Yuri Kuchinsky

That's right, Bernard. This is just one of those things that make no sense at all, and cast plenty of doubt on the FH/3SH.

OTOH, there emerges a very strong probability that these Anti-Markan Agreements of Mt and Lk go back to some sort of a proto-gospel, that preceded all 3 canonical Synoptics.

Regards,

Yuri.

GentDave

Yuri writes:

"And the Q scholars have demonstrated in many detailed studies that, for the *majority* of the text that Matthew and Luke have in common outside of Mark, Luke is more original."

Dave:

I don't think that is the case. Luke's order is generally supposed to be more original, but not necessarily his wording.

Now, this is where we get to various possible interpretations of the results of the study, but what I believe is happening there is that sondergut Matthew contains parts of Q that Luke did not use, so that sondergut Matthew is really a composite of the styles of Q and Matthew.

GentDave

Yuri writes:

So what do you have left then? You have FH and 3SH, neither of which has any realistic hope of success, since they are burdened by too many shortcomings of their own.

So what's the value of your study then?

Dave:

I'd like to try to sepearte this in to two differant issues.
1) The study
2) the 3SH
As I've tryed to indicate, they are not one and the same. What the study does is provide very objective mathematical evidence eliminating certain things that are possible a priori. For example
it provides strong objective evidence against the Griesbach Hypothesis (2GH). The 3SH is only the simplest hypothesis that it can say nothing against.

Now, seperately, I suppose we could discuss the 3SH. While I'm perfectly willing to admit it is probably more complex than that, I think you would have a very difficult time showing to any high degee of certainty that it does not represent what happened.

GentDave

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) For the majority of the text Mark and Luke have in common Mark is more original

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yuri writes:

So what about those 1000 Anti-Markan Agreements (the Lukan side of them)? How can Mk be more original than Lk in these 1000 triple tradition passages? This sounds highly unlikely to me.

Dave:

I don't think I follow you here. The MAs represent a very small portion of the total text. But there is a large amount of text where Luke and Mark are in rough agreement. The question is, in these sections, "Which is the original, and who made the changes?" The study says that at least most of the time Mark is the original, and Luke made the changes. It does not say that *all* the time Mark is the original.

In other words the focus here is on agreements between Luke and Mark. And the question is, "Are those areas of agreement more like text found only in Mark, or are they like text found only in Luke?" The study answers that they are more like Mark.

The MAs are agreements between Matthew and Luke, and there the study asks, "Do these agreements look more like text found only in Luke, or text found only in Matthew?", and the answer it gives is "Matthew".

Bernard Muller

Yes Dave, I can relate to that:
First, according to your own definition, this Proto-Matt can as well be, word by word, mt-Mark plus mt-Q. By 'mt', I mean as rewritten by Matthew. Same text, and I do not care if mt-Mark & mt-Q would show on the same scroll (as contiguous) or two.
I am not changing your Proto-Matt, just emphasizing the two parts of it.
So now we would have:
Mark + Q => (mt-Mark + mt-Q)
Mark + Q? + (mt-Mark + mt-Q) => Luke
(mt-Mark + mt-Q) => Matthew

I noticed you are not certain that Luke had (original) Q.
Trying to see what you are thinking, I gather that in some cases you would prefer Luke working on original Q, but in most cases, Luke would redact from mt-Q. Of course, that would be according to your study.
May I suggest that Luke may have only one Q document; this Q document, in some parts, not showing Matthean tendency, but in most parts, showing this Matthean coloring. That would explain:
Mark + Q? + (mt-Mark + mt-Q) => Luke
OR
Mark + (Q?/mt-Q) + mt-Mark => Luke

Then why Q would look more Matthean in GMatthew than in GLuke?
The obvious solution would be that Matthew rewrote parts of (Q?/mt-Q), making it look more like fully mt-Q.
So I do think Matthew & Luke worked from the same version of Q, and only one version for each.

How to explain the Matthean coloring in (Q?/mt-Q)?
My hypothesis is many parts of Q, with the Markan overlaps were written in the same community, by the same "school" of people to which Matthew was part, and after GMark was known here. As a matter of fact, younger Matthew himself could have issued some of the Q material then.

