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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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@...
    • 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 2 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@...
      • 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 3 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.