Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GentDave · 08-23-2003, 12:10 PM

Bernard:

According to these results, or only the five IDOU's, I do not know why you entertain the possibility of 2SH. There is no chance for that. Luke had to know about GMatthew hundreds of times, at least! And not for important stuff, just things like the location of IDOU's, not all of them, only five.

Dave:

I personally do not believe the 2SH, certainly not in its simple form. However, saying that the relation between 212 and 211 is not pure chance, does not say for sure what did cause it. A proto-Mark? A Deutro-Mark? A proto-Matthew? Matthew?

Actually, the 2SH says that Luke and Matthew both authored the the MAs indepently. So you could say the problem for the 2SH is more the problem of explaining why Luke is not related to the MAs, than explaining why the MAs are related to Matthew.

Dave:

Regarding your other comments: If we were going to project how many IDOUs would be found in the 212 category, based on the frequency in the synoptics or in Luke, we would expect only 1. But we find 5, which is much more typical of Matthew's style. It provides a piece of concrete evidence the the MAs are in Matthew's style. That is just one vocabulary item. Studying the other 800 vocabulary items provides additional evidence, to the point of being conclusive.

Both people and computers are capible of making mistakes. I'm open to the possibilities that I have in fact made one. However, at this point, I don't believe I have. If you discover some specific mistake I have made, please bring it to my attention.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 08-23-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GentDave
More on IDOU

IDOU is 5 of 207 words in category "212" = 2.4%
IDOU is 18 of 1248 words in category "211" = 1.4%
IDOU is 104 of 25,843 words in all categories. = .4%
IDOU is 30 of 5755 words in sondergut Luke(002) = .5%

So Luke has a frequency typical of the synoptics as a whole. But 211 and 212 both show eleveated frequencies. This by itself is unlikely to be coincidence, and taken together with the other words in the study, coincidence is virtually eliminated as a possibility.

Hi, Dave,

Since I'm quite interested in the Anti-Markan Agreements (your category 212), I think it would be interesting to see some more such cases as IDOU in the 212 category.

So what are the most common words in 212? Why don't you post a couple more here with their detailed distribution in all other important categories? I suppose you should have such data handy?

Regards,

Yuri.

Bernard Muller · 08-23-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Dave wrote:
Regarding your other comments: If we were going to project how many IDOUs would be found in the 212 category, based on the frequency in the synoptics or in Luke, we would expect only 1. But we find 5, which is much more typical of Matthew's style. It provides a piece of concrete evidence the the MAs are in Matthew's style. That is just one vocabulary item. Studying the other 800 vocabulary items provides additional evidence, to the point of being conclusive.

So the MA's are more in Matthew's style. What does that prove? Luke's style, at a few times, was close to Matthew' style, because we have the MA's in the triple tradition, such as the IDOU's.
Conclusion: Luke was (much) less in Matthew's style than Matthew. Make sense.
And why the triple tradition material would look Matthean? Because Matthew stayed close of Mark's style (to the point of copying word by word) when Luke did rewrite almost everything. Then Matthew adopted Mark's style (and more so words as IDOU!) for his own stuff and the TrTrad, more so than Luke, who used more of his/her own style (as usual); so the reverse effect.
And why would Q look Matthean? Because Matthew used a lot more expressions from Q than Luke: reverse effect.
That's the way I see it.

Quote:

Dave wrote:
A Deutro-Mark? A proto-Matthew?

That's possible, certainly not absurd as the whole of GMatthew.
But before deciding, I would want to see the whole ball of wax, all words, all verses related to the relatively few MA's. And then take in account the authors' patterns, such as about why they would use the IDOU's on Markan material and then, what would be the most likely locations to do so for each. You see the five IDOU's with cold blood (as a computer analyst, I may add), but it may be argued, that if more can be gathered about the two authors' thinking (still by looking at the primary evidence), there is a much greater chance (than one) to have five so-called coincidences for IDOU's.

Quote:

Dave wrote:
Both people and computers are capable of making mistakes. I'm open to the possibilities that I have in fact made one. However, at this point, I don't believe I have. If you discover some specific mistake I have made, please bring it to my attention.

Humm! I would first look at reverse effects. That would be the same as a fractional circular argument (or unwanted feedback). Of course, I am concerned that the soft rewriting of Luke on TrTrad would greatly influence your findings, more so since your study is based on words, one by one.
I do not know about word based research, which I think can be very misleading.
If word based research is used for MA's, as I said, if there is an abnormal amount of coincidences on one word, I would look at the human element to see if it can be explained. Having Luke takes his/her cues on DTR-Mark or PRT-Matthew (or GMatthew) to know where to place five IDOU's is rather stupid in my way of thinking.
Isolate Q material in one category, including the Q version of the Mark-Q overlaps.
I would look also at the obvious coloring & bias & likings of the authors, bound to affect the wording for each, and not related to any sourcing (and affect reverse effect).
The big question would be, and still is: did Matthew and Luke have a deutero-Mark (or proto-Matthew with Q included) instead of plain GMark. Better try to answer that, rather than getting involved in absurd situation, like Luke had the whole of GMatthew, which brings a lot more problems than it solves (even if they are hard driving scholars who want that: that sells books).

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave · 08-25-2003, 01:17 PM

Yuri,

Working on the request. I should be able to post a good example tonight. I don't have my books here.

GentDave · 08-25-2003, 01:45 PM

Bernard:

So the MA's are more in Matthew's style. What does that prove?

Dave:

I suppose that depends on what the question is. Other evidence from the study, and traditional arguements, say that Matthew used Mark. If this is true, then category 211 is additions to Mark by Matthew. Since 212 reflects the style of 211, we would say the minor agreements appear to be authored by Matthew, and that would argue for Luke's use of Matthew, or proto-Matthew, and against say a Deutro-Mark.

Now, if we were trying to argue against the 2SH, in its basic form, we'd really want the answer to a differant question. "Are the MA's also in the style of Luke?" The study does not address that question directly. It finds no evidence Luke *is* related, but it does not prove it *is not*. I'm going to get some specific examples for Yuri, that help with that.

