Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## [Synoptic-L] Analysis of A-O results

Expand Messages
• I’ve been looking at how all the categories group together, in other words looking for groups that all correlative with each other, while at the same time
Message 1 of 5 , Dec 31, 2001
• 0 Attachment
I�ve been looking at how all the categories group together, in other words looking for groups that all correlative with each other, while at the same time anti-correlate with categories in other groups. Dave Gentile has been looking at this as well, and I think my thoughts are close to his. First of all, there obviously ARE groupings, even if the boundaries of the groups are not clear. This is analogous to the situation in Textual Criticism, where everybody agrees that text-types exist, even though the boundaries between the groups are fuzzy. Note: In the categories below an �X� represents 0 or 1.

UNIQUE MARK (X2X)

The four categories in X2X (121, 120, 021, 020) all correlate with each other (although 121 � 020 is weak), making it almost a certainty that they came from the same source. However, we can�t state on the basis of this evidence alone whether this was text created by Mark, or text he took from another source.

UNIQUE MATTHEW (2XX)

There are also four categories in 2XX (211, 210, 201, 200) but here the situation is slightly different. 211 and 210 correlate (strongly) with each other, as do 200 and 201, but 21X and 20X are uncorrelated. In others words, Matthew�s changes to Mark�s text (21X) don�t look like Matthew�s own additions (20X), which makes it likely that (20X) was not simply Matthew adding text, and hence that 20X is a different source.

UNIQUE LUKE (XX2)

There are (of course) also four categories in XX2, and here (X12, 002) all correlate with each other, but 102 doesn�t. As with Matthew, this suggests two different sources for the text unique to Luke. Also important is the fact that (112, 012, 002) anti-correlate with many other categories (22X, 2XX, X2X) and that 112 and 002 strongly anti-correlate with 222. In other words, the �style� of (X12, 002) basically does not appear in either Matthew or Mark, making it highly likely that Luke�s own text (X12, 002) post-dates most of the other categories.

MATTHEW � MARK AGREEMENTS (22X)

Matthew and Mark share two categories (22X), and these are correlated. However, of more importance is the fact that both (220, 221) correlate with X2X, making it virtually certain that the Matthew - Mark double tradition comes from the same source as the text unique to Mark.

MARK � LUKE AGREEMENTS (X22)

122 doesn�t strongly correlate with anything. Instead, 122 has strong anti-correlations with (20X, 202). There are several very weak positive correlations with X2X and XX2, but these look to be essentially random events. Basically, 122 currently stands on it�s own, making it look like Mark made some changes after seeing what Luke had produced.

022 is quite different. There are relatively few words in 022 (112 in A-O), which makes for poor correlations, but nevertheless 022 strongly correlates with 220, and more weakly with (12X, 021). This appears to tie 022 closely to the Markan X2X �core� as well.

MATTHEW � LUKE [MINOR] AGREEMENTS (2X2)

202 and 212 are quite different. 202 correlates strongly with 20X and 102. This looks to make 202 basically Matthean in origin (containing words Luke didn�t mind using), with the 202 � 102 correlation representing those parts of Matthew�s text that were given Lukan words.

212 doesn�t correlate with anything, but as it only contains 90 words in A-O it�s hard to tell what 212 will eventually look like. At present it is showing signs of looking like both 210 and 102, even though 210 and 102 themselves anti-correlate, thus making 212 the �middle term� between them. 212 is currently a problem, with no obvious solution. It might be being affected by the �Mark-Q overlap� issue, but that�s not yet proven. Certainly it does look to be an additional source, otherwise how else can we explain Matthew and Luke both changing Mark�s text the same way?

Note: If 212 gets closer to 210 with more data then this is probably evidence of Luke taking the Matthean version of Mark�s passages rather than copying them directly from Mark. Currently 212 is slightly closer to 102, which could be a problem for this view.

TRIPLE TRADITION (222)

This looks to be solidly Markan in origin, with a strong correlation with 220, and weaker correlations with 022, and 020. 222 also has strong anti-correlations with 112 and 002, making it very unlikely to be Lukan in origin.

INTERPRETATION

In common with most other recent posts, I regard the all above as solid evidence for Markan priority, and I�d go further and state that I think the basic �production order� is Mark, Matthew, Luke. I see the following sources and/or links.

