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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Analysis of A-O results

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    [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 1 of 5 , Dec 31, 2001
      [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@...
    • David Gentile
      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 2 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
        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@...
      • David Gentile
        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 3 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
          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@...
        • David Inglis
          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 4 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
            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.