Bernard:

Luke's style, at a few times, was close to Matthew' style, because we have the MA's in the triple tradition, such as the IDOU's.

Dave: The way the study works, the style of the autor is defined by how frequently he tends to use certain words.

Bernard:

And why the triple tradition material would look Matthean? Because Matthew stayed close of Mark's style (to the point of copying word by word) when Luke did rewrite almost everything.

Dave:

But, when I am looking at Matthew's style, in say category 211, we are looking specificly at words that Matthew did not take from Mark.

Bernard:

You see the five IDOU's with cold blood (as a computer analyst, I may add), but it may be argued, that if more can be gathered about the two authors' thinking (still by looking at the primary evidence), there is a much greater chance (than one) to have five so-called coincidences for IDOU's.

Dave:

Some people dislike the idea that people and their choices can be described statisticly. Marketers and advertisers do it. So do financial markets. I'm sure if we went case by case, we could come up with "just so" stories for any number of them. But that would not tell us how likely each senerio was, nor gather evidence across many examples. What you reffer to as "cold-blood", I would call "objective". It removes as far as possible subjective human impressions, and looks to the extent that is possible and hard facts.

Bernard:

Of course, I am concerned that the soft rewriting of Luke on TrTrad would greatly influence your findings, more so since your study is based on words, one by one.

Dave: Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that late harminisers may have made Luke look a little more like Matthew? That is indeed a possibility.

Bernard:

Isolate Q material in one category, including the Q version of the Mark-Q overlaps.

Dave:

That material is in three categories.

102 = Q found only in Luke
202 = Q found in both Matthew and Luke
201 = Q found only in Matthew

Bernard:

The big question would be, and still is: did Matthew and Luke have a deutero-Mark (or proto-Matthew with Q included) instead of plain GMark. Better try to answer that, rather than getting involved in absurd situation, like Luke had the whole of GMatthew, which brings a lot more problems than it solves (even if they are hard driving scholars who want that: that sells books).

Dave: Well the study does not answer that with certainty. It provides evidence in the direction of Matthew. However given

1) The overlaps in Luke seem to be based on Matthew. (traditional means)
2) The MA's seem Matthian.
3) Q looks alot like sondergut Matthew
4) Matthew exists, we have no direct evidence of other documents.

I would think the burden of proof would lie on the person claiming that Luke did not use Matthew. I would think that person would have to show that Luke using Matthew could not explain certain features of the written record, and therefore a more complex hypothesis is needed.

Bernard Muller · 08-25-2003, 05:20 PM

Dave wrote:
If this is true, then category 211 is additions to Mark by Matthew. Since 212 reflects the style of 211, we would say the minor agreements appear to be authored by Matthew, and that would argue for Luke's use of Matthew, or proto-Matthew, and against say a Deutro-Mark.

Later, in the same post, Dave wrote:

But, when I am looking at Matthew's style, in say category 211, we are looking specificly at words that Matthew did not take from Mark.

Dave, I always wondered how you determined 211 (or 112). **It is by words not in GMark**.
I suppose 200 (or 002) would be the same, also for 210 (or 012).
Am I right?

BTW, I doubt 012 has anything in it, in view Luke used 50% of GMark when Matthew used 90%. The chance are slim Luke used any Mk verses from the 10% missing in GMatthew.

So now we have: 212 reflects 211, and 211 is based on Matthean words not in GMark. That means wherever Matthew dropped a non-Markan word in the TrTrad, the affected sentence (I assume, or more, or less!), or rather its words, would go into the 211 category (total 1248 words). Then from that, you would look at the key words in it (as IDOU) and compare that with 212 key words (as IDOU again). The same of course from 112.
And if I am (finally) right, one (non-Markan) key word would enable a bunch of other keywords.

I found the info that Matthew used 137 words not found anywhere else in the NT. I do not know about GLuke but it is probably a lot less (because not worth mentioning).
If it is the case, and representative of non-Markan words in GMatthew and GLuke, then 211 (& 200 and 210) is going to unable a lot more key words in favor of the Matthean cause than 112 (and 002 but with the corresponding of 210, that is 012, being quasi-inexistent).

My questions are:
How many non Markan keywords in GMatthew are used to determine the Matthean flavor?
How many non Markan keywords in GLuke are used to determine the Lukan flavor?
How many words are in 112?
More, can you give the number of words in each category?
More, can you answer precisely my questions, for a change?
And I am still waiting for:
The list of all keywords (such as IDOU) which triggered MA's, their respective numbers and associated verses, or part of them (adding up to 207 words).

Dave wrote:
Now, if we were trying to argue against the 2SH, in its basic form, we'd really want the answer to a differant question. "Are the MA's also in the style of Luke?" The study does not address that question directly. It finds no evidence Luke *is* related, but it does not prove it *is not*.

I do not see why the issue had not been addressed.

Dave wrote:
The way the study works, the style of the author is defined by how frequently he tends to use certain words.

That may be a big weakness in your study, possibly misleading in some area. Frequency of words is one thing, but maybe not enough to support some of your conclusions. As a matter of fact, the author using the same key words more often than the other may become predominent just because of that. And if Luke used a wide vocabulary, and not repeating his key words too often, that would probably take the author below the radar screen in many cases.

Dave wrote:
Some people dislike the idea that people and their choices can be described statistically. Marketers and advertisers do it. So do financial markets. I'm sure if we went case by case, we could come up with "just so" stories for any number of them. But that would not tell us how likely each scenario was, nor gather evidence across many examples. What you refer to as "cold-blood", I would call "objective". It removes as far as possible subjective human impressions, and looks to the extent that is possible and hard facts.

Ya, I got your point. But your program can be the equivalent of these methodologies scholars used. They look attractive, seems to make sense but lead to divergent results. Your program can make sense to you, but it may be not perfect. Just a tiny flaw at the start (the butterfly effect), or the peculiar nature of the evidence, can drive some of your conclusions wild.