But that would not explain everything and it is too hypothetical.
What about a reverse process: Matthew was fond of expressions and words from Q, used those a lot in his Matthean material (and sometimes Mat-Q). Consequently, Q would show strong affinity with sondergut Matthew, because Luke did not do that and therefore Lukan material looks more distant of Q.
Here are examples I found from one of my page:
"gnashing of teeth": Mk = 0, Mt = 6, Lk (Q) = 1, Jn = 0
"outer darkness": Mk = 0, Mt = 3, Lk (Q) = 1, Jn = 0
"wailing": Mk = 0, Mt = 3, Lk (Q)= 1, Jn = 0
"weeping": Mk = 0, Mt = 5, Lk (Q)= 2, Jn = 0
In that page, I explain why Matthew used that often, because the treatment of "undesirables" was dear to him and a major theme.

As you can see (probably know already), Matthew used with gusto some expressions appearing in Q, but Luke abstained from it.
Furthermore, I recall that Matthew faithfully recopied, for a doublet (that is a Markan saying which has a Q couterpart, redacted differently) both occurences of it (GMark's version & Q's). But the GMark version is replaced by the Q version (which Luke does not do). That happens several times. Essentially Matthew "standarized" on Q. (I can document that if you request it). I think Mark Goodacre might have been referring something similar to you, to which you partially agreed.

All that combined would tip your result into having Q looking Matthean.

Relevant pages from my site:
Q
Matthew's coloring

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

Bernard writes:

What about a reverse process: Matthew was fond of expressions and words from Q, used those a lot in his Matthean material (and sometimes Mat-Q). Consequently, Q would show strong affinity with sondergut Matthew, because Luke did not do that and therefore Lukan material looks more distant of Q.
Here are examples I found from one of my page:
"gnashing of teeth": Mk = 0, Mt = 6, Lk (Q) = 1, Jn = 0
"outer darkness": Mk = 0, Mt = 3, Lk (Q) = 1, Jn = 0
"wailing": Mk = 0, Mt = 3, Lk (Q)= 1, Jn = 0
"weeping": Mk = 0, Mt = 5, Lk (Q)= 2, Jn = 0
In that page, I explain why Matthew used that often, because the treatment of "undesirables" was dear to him and a major theme.

Dave:

Yes I agree. That is how the 2SH explains those. And Mark Goodacre has pointed out that that implies the style of Q and Matthew are somewhat similar.

Another way of putting it is that sondergut Matthew contains elements of Q that Luke did not use. (In this case just extra copies of things Luke did use)

That could be all that is going on. That's why I say that the study does not completely eliminate the 2SH. It's very suspicious that both the MAs and Q look Matthian, but its not absolutely conclusive that Luke used Matthew.

Bernard Muller

1)
:banghead:

But Dave, that would shot down the idea of a Proto-Matthew (or a Deutero-Mark & Deutero-Q, both with Matthean overtone). I thought that was what you meant in:
"Mark + Q => p-Mat
Mark + Q? + p-Mat => Luke
p-Mat => Matthew
That fits completely with the study."
Can you clarify?

2)
QuestionS:
a) Here (triple tradition material), how many MA's are we are talking about, grand total.
b) Here again, how many MA's of the type KAI => DE, are we talking about?
c) Is there any reasons why Greek writers, in late 1st cent., would prefer DE to KAI?
d) Do we know what other writers in these days were using preferably?
e) Here again, do you think there is enough MA's here (kind & quantity) to make a case that Luke had either a Proto-Matthew, a "Matthean" Deutero-Mark (as Matthew) or even GMatthew?

3)

Why Luke, very fluent in Greek, would look at GMatthew for his/her redaction, and hardly nothing else? I cannot understand that at all.
And I would not assume that most of Q had been around as long as you think. That might affect your thinking and your interpretation.
Inspiration? To change KAI to DE? Let's be reasonable.

4)

OK, my apology. The Markan overlaps are pieces of rewritten Markan material either appearing on their own in both GMatthew and GLuke, or as insertion in "Q" blocks such as JB's baptism or Jesus & Beelzebub. That's my definition & hopefully the right one, but I can be corrected.
But wait a minute: Are we talking about the pieces as they appear in GMark, or as they appear in Q? Because the redaction is quite different.

5)

Of course, if the overlaps were fabricated from the parallel in GMark, and put in Q, and from there in GMatthew & GLuke, then we would have agreement between GMatthew & GLuke against GMark!!!
And with the Q overlaps being from the same milieu as Matthew, there is a better chance these overlaps to be closer of GMatthew than GLuke.
Why bring 3SH for that? With all the problems it involves!
Because my front door is partially open, that's no reason to drive a truck through it.
Because I need sugar, that's no reason to bring the whole grocery store in my kitchen.
We have to be pragmatic, before going into absurdities.
How many overlaps do we have? Maybe twenty?
Dave, do you have a number for those?
Can you give a list?

