andrewcriddle

IMO the main problem for the simple form of the Farrer Theory is the lack of any significant association between 102 and any of 112 012 and 002.

Whatever accounts for the difference between Q in Matthew and Q in Luke it does not seem to be Lukan redactional style.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

That's right, so maybe supporters of the Farrer Theory needn't be so worried after all.

On the other hand, I'm not sure whether his 95% confidence level is appropriate; it may be too strict. That's one of the things that would have to be looked at in double-checking the analysis.

Stephen Carlson

Peter Kirby

Could Dave Gentile's method be applied to another literature?

best,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

The interpretation of the lack of a significant association between 102 and 112 (say) depends on the null hypothesis that Gentile used. To the extent I can puzzle it out, his null hypothesis is that the vocabulary of the 112 set is no different of a predictor for the vocabulary of the 102 set than the entire synoptic vocabulary is a predictor of 102's vocabulary. (I don't know if Gentile strips out the 102 vocab from the entire synoptic vocabulary set--that could be important.)

Thus, failure to disprove this null hypothesis for 102 and 112 need not imply a lack of an association between them. It could just mean that Luke's replacement vocabulary of his redaction of the double tradition differs from that of his redaction of triple tradition.

It seems to me that all Gentile's null hypothesis can do is tell us which portions of the synoptic must have a common origin, but it wasn't designed to test which parts must not have a common origin.

Here's how Gentile presented the results:

Luke group: 012, 002, 112
Matthew group: 212, 211, 210
Mark group: 222,221,220,122,022*,121,020,021,120
Sayings group 1: 200, 201, 202
Sayings group 2: 102

The inclusion of a separate sayings group 2 (102) may therefore be spurious.

How well do the major synoptic theories account for the hypotheses of common origin that Gentile found?

• For the 2ST, the common origin of the Luke group is Lukan redaction of Mark and Sondergut; for the Matthew group, it is Matthean redaction of Mark; for Markan group, it is Markan priority; and for sayings group 1 it is Matthean redaction of Sondergut and Q. The presence of Matthean redaction in Luke, however, contradicts the 2ST's premise that Matthew and Luke are independent.
  
• For the Farrer Theory, the common origin of the Luke group is Lukan redaction of Mark and Sondergut; for the Matthew group, it is Matthean redaction of Mark; for Markan group, it is Markan priority; and for sayings group 1 it is Matthean redaction of Sondergut. The presence of Matthean redaction in Luke is predicted by the Farrer Theory.
  
• For the Neo-Griesbach theory, the common origin of the Luke group is Lukan redaction of Matthew and Sondergut; for the Matthew group, it is Matthean priority; for Markan group, it is an artifact of Mark's conflation; and for sayings group 1 it is Matthean priority. It is virtually impossible to imagine a realistic conflationary procedure that could account for the common origin of the Mark group.
  
• For the Augustinian theory