Mark

Mark produced a core consisting of the following:
222 text used �as is� by both Matthew and Luke
121 those parts of the (222) passages where both Matthew & Luke changed words
221 text used �as is� by Matthew, but where Luke used his own words
220 and 022 text used �as is� by either Matthew or Mark, but not both.
120 and 021 those parts of the (220, 022) passages where Matthew/Luke changed words
020 passages unique to Mark (This could conceivably have been added later, but there�s no way of knowing from this evidence).

Matthew

Matthew copied from Mark (222, 221, 220), changing Mark�s words in some places (211, 210), and also added passages from another source (200). This source also contained passages that both Matthew and Luke used �as is� (202), and also passages where either Matthew or Luke changed the words (201, 102).

Luke

Luke copied from Mark (222, 022), changing Mark�s words in some places to suit his own �style� (112, 012), and also added new passages of his own (002). Luke also used some of Matthew�s additions (102, 202), changing the words in some cases.

Matthew - Luke

Matthew uses material from a different source (Q?) to create different variants of passages already in Mark, and Luke later copies the same variants either from Matthew, or directly from the other source (212).

Mark

Mark added additional material taken from what Luke had written (122). If (020) was a late addition by Mark then it would most likely have been added at or about the same time.

David Inglis
david@...
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA
(Still in England for now)

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• [Response to David Inglis post of Monday, December 31, 2001] David, I think your post and Brian Wilson s post of earlier today raise some excellent points
Message 2 of 5 , Dec 31, 2001
• 0 Attachment
[Response to David Inglis' post of Monday, December 31, 2001]

David,

I think your post and Brian Wilson's post of earlier today raise some
excellent points about the way we've been interpreting the
correlations David Gentile discovered. In the interests of being
objective, I think we've all been applying the tests perhaps a little
too mechanically in the hopes that they'll provide "the answer". I
haven't had a chance to absorb either your post or Brian's fully and
think through all their implications. I want to comment on just one
part of your post here. I hope what I have to say is not based on a
complete misunderstanding of the methodology used.

You wrote:

>>UNIQUE MATTHEW (2XX)

There are also four categories in 2XX (211, 210, 201, 200) but here
the situation is slightly different. 211 and 210 correlate (strongly)
with each other, as do 200 and 201, but 21X and 20X are uncorrelated.
In others words, Matthew's changes to Mark's text (21X) don't look
like Matthew's own additions (20X), which makes it likely that (20X)
was not simply Matthew adding text, and hence that 20X is a different
source.<<

What I question here is the assumption that Matthew's editing of Mark
ought to correlate with Matthew's own composition if both are the
products of Matthew's distinctive style. To a great extent, Matthew's
style governs both, but I don't think the alterations Matthew makes to
Mark are a representative sample of Matthew's own writing (which, I
think, the method implies). They tell us what Matthew thinks Mark did
badly, but not what Mark did well. The criticism I'm making here is
similar to that which composition and literary critics made of the
earlier redaction criticism. What Matthew preserves from Mark is as,
or very nearly as, significant for him as what he alters.

First, I'll use an illustration from my own experience. When I
correct student papers, I frequently re-write what I find
unacceptable. Some of the most common mistakes students make include
using contractions in formal writing, using inappropriate
prepositions, and failing to introduce quotations. I usually write
out the appropriate corrections on the papers I grade. Yet, I think
that if you took the 160 (or somewhat fewer) student papers I graded
this semester and gathered all the alterations I had written out, I
suspect that the results would not correlate highly with what I write
when I'm composing on my own, despite the fact that both are products
of my own style.

As perhaps a more pertinent example, consider Matthew's alteration of
Mark's KAI's to DE's. Suppose Matthew uses a Markan pericope and
basically takes over its wording, except that he changes all of Mark's
KAI's to DE's. In this case, it would appear that DE is extremely
common, in fact the only word, in the 21X category. When Matthew
composes a pericope himself, he may use DE frequently, but the
frequency in the 20X category will still be far lower than in the 21X
category. Obviously, this is an extreme case based on a single
hypothetical example, but I think the principle is applicable on a
larger scale. Additionally, while the examples I gave deal solely
with alterations to literary style, I think the principle may be
extended to include Matthew's alterations to other aspects of Mark
(e.g., theology) as well.