Dave wrote:
1) The overlaps in Luke seem to be based on Matthew. (traditional means)
2) The MA's seem Matthian.
3) Q looks alot like sondergut Matthew
4) Matthew exists, we have no direct evidence of other documents.

I would think the burden of proof would lie on the person claiming that Luke did not use Matthew. I would think that person would have to show that Luke using Matthew could not explain certain features of the written record, and therefore a more complex hypothesis is needed.

I read your pages many times, but you do not provide enough data to follow you and check you out, step by step.
I am questioning your conclusion from the MA's and Q. I still maintain they are mainly due to feedback (reverse effect), that is Matthew adopting aggressively key words from GMark & Q, more so than Luke, making the MA's & Q look Matthean. Of course, not knowing about the key words in question, the verses involved, etc., I cannot be more specific than I am now or in my previous posts. Maybe my question is: are you sure it is not the case?

I think your assumption might be the two gospelers were scribal compilers, working from the same material, and putting their self aside, did their desk work as part of their regular job (cold blooded!). Then maybe your study might be OK. But the gospelers were not scribes. They had different agenda & bias & mood & audience & (and likely sex!), reflecting in the key words they were using and the frequency of them.

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave · 08-25-2003, 07:03 PM

Bernard:

Dave, I always wondered how you determined 211 (or 112). **It is by words not in GMark**.

Dave:

Well, I didn't that was done by the authors of the HBB synoptic concordance. Also, let's be clear the English word "word" has multiple meanings. To counted in 211, the *occurence* of the word must be in Matthew, without a parallel in the other 2 gospels. The *vocabulary item* may ocur in all 3 gospels.

Here are links to the data description, and the information from my site.

http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/synoptics.txt
http://www.uni-bamberg.de/ktheo/nt/f...g/synconbe.htm

Each instance of a word in the synoptics is placed into one of a number of
"synoptic categories". Each category is designated by a three-digit number.
"210", for example.

The first digit gives information about Matthew, the second refers to Mark,
and the third to Luke. The digit "0" indicates no parallel.
The digit "1" indicates a parallel exist, but does not contain the key word.
The digit "2" indicates the parallel contains the key word.

Because of the importance of understanding the categories,
I'll fully describe each of them, in turn.
For each category I'll list the HHB Synoptic Concordance symbol, a simple
definition, a more precise definition, and the interpretation of the
category on the "Two source hypothesis" (2SH), "Farrer hypothesis" (FH), and
"Griesbach hypothesis" (GH).

============

222 - Triple tradition, triple agreement.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, and also
occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, and
also occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke.

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Matthew and Luke.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Matthew and Luke.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew and copied by Luke and Mark.

============

221 - Triple tradition, agreement between Matthew and Mark.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, and also
occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, but
not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Luke.

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Matthew, but not
copied by Luke.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Matthew, but not
copied by Luke, from either Mark or Matthew.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Luke,
and then copied from Matthew by Mark.

============

122 - Triple tradition, agreement between Mark and Luke.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, and also
occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew.

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Luke, but not
copied by Matthew.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then not copied by Matthew,
but then copied by Luke from Mark.
On the GH these are words authored by Luke while editing Matthew, and then
copied by Mark.

==============

121 - Triple tradition, unique Mark.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew,
and also not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s)
in Luke.

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, but not copied by Matthew, and
not copied by Luke.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark, but then not copied by Matthew
or Luke.
On the GH these are words authored by Mark while editing Matthew and Luke.

=============

212 - Triple tradition - minor agreements.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew, and also
occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark.

On the 2SH these words are authored by both Matthew and Luke
independently, while editing Mark.
On the FH these words are authored by Matthew, and may have been copied by
Luke, generated indirectly by Luke's knowledge of Matthew, or generated
essentially independently by Luke.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then copied by Luke, but
then not copied by Mark, from either Matthew or Luke.

=============

211 - Triple tradition - unique Matthew.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew, but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark, and
also not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in
Luke.

On the 2SH these are words authored by Matthew while editing Mark.
On the FH these are words authored by Matthew while editing Mark, and then
not copied by Luke.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Luke
or Mark.

=============

112 - Triple tradition - unique Luke.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Luke, but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark, and
also not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in
Matthew.

On the 2SH these are words authored by Luke while editing Mark.
On the FH these are words authored by Luke while editing Mark and Matthew.
On the GH these are words authored by Luke while editing Matthew, and then
not copied by Mark.

=============

022 - Mark/Luke tradition - double agreements.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark and also
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, where there
is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew. (And often not
even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, and copied by Luke, where
Matthew omitted the sentence or clause.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then copied by
Luke, where Matthew had omitted the sentence or clause,
On the GH these are words authored by Luke, and then copied by Mark, where
Matthew did not have the sentence or clause.

=============

021 - Mark/Luke tradition - unique Mark.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Luke, where
there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew. (And often
not even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, and not copied by Luke, where
Matthew omitted the sentence or clause.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then not copied by Luke,
where Matthew had omitted the sentence or clause,
On the GH these are words authored by Mark while editing Luke, where
Matthew did not have the sentence or clause.

=============

012 - Mark/Luke tradition - unique Luke.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Luke but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark, where
there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew. (And often
not even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Luke, while editing Mark, where
Matthew omitted the sentence or clause.
On the FH these are words authored by Luke, while editing Mark, where
Matthew had omitted the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Luke, and then not copied by Mark,
where Matthew did not have the sentence or clause.

=============

220 - Mark/Matthew tradition (mostly Bethesda section) - double
agreements.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark and also
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, where
there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke. (And often
not even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, and copied by Matthew, where
Luke has omitted the sentence or clause.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then copied by Matthew,
where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then copied by Mark,
where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause.

=============

120 - Mark/Matthew tradition (mostly Bethesda section) - unique
Mark.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew,
where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke. (And
often not even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, and not copied by Matthew,
where Luke omitted the sentence or clause.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then not copied by Matthew,
where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Mark while editing Matthew, where
Luke had omitted the sentence or clause.

=============

210 - Mark/Matthew tradition (mostly Bethesda section) - unique
Matthew.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark, where
there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke. (And often
not even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Matthew, while editing Mark, where
Luke omitted the sentence or clause.
On the FH these are words authored by Matthew, while editing Mark, where
Luke then omitted the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Mark,
where Luke had omitted the sentence or clause.

=============

020 - Sondergut Mark

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, where there
is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, (and often not
even a corresponding pericope), and there also is no corresponding parallel
sentence or clause in Luke, (and often not even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, where both Matthew and Luke
then omitted the sentence or clause.
On the FH these are words authored by Mark, where both Matthew and Luke then
omitted the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Mark, where neither Matthew nor Luke
had the sentence or clause.

=============

202 - Matthew/Luke double tradition - double agreements.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew and also
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, where there
is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark. (And often not even
a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Q, and copied by both Matthew and
Luke.
On the FH these are words authored by Matthew, and then copied by Luke,
where Mark did not have the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then copied by Luke, but
where Mark then omitted the sentence or clause.

=============

201 - Matthew/Luke double tradition - unique Matthew.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Luke, where
there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark. (And often
not even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Q, and copied by Matthew but not
copied by Luke, or these are words authored by Matthew while editing Q.
On the FH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Luke,
where Mark did not have the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Luke,
and where Mark then omitted the sentence or clause.

=============

102 - Matthew/Luke double tradition - unique Luke.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Luke but not
occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew,
where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark. (And
often not even a corresponding pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Q, and copied by Luke but not copied
by Matthew, or these are words authored by Luke while editing Q.
On the FH these are words authored by Luke while editing Matthew, where
Mark did not have the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Luke, while editing Matthew, and where
Mark then omitted the sentence or clause.

=============

200 - Sondergut Matthew.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew, where
there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark, (and often
not even a corresponding pericope), and there also is no corresponding
parallel sentence or clause in Luke, (and often not even a corresponding per
icope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Matthew, where Mark did not have the
sentence or clause.
On the FH these are words authored by Matthew, where Mark did not have the
sentence or clause, and where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause.
On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, where Luke and Mark then
omitted the sentence or clause.

=============

002 - Sondergut Luke.

Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Luke, where there
is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark, (and often not even
a corresponding pericope), and there also is no corresponding parallel
sentence or clause in Matthew, (and often not even a corresponding
pericope.)

On the 2SH these are words authored by Luke, where Mark did not have the
sentence or clause .
On the FH these are words authored by Luke, where Mark did not have the
sentence or clause .
On the GH these are words authored by Luke where Matthew did not have the
sentence or clause and where then Mark then omits the sentence or clause.

=============

Again, from the definitions it should be apparent that in each case,
the first digit in the symbol represents Matthew, the second digit represents Mark,
and the third digit represents Luke.

Also, a "2" in any one of these positions indicates that the gospel contains
an instance of the key word, in a specific sentence or clause.
A "1" in any one of these positions indicated that the gospel contains
a parallel sentence or clause,
but does not contain an instance of the key word in that sentence or clause.
A "0" in any one of these positions indicated that the gospel does not
contain a parallel sentence or clause.

GentDave · 08-25-2003, 07:40 PM

Bernard:

BTW, I doubt 012 has anything in it

Dave:

340 words. The 0** categories and 212, are the smallest ones.

Bernard:

That means wherever Matthew dropped a non-Markan word in the TrTrad, the affected sentence (I assume, or more, or less!), or rather its words, would go into the 211 category

Dave: no, just the specific word would go in 211.

Next a number or statements and questions were based on the incorrect idea above.

Bernard:

I found the info that Matthew used 137 words not found anywhere else in the NT.

Dave: Most of those are likely to be uncommon words, not used in the study. Only the most common words were studied.

Bernard:

How many words are in 112?

Dave: 1710

Bernard:

More, can you give the number of words in each category?

counts 1493 1248 1710 207 992 531 1311 285 340 406 1097 983 829 641 1621 1332 1220 3842 5755

categoies 222 211 112 212 221 122 121 022 012 021 220 120 210 020 202 201 102 200 002

Also, scroll down to the bottom of the spreadsheet, the totals by column are there.

Bernard:

The list of all keywords (such as IDOU) which triggered MA's, their respective numbers and associated verses, or part of them (adding up to 207 words).

http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics...-commented.xls

Look in the column labeled 212, all the counts are there. For the specific verses, I'm afraid you'd have to buy or borrow the HHB synoptic concordance, there is too much data to type.

Bernard:

Dave wrote:
Now, if we were trying to argue against the 2SH, in its basic form, we'd really want the answer to a differant question. "Are the MA's also in the style of Luke?" The study does not address that question directly. It finds no evidence Luke *is* related, but it does not prove it *is not*.

Bernard: I do not see why the issue had not been addressed.

Dave: It's harder to prove a negative. The study was designed to find positive relations. It's possible something like that could be done, but it would need a differant design.

Bernard:

Just a tiny flaw at the start (the butterfly effect), or the peculiar nature of the evidence, can drive some of your conclusions wild.

Dave:

True. I do take some comfort in the fact that in general, my results match other scholarship. After all, others have claimed the order is Mark, Matthew, Luke, and my study has said the same. Many claim Matthew and Luke both used Mark, and my study says the same.

Bernard:

I read your pages many times, but you do not provide enough data to follow you and check you out, step by step.

Dave:

It would be useful to me to know exactly at what point you get lost, in order to improve the pages.

Bernard:

Maybe my question is: are you sure it is not the case?

Dave: I'm really sure about your question here, but I think your question is based on the incorrect assumption addressed earlier in this post.

Bernard:

I think your assumption might be the two gospelers were scribal compilers

Dave: No, the study does not really assume much of anything about the authors. But, personally, I can see somebody was clearly creative.

