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

[Synoptic-L] All results

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    David Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, Impressive and useful. Many thanks. Best wishes, BRIAN WILSON ... Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 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.
                            >
                            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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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.