Happy New Year,

Ken

Kenneth A. Olson
Graduate Teaching Assistant
Department of History
2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
kaolson@...

I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything - T.H.
Huxley

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Hello, Dave, Yes, your thinking on this is very much parallel to mine. The diagram I uploaded is a very good picture of this, and the clustering summarizes it
Message 3 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Hello, Dave,

Yes, your thinking on this is very much parallel to mine. The diagram I
uploaded is a very good picture of this, and the clustering summarizes it
well.

I have just two notes on the interpretations.

212 - We probably can't do much with this one at all. We really can't check
marco-categories, like we can in some cases. There is no way to try to see
what effect is causing what we see. Add the small amount of text here, and
questions about how HBB categorized things here, and I'm not sure we can say
very much at all about this one.

122 - This is also consistent with a common early source for Mark/Luke. By
suggesting that 211-221 reflects some late use of Matthew by Mark, then 122
becomes a clear look at original Mark , or proto-Mark.

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@...
• Hello Ken, You raise another possible source of uncertainty. I ll try to address this when I write this up. My current thought is that this and genre both
Message 4 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Hello Ken,

You raise another possible source of uncertainty. I'll try to address
this when I write this up. My current thought is that this and genre both
count as effects we can not entirely eliminate. But I don't think it is
consistent with the picture painted by the study as a whole. The principle
components identified the difference between the double tradition, and
Matthew's redaction of Mark, as bigger than the difference between Luke and
everything else. I don't think the clustering results support this either.
But, let me try to address this better later. I currently don't think the FH
is falsified, anyway, due to the genre issue.

I'm thinking of diving hypotheses up in to these categories:
Favored by the study.
Not favored.
Falsified.

The FH is "not favored", in my mind. An analogy from statistics would be if
we had a mean, and a standard deviation around the mean. I would say the FH
is not one of the hypotheses that is right at the mean, or most probable,
but is included within the error bars, given the limitations of this method.

At this point, I'd like to invite people to consider the whole thing from
the 2ST point of view.
The study suggest:
1) A Mark-like document was first, and directly or indirectly lead to
Matthew and Luke.
2) A 4th document exists, and was used by Matthew and Luke.
3) There is an un-provable possibility that Mark may not be exactly the same
as original-Mark.

This whole thing would be just another bit of confirmation for the 2ST, if
it were not for the fact that 200=202 and in fact 200="102+202", or
sonndergut Matthew correlates with the double tradition in Luke. Given the
dominance of the 2SH, this is probably the most important result. The result
is found in the principle components, the correlations, and the clustering.
The multi-variate techniques do not have a "comparison to the mean" issue to
deal with, so that should eliminate that as a possibility.

So the question is, other that Luke using Matthew, or a proto- (or duetro-)
Matthew, can anyone think of anything else that might make sonndergut
Matthew look as much like double tradition Luke as say categories within
Mark look like themselves?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Olson" <kaolson@...>
To: "David Inglis" <david@...>; "Synoptic-L"
<Synoptic-L@...>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Analysis of A-O results

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• Ken Olson wrote: What I question here is the assumption that Matthew s editing of Mark ought to correlate with Matthew s own composition if both are the
Message 5 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
• 0 Attachment
Ken Olson wrote:

What I question here is the assumption that Matthew's editing of Mark
ought to correlate with Matthew's own composition if both are the
products of Matthew's distinctive style. To a great extent, Matthew's
style governs both, but I don't think the alterations Matthew makes to
Mark are a representative sample of Matthew's own writing (which, I
think, the method implies). They tell us what Matthew thinks Mark did
badly, but not what Mark did well. The criticism I'm making here is
similar to that which composition and literary critics made of the
earlier redaction criticism. What Matthew preserves from Mark is as,
or very nearly as, significant for him as what he alters.

********

Ken, this is a perfectly valid point, and thank you for pointing it out. As you say, Matthew's changes to someone else's text don't have to look like Matthew's own text, and therefore (20X) could be Mt, rather than another source such as P-Mt or Q. However, I would point out that (X12) = (002), i.e. Luke's own text does look like Luke's version of passages found in Mark. This is not proof, of course, does does help my argument.

Happy New Year to all,

Dave Inglis
david@...
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA
(still in England)

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.