Bernard Muller · 08-25-2003, 07:58 PM

Dave, does the 5 IDOU's in the MA's count for 5 words out of the 207 words in the 212 category?
I would understand if you would be precise & thorough with your examples.
If I go through that first step, how many words are in each of your categories you listed?
For the 212 category, can you provide more IDOU-like keywords with the related verses, clauses, sentences, whatever?
Better, for the worse keywords/cases against the 2SH hypothesis.
Or maybe the 5 IDOU's are the worse one?
What is the keyword which generates the most MA's in 212?

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave · 08-25-2003, 08:51 PM

Yuri,

Here is a good example.

PROSERXOMAI

totals 1493 1261 1710 207 992 531 1311 285 340 406 1097 983 829 641 1621 1332 1220 3842 5755 25856

categories 222 211 112 212 221 122 121 022 012 021 220 120 210 020 202 201 102 200 002

PROSERXOMAI 1 13 0 4 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 0 8 0 13 4 58

percents 0.066979236 1.030927835 0 1.93236715 0.100806452 0 0.152555301 0 0.294117647 0 0.091157703 0 1.206272618 0 0 0.600600601 0 0.338365435 0.069504778 0.224319307

Mark uses it 5 times .06%
Luke used it 10 times a slightly higher .08%
Matthew uses it 51 times .4%
In the triple traditon Matthew uses it 19 times, Luke 5, Mark4. Of the 5 times Luke uses it in the triple tradition 4 are exactly where Matthew has added it to Mark.
Category 211 has a count of 13 - 1.03%, and 212 has a count of 4 - 1.93%

So, if we look at the 4 occureces in triple-tradition-Mark, twice Matthew and Luke agreed on dropping it. And of the 4 added by Luke, they were all where Matthew had added them. So these MAs again look more like Matthew than Luke. Luke picked up, here and there, this word typical of Matthew.

The word means "come to"

Mark 4:38
and they woke him and said to him
Matthew 8:25
and they went and woke him saying
Luke 8:24
and they went and woke him saying

Mark
KAI EGEIROUSIN AUTON KAI LEGOUSIN AUTW

Matthew
KAI PROSELQONTES HGEIRAN AUTON LEGONTES

Luke
PROSELQONTES DE DIHGEIRAN AUTON LEGONTES

This is folowed by "We are perishing" in Matthew and Luke, but "do you not care if we perish" in Mark.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-23-2003, 12:10 PM	#71
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: According to these results, or only the five IDOU's, I do not know why you entertain the possibility of 2SH. There is no chance for that. Luke had to know about GMatthew hundreds of times, at least! And not for important stuff, just things like the location of IDOU's, not all of them, only five. Dave: I personally do not believe the 2SH, certainly not in its simple form. However, saying that the relation between 212 and 211 is not pure chance, does not say for sure what did cause it. A proto-Mark? A Deutro-Mark? A proto-Matthew? Matthew? Actually, the 2SH says that Luke and Matthew both authored the the MAs indepently. So you could say the problem for the 2SH is more the problem of explaining why Luke is not related to the MAs, than explaining why the MAs are related to Matthew. Dave: Regarding your other comments: If we were going to project how many IDOUs would be found in the 212 category, based on the frequency in the synoptics or in Luke, we would expect only 1. But we find 5, which is much more typical of Matthew's style. It provides a piece of concrete evidence the the MAs are in Matthew's style. That is just one vocabulary item. Studying the other 800 vocabulary items provides additional evidence, to the point of being conclusive. Both people and computers are capible of making mistakes. I'm open to the possibilities that I have in fact made one. However, at this point, I don't believe I have. If you discover some specific mistake I have made, please bring it to my attention.

08-25-2003, 01:17 PM	#74
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Yuri, Working on the request. I should be able to post a good example tonight. I don't have my books here.

08-25-2003, 01:45 PM	#75
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: So the MA's are more in Matthew's style. What does that prove? Dave: I suppose that depends on what the question is. Other evidence from the study, and traditional arguements, say that Matthew used Mark. If this is true, then category 211 is additions to Mark by Matthew. Since 212 reflects the style of 211, we would say the minor agreements appear to be authored by Matthew, and that would argue for Luke's use of Matthew, or proto-Matthew, and against say a Deutro-Mark. Now, if we were trying to argue against the 2SH, in its basic form, we'd really want the answer to a differant question. "Are the MA's also in the style of Luke?" The study does not address that question directly. It finds no evidence Luke is related, but it does not prove it is not. I'm going to get some specific examples for Yuri, that help with that. Bernard: Luke's style, at a few times, was close to Matthew' style, because we have the MA's in the triple tradition, such as the IDOU's. Dave: The way the study works, the style of the autor is defined by how frequently he tends to use certain words. Bernard: And why the triple tradition material would look Matthean? Because Matthew stayed close of Mark's style (to the point of copying word by word) when Luke did rewrite almost everything. Dave: But, when I am looking at Matthew's style, in say category 211, we are looking specificly at words that Matthew did not take from Mark. Bernard: You see the five IDOU's with cold blood (as a computer analyst, I may add), but it may be argued, that if more can be gathered about the two authors' thinking (still by looking at the primary evidence), there is a much greater chance (than one) to have five so-called coincidences for IDOU's. Dave: Some people dislike the idea that people and their choices can be described statisticly. Marketers and advertisers do it. So do financial markets. I'm sure if we went case by case, we could come up with "just so" stories for any number of them. But that would not tell us how likely each senerio was, nor gather evidence across many examples. What you reffer to as "cold-blood", I would call "objective". It removes as far as possible subjective human impressions, and looks to the extent that is possible and hard facts. Bernard: Of course, I am concerned that the soft rewriting of Luke on TrTrad would greatly influence your findings, more so since your study is based on words, one by one. Dave: Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that late harminisers may have made Luke look a little more like Matthew? That is indeed a possibility. Bernard: Isolate Q material in one category, including the Q version of the Mark-Q overlaps. Dave: That material is in three categories. 102 = Q found only in Luke 202 = Q found in both Matthew and Luke 201 = Q found only in Matthew Bernard: The big question would be, and still is: did Matthew and Luke have a deutero-Mark (or proto-Matthew with Q included) instead of plain GMark. Better try to answer that, rather than getting involved in absurd situation, like Luke had the whole of GMatthew, which brings a lot more problems than it solves (even if they are hard driving scholars who want that: that sells books). Dave: Well the study does not answer that with certainty. It provides evidence in the direction of Matthew. However given 1) The overlaps in Luke seem to be based on Matthew. (traditional means) 2) The MA's seem Matthian. 3) Q looks alot like sondergut Matthew 4) Matthew exists, we have no direct evidence of other documents. I would think the burden of proof would lie on the person claiming that Luke did not use Matthew. I would think that person would have to show that Luke using Matthew could not explain certain features of the written record, and therefore a more complex hypothesis is needed.

08-25-2003, 05:20 PM	#76
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Dave wrote: If this is true, then category 211 is additions to Mark by Matthew. Since 212 reflects the style of 211, we would say the minor agreements appear to be authored by Matthew, and that would argue for Luke's use of Matthew, or proto-Matthew, and against say a Deutro-Mark. Later, in the same post, Dave wrote: But, when I am looking at Matthew's style, in say category 211, we are looking specificly at words that Matthew did not take from Mark. Dave, I always wondered how you determined 211 (or 112). It is by words not in GMark. I suppose 200 (or 002) would be the same, also for 210 (or 012). Am I right? BTW, I doubt 012 has anything in it, in view Luke used 50% of GMark when Matthew used 90%. The chance are slim Luke used any Mk verses from the 10% missing in GMatthew. So now we have: 212 reflects 211, and 211 is based on Matthean words not in GMark. That means wherever Matthew dropped a non-Markan word in the TrTrad, the affected sentence (I assume, or more, or less!), or rather its words, would go into the 211 category (total 1248 words). Then from that, you would look at the key words in it (as IDOU) and compare that with 212 key words (as IDOU again). The same of course from 112. And if I am (finally) right, one (non-Markan) key word would enable a bunch of other keywords. I found the info that Matthew used 137 words not found anywhere else in the NT. I do not know about GLuke but it is probably a lot less (because not worth mentioning). If it is the case, and representative of non-Markan words in GMatthew and GLuke, then 211 (& 200 and 210) is going to unable a lot more key words in favor of the Matthean cause than 112 (and 002 but with the corresponding of 210, that is 012, being quasi-inexistent). My questions are: How many non Markan keywords in GMatthew are used to determine the Matthean flavor? How many non Markan keywords in GLuke are used to determine the Lukan flavor? How many words are in 112? More, can you give the number of words in each category? More, can you answer precisely my questions, for a change? And I am still waiting for: The list of all keywords (such as IDOU) which triggered MA's, their respective numbers and associated verses, or part of them (adding up to 207 words). Dave wrote: Now, if we were trying to argue against the 2SH, in its basic form, we'd really want the answer to a differant question. "Are the MA's also in the style of Luke?" The study does not address that question directly. It finds no evidence Luke is related, but it does not prove it is not. I do not see why the issue had not been addressed. Dave wrote: The way the study works, the style of the author is defined by how frequently he tends to use certain words. That may be a big weakness in your study, possibly misleading in some area. Frequency of words is one thing, but maybe not enough to support some of your conclusions. As a matter of fact, the author using the same key words more often than the other may become predominent just because of that. And if Luke used a wide vocabulary, and not repeating his key words too often, that would probably take the author below the radar screen in many cases. Dave wrote: Some people dislike the idea that people and their choices can be described statistically. Marketers and advertisers do it. So do financial markets. I'm sure if we went case by case, we could come up with "just so" stories for any number of them. But that would not tell us how likely each scenario was, nor gather evidence across many examples. What you refer to as "cold-blood", I would call "objective". It removes as far as possible subjective human impressions, and looks to the extent that is possible and hard facts. Ya, I got your point. But your program can be the equivalent of these methodologies scholars used. They look attractive, seems to make sense but lead to divergent results. Your program can make sense to you, but it may be not perfect. Just a tiny flaw at the start (the butterfly effect), or the peculiar nature of the evidence, can drive some of your conclusions wild. Dave wrote: 1) The overlaps in Luke seem to be based on Matthew. (traditional means) 2) The MA's seem Matthian. 3) Q looks alot like sondergut Matthew 4) Matthew exists, we have no direct evidence of other documents. I would think the burden of proof would lie on the person claiming that Luke did not use Matthew. I would think that person would have to show that Luke using Matthew could not explain certain features of the written record, and therefore a more complex hypothesis is needed. I read your pages many times, but you do not provide enough data to follow you and check you out, step by step. I am questioning your conclusion from the MA's and Q. I still maintain they are mainly due to feedback (reverse effect), that is Matthew adopting aggressively key words from GMark & Q, more so than Luke, making the MA's & Q look Matthean. Of course, not knowing about the key words in question, the verses involved, etc., I cannot be more specific than I am now or in my previous posts. Maybe my question is: are you sure it is not the case? I think your assumption might be the two gospelers were scribal compilers, working from the same material, and putting their self aside, did their desk work as part of their regular job (cold blooded!). Then maybe your study might be OK. But the gospelers were not scribes. They had different agenda & bias & mood & audience & (and likely sex!), reflecting in the key words they were using and the frequency of them. Best regards, Bernard

08-25-2003, 07:03 PM	#77
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: Dave, I always wondered how you determined 211 (or 112). It is by words not in GMark. Dave: Well, I didn't that was done by the authors of the HBB synoptic concordance. Also, let's be clear the English word "word" has multiple meanings. To counted in 211, the occurence of the word must be in Matthew, without a parallel in the other 2 gospels. The vocabulary item may ocur in all 3 gospels. Here are links to the data description, and the information from my site. http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/synoptics.txt http://www.uni-bamberg.de/ktheo/nt/f...g/synconbe.htm Each instance of a word in the synoptics is placed into one of a number of "synoptic categories". Each category is designated by a three-digit number. "210", for example. The first digit gives information about Matthew, the second refers to Mark, and the third to Luke. The digit "0" indicates no parallel. The digit "1" indicates a parallel exist, but does not contain the key word. The digit "2" indicates the parallel contains the key word. Because of the importance of understanding the categories, I'll fully describe each of them, in turn. For each category I'll list the HHB Synoptic Concordance symbol, a simple definition, a more precise definition, and the interpretation of the category on the "Two source hypothesis" (2SH), "Farrer hypothesis" (FH), and "Griesbach hypothesis" (GH). ============ 222 - Triple tradition, triple agreement. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, and also occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, and also occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke. On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Matthew and Luke. On the FH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Matthew and Luke. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew and copied by Luke and Mark. ============ 221 - Triple tradition, agreement between Matthew and Mark. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, and also occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Luke. On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Matthew, but not copied by Luke. On the FH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Matthew, but not copied by Luke, from either Mark or Matthew. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Luke, and then copied from Matthew by Mark. ============ 122 - Triple tradition, agreement between Mark and Luke. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, and also occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew. On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark and copied by Luke, but not copied by Matthew. On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then not copied by Matthew, but then copied by Luke from Mark. On the GH these are words authored by Luke while editing Matthew, and then copied by Mark. ============== 121 - Triple tradition, unique Mark. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew, and also not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Luke. On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, but not copied by Matthew, and not copied by Luke. On the FH these are words authored by Mark, but then not copied by Matthew or Luke. On the GH these are words authored by Mark while editing Matthew and Luke. ============= 212 - Triple tradition - minor agreements. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew, and also occurring in a corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark. On the 2SH these words are authored by both Matthew and Luke independently, while editing Mark. On the FH these words are authored by Matthew, and may have been copied by Luke, generated indirectly by Luke's knowledge of Matthew, or generated essentially independently by Luke. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then copied by Luke, but then not copied by Mark, from either Matthew or Luke. ============= 211 - Triple tradition - unique Matthew. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew, but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark, and also not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Luke. On the 2SH these are words authored by Matthew while editing Mark. On the FH these are words authored by Matthew while editing Mark, and then not copied by Luke. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Luke or Mark. ============= 112 - Triple tradition - unique Luke. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Luke, but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark, and also not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew. On the 2SH these are words authored by Luke while editing Mark. On the FH these are words authored by Luke while editing Mark and Matthew. On the GH these are words authored by Luke while editing Matthew, and then not copied by Mark. ============= 022 - Mark/Luke tradition - double agreements. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark and also occurring in corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, and copied by Luke, where Matthew omitted the sentence or clause. On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then copied by Luke, where Matthew had omitted the sentence or clause, On the GH these are words authored by Luke, and then copied by Mark, where Matthew did not have the sentence or clause. ============= 021 - Mark/Luke tradition - unique Mark. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Luke, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, and not copied by Luke, where Matthew omitted the sentence or clause. On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then not copied by Luke, where Matthew had omitted the sentence or clause, On the GH these are words authored by Mark while editing Luke, where Matthew did not have the sentence or clause. ============= 012 - Mark/Luke tradition - unique Luke. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Luke but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Luke, while editing Mark, where Matthew omitted the sentence or clause. On the FH these are words authored by Luke, while editing Mark, where Matthew had omitted the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Luke, and then not copied by Mark, where Matthew did not have the sentence or clause. ============= 220 - Mark/Matthew tradition (mostly Bethesda section) - double agreements. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark and also occurring in corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, and copied by Matthew, where Luke has omitted the sentence or clause. On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then copied by Matthew, where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then copied by Mark, where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause. ============= 120 - Mark/Matthew tradition (mostly Bethesda section) - unique Mark. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, and not copied by Matthew, where Luke omitted the sentence or clause. On the FH these are words authored by Mark, and then not copied by Matthew, where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Mark while editing Matthew, where Luke had omitted the sentence or clause. ============= 210 - Mark/Matthew tradition (mostly Bethesda section) - unique Matthew. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Mark, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Matthew, while editing Mark, where Luke omitted the sentence or clause. On the FH these are words authored by Matthew, while editing Mark, where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Mark, where Luke had omitted the sentence or clause. ============= 020 - Sondergut Mark Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Mark, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, (and often not even a corresponding pericope), and there also is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, (and often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Mark, where both Matthew and Luke then omitted the sentence or clause. On the FH these are words authored by Mark, where both Matthew and Luke then omitted the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Mark, where neither Matthew nor Luke had the sentence or clause. ============= 202 - Matthew/Luke double tradition - double agreements. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew and also occurring in corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Q, and copied by both Matthew and Luke. On the FH these are words authored by Matthew, and then copied by Luke, where Mark did not have the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then copied by Luke, but where Mark then omitted the sentence or clause. ============= 201 - Matthew/Luke double tradition - unique Matthew. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Luke, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Q, and copied by Matthew but not copied by Luke, or these are words authored by Matthew while editing Q. On the FH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Luke, where Mark did not have the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, and then not copied by Luke, and where Mark then omitted the sentence or clause. ============= 102 - Matthew/Luke double tradition - unique Luke. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Luke but not occurring in corresponding parallel sentence(s) or clause(s) in Matthew, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark. (And often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Q, and copied by Luke but not copied by Matthew, or these are words authored by Luke while editing Q. On the FH these are words authored by Luke while editing Matthew, where Mark did not have the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Luke, while editing Matthew, and where Mark then omitted the sentence or clause. ============= 200 - Sondergut Matthew. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Matthew, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark, (and often not even a corresponding pericope), and there also is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Luke, (and often not even a corresponding per icope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Matthew, where Mark did not have the sentence or clause. On the FH these are words authored by Matthew, where Mark did not have the sentence or clause, and where Luke then omitted the sentence or clause. On the GH these are words authored by Matthew, where Luke and Mark then omitted the sentence or clause. ============= 002 - Sondergut Luke. Instances of words occurring in a sentence or clause in Luke, where there is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Mark, (and often not even a corresponding pericope), and there also is no corresponding parallel sentence or clause in Matthew, (and often not even a corresponding pericope.) On the 2SH these are words authored by Luke, where Mark did not have the sentence or clause . On the FH these are words authored by Luke, where Mark did not have the sentence or clause . On the GH these are words authored by Luke where Matthew did not have the sentence or clause and where then Mark then omits the sentence or clause. ============= Again, from the definitions it should be apparent that in each case, the first digit in the symbol represents Matthew, the second digit represents Mark, and the third digit represents Luke. Also, a "2" in any one of these positions indicates that the gospel contains an instance of the key word, in a specific sentence or clause. A "1" in any one of these positions indicated that the gospel contains a parallel sentence or clause, but does not contain an instance of the key word in that sentence or clause. A "0" in any one of these positions indicated that the gospel does not contain a parallel sentence or clause.

08-25-2003, 07:40 PM	#78
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: BTW, I doubt 012 has anything in it Dave: 340 words. The 0** categories and 212, are the smallest ones. Bernard: That means wherever Matthew dropped a non-Markan word in the TrTrad, the affected sentence (I assume, or more, or less!), or rather its words, would go into the 211 category Dave: no, just the specific word would go in 211. Next a number or statements and questions were based on the incorrect idea above. Bernard: I found the info that Matthew used 137 words not found anywhere else in the NT. Dave: Most of those are likely to be uncommon words, not used in the study. Only the most common words were studied. Bernard: How many words are in 112? Dave: 1710 Bernard: More, can you give the number of words in each category? counts 1493 1248 1710 207 992 531 1311 285 340 406 1097 983 829 641 1621 1332 1220 3842 5755 categoies 222 211 112 212 221 122 121 022 012 021 220 120 210 020 202 201 102 200 002 Also, scroll down to the bottom of the spreadsheet, the totals by column are there. Bernard: The list of all keywords (such as IDOU) which triggered MA's, their respective numbers and associated verses, or part of them (adding up to 207 words). http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics...-commented.xls Look in the column labeled 212, all the counts are there. For the specific verses, I'm afraid you'd have to buy or borrow the HHB synoptic concordance, there is too much data to type. Bernard: Dave wrote: Now, if we were trying to argue against the 2SH, in its basic form, we'd really want the answer to a differant question. "Are the MA's also in the style of Luke?" The study does not address that question directly. It finds no evidence Luke is related, but it does not prove it is not. Bernard: I do not see why the issue had not been addressed. Dave: It's harder to prove a negative. The study was designed to find positive relations. It's possible something like that could be done, but it would need a differant design. Bernard: Just a tiny flaw at the start (the butterfly effect), or the peculiar nature of the evidence, can drive some of your conclusions wild. Dave: True. I do take some comfort in the fact that in general, my results match other scholarship. After all, others have claimed the order is Mark, Matthew, Luke, and my study has said the same. Many claim Matthew and Luke both used Mark, and my study says the same. Bernard: I read your pages many times, but you do not provide enough data to follow you and check you out, step by step. Dave: It would be useful to me to know exactly at what point you get lost, in order to improve the pages. Bernard: Maybe my question is: are you sure it is not the case? Dave: I'm really sure about your question here, but I think your question is based on the incorrect assumption addressed earlier in this post. Bernard: I think your assumption might be the two gospelers were scribal compilers Dave: No, the study does not really assume much of anything about the authors. But, personally, I can see somebody was clearly creative.

08-25-2003, 07:58 PM	#79
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Dave, does the 5 IDOU's in the MA's count for 5 words out of the 207 words in the 212 category? I would understand if you would be precise & thorough with your examples. If I go through that first step, how many words are in each of your categories you listed? For the 212 category, can you provide more IDOU-like keywords with the related verses, clauses, sentences, whatever? Better, for the worse keywords/cases against the 2SH hypothesis. Or maybe the 5 IDOU's are the worse one? What is the keyword which generates the most MA's in 212? Best regards, Bernard

08-25-2003, 08:51 PM	#80
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Yuri, Here is a good example. PROSERXOMAI totals 1493 1261 1710 207 992 531 1311 285 340 406 1097 983 829 641 1621 1332 1220 3842 5755 25856 categories 222 211 112 212 221 122 121 022 012 021 220 120 210 020 202 201 102 200 002 PROSERXOMAI 1 13 0 4 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 0 8 0 13 4 58 percents 0.066979236 1.030927835 0 1.93236715 0.100806452 0 0.152555301 0 0.294117647 0 0.091157703 0 1.206272618 0 0 0.600600601 0 0.338365435 0.069504778 0.224319307 Mark uses it 5 times .06% Luke used it 10 times a slightly higher .08% Matthew uses it 51 times .4% In the triple traditon Matthew uses it 19 times, Luke 5, Mark4. Of the 5 times Luke uses it in the triple tradition 4 are exactly where Matthew has added it to Mark. Category 211 has a count of 13 - 1.03%, and 212 has a count of 4 - 1.93% So, if we look at the 4 occureces in triple-tradition-Mark, twice Matthew and Luke agreed on dropping it. And of the 4 added by Luke, they were all where Matthew had added them. So these MAs again look more like Matthew than Luke. Luke picked up, here and there, this word typical of Matthew. The word means "come to" Mark 4:38 and they woke him and said to him Matthew 8:25 and they went and woke him saying Luke 8:24 and they went and woke him saying Mark KAI EGEIROUSIN AUTON KAI LEGOUSIN AUTW Matthew KAI PROSELQONTES HGEIRAN AUTON LEGONTES Luke PROSELQONTES DE DIHGEIRAN AUTON LEGONTES This is folowed by "We are perishing" in Matthew and Luke, but "do you not care if we perish" in Mark.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.