddermann himself considers that he has proved
                                                that Mk used Q, and that he nonetheless holds the 2DH. I understand that
                                                other scholars who advocate the 2DH accept that Fleddermann's view is
                                                one version of the 2DH. Their statements of the 2DH are usually
                                                carefully worded so as not to rule out the possibility of Mark having
                                                used Q. For instance, C. H. Tuckett describes the 2DH as follows --
                                                >
                                                >"By the 'two-document hypothesis' is meant the theory that Mark was
                                                >written first and was a common source for Matthew and Luke, and the
                                                >latter two gospels also made independent use of common source material,
                                                >usually abbreviated as 'Q'." ("Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis", --
                                                >Cambridge, 1983 -- page 1.)
                                                >
                                                Note that this does not preclude the possibility of Mark having used Q,
                                                but neither does it affirm that Mark did use Q. I would agree that the
                                                2DH is apparently an incomplete hypothesis in this respect.

                                                Best wishes,
                                                BRIAN WILSON

                                                >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                                                Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                                                > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                                                > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                                                _


                                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                              • David Inglis
                                                Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Excuse me, but it seems to me as though you re using Q to mean different things at different times. My understanding of Q is that we
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Dec 14, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Brian Wilson wrote --


                                                  >For instance, C. H. Tuckett describes the 2DH as follows --
                                                  >
                                                  > >"By the 'two-document hypothesis' is meant the theory that Mark was
                                                  > >written first and was a common source for Matthew and Luke, and the
                                                  > >latter two gospels also made independent use of common source material,
                                                  > >usually abbreviated as 'Q'." ("Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis", --
                                                  > >Cambridge, 1983 -- page 1.)
                                                  > >
                                                  > Note that this does not preclude the possibility of Mark having used Q,
                                                  > but neither does it affirm that Mark did use Q. I would agree that the
                                                  > 2DH is apparently an incomplete hypothesis in this respect.
                                                  >
                                                  Excuse me, but it seems to me as though you're using Q to mean different
                                                  things at different times. My understanding of Q is that we should only
                                                  refer to Q if we're talking about one specific source document with quite
                                                  clearly defined characteristics. After all, how can some people claim to be
                                                  able to re-construct Q if it's just "common source material". Based on the
                                                  above words from Brian, it seems to me that Q is being used here as a
                                                  generic term for *all* the source material, whether oral or written.
                                                  Certainly the quote from Tuckett could apply to any mixture of common
                                                  sources. Could I ask for clarification, please.

                                                  Dave Inglis
                                                  david@...
                                                  3538 O'Connor Drive
                                                  Lafayette, CA, USA



                                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                                • Brian E. Wilson
                                                  Brian Wilson wrote -- ... David Inglis replied -- ... David, By Q I mean the source used independently by Mt and Lk, and possibly also used by Mk, as posited
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Dec 15, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Brian Wilson wrote --
                                                    >
                                                    >For instance, C. H. Tuckett describes the 2DH as follows --
                                                    >"By the 'two-document hypothesis' is meant the theory that Mark was
                                                    >written first and was a common source for Matthew and Luke, and the
                                                    >latter two gospels also made independent use of common source material,
                                                    >usually abbreviated as 'Q'." ("Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis", --
                                                    >Cambridge, 1983 -- page 1.)
                                                    >
                                                    >Note that this does not preclude the possibility of Mark having used Q,
                                                    >but neither does it affirm that Mark did use Q. I would agree that the
                                                    >2DH is apparently an incomplete hypothesis in this respect.
                                                    >
                                                    David Inglis replied --
                                                    >
                                                    >Excuse me, but it seems to me as though you're using Q to mean
                                                    >different things at different times.
                                                    >
                                                    David,
                                                    By "Q" I mean the source used independently by Mt and Lk, and
                                                    possibly also used by Mk, as posited by the Two Document Hypothesis.
                                                    >
                                                    >My understanding of Q is that we should only refer to Q if we're
                                                    >talking about one specific source document with quite clearly defined
                                                    >characteristics.
                                                    >
                                                    The point both Dave Gentile and myself have been making is that it is
                                                    the advocates of the 2DH who have not fully defined their hypothesis. We
                                                    would both be happier if they did, since it would then make it much
                                                    easier to test the 2DH against the observed data.
                                                    >
                                                    >After all, how can some people claim to be able to re-construct Q if
                                                    >it's just "common source material"?
                                                    >
                                                    That is not for me to say, but for advocates of the 2DH. According to Dr
                                                    Cyril Rodd in his recent "Expository Times" article, advocates of the
                                                    2DH (including himself) know that they cannot reconstruct the text of Q.
                                                    >
                                                    >Based on the above words from Brian, it seems to me that Q is being
                                                    >used here as a generic term for *all* the source material, whether oral
                                                    >or written. Certainly the quote from Tuckett could apply to any mixture
                                                    >of common sources. Could I ask for clarification, please.
                                                    >
                                                    The words "common source" are from the quotation from C. M. Tuckett. Any
                                                    clarification would have to come from Professor Tuckett, not myself. I
                                                    expect he would answer your questions if you wrote to him at the
                                                    Department of Theology, Manchester University, Manchester, UK. Whether
                                                    his answer would be the sort of clarification you would hope for, I do
                                                    not know. You seem to be agreeing with Dave Gentile and myself that the
                                                    Two Document Hypothesis is incomplete and therefore not well-defined.

                                                    Best wishes,
                                                    BRIAN WILSON

                                                    >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                                                    Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                                                    > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                                                    > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                                                    _

                                                    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.