6)
I would love to go over those "occasional turn of phrase picked up from Matthew"
Can you specify when & where & how they occur?
How many we are talking about?
I am anxious to know how you define 'overlap'.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

OK. When I see Matthew multiplying in his own material expressions he found in Q, I have reason to believe the style of Matthew comes from Q, rather than the other way around.

This is not another way of putting it!
This is an endorsement of 3SH, which you do by assuming sondurgut Matthew contains part of Q not used by Luke. Where is the evidence for that?

"does not completely eliminate the 2SH".
Nothing I saw so far would do that:
We know now why Q would look Matthean, don't we?
And many of the MA's apparently comes from the Mark-Q overlaps. But if those overlaps were fabricated/modified from GMark, then of course they would generate all kinds of MA's!

And what about the KAI and DE?
YOUR quote:
"Almost none of the MAs that come to mind involve any significant factual information. The greatest bulk of them are KAI => DE that is Mark used the word KAI, and Luke and Matthew tend to use DE, both of which mean "and"."

I just made an approximate survey:
Mark: KAI/DE = 3.3
Matthew: KAI/DE = 1.65
Luke: KAI/DE = 1.75
So yes, Matthew & Luke used more DE than Mark as compared with KAI. Of course there are huge amounts of those, used in many verses.
For example:
For Matthew, KAI about 600 verses, DE about 400 verses
For Luke, KAI about 820 verses, DE about 500 verses.
The question is: Did Luke copy on GMatthew for the use of DE rather than KAI?
Looking at 'Acts', a Lukan work, we have KAI about 670 verses, DE about 500 verses, ratio KAI/DE = 1.35
So Luke, when free from dealing with reference texts, had a tendency to use more DE relative to KAI than GMatthew ever did. So maybe the great number of DE in GMatthew comes from Luke !!!

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

Wow, a lot of stuff here. I'll try to cover them in seperate posts.

Bernard:

1)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE wrote:
On the next point, I may be wrong, but I think you have an incorrect idea regarding the relationship between the three gospels in the triple tradition. In the triple tradition material, Mark is the middle term. That is there are large numbers of agreement between Matthew and Mark, and large numbers of agreements between Mark and Luke. There are also places where all three texts are differant, and places where they are argee. But there are relatively few agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. In short, Luke is unquestionably closer to Mark's text than to Matthew's text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But Dave, that would shot down the idea of a Proto-Matthew (or a Deutero-Mark & Deutero-Q, both with Matthean overtone). I thought that was what you meant in:
"Mark + Q => p-Mat
Mark + Q? + p-Mat => Luke
p-Mat => Matthew
That fits completely with the study."
Can you clarify?


Dave:

What I say in that quote is just an obeservation. That's not something there is any disagreement about, its something that any proposed solution needs to try to explain. In the triple tradition Mark is the middle term.

As far as how I see the 3SH, or the proto-Matthew idea working here:

In either case, I see Luke relying mostly on Mark for the triple tradition.

GentDave

Bernard:

QuestionS:
a) Here (triple tradition material), how many MA's are we are talking about, grand total.
b) Here again, how many MA's of the type KAI => DE, are we talking about?
c) Is there any reasons why Greek writers, in late 1st cent., would prefer DE to KAI?
d) Do we know what other writers in these days were using preferably?
e) Here again, do you think there is enough MA's here (kind & quantity) to make a case that Luke had either a Proto-Matthew, a "Matthean" Deutero-Mark (as Matthew) or even GMatthew?

Dave:

You seem to have found some counts of these. Let me just add some totals from the study, that might be of intrest. The total of all the words in all the categories in the study is: 25,843
Sondergut Luke: 5755
The number of words of triple agreement: 1493
The number of words in the MAs: 207
Note: This involves judgement, what is an MA and what is an overlap?
Matthew-Mark agreement against Luke: 992
Luke-Mark agreement against Matthew: 531

Just as an aside, my own impression of the solution, without relying on the study is that Luke had early versions of both Matthew, and Mark, and a saying source. Not something I'm prepared to rigorously defend, just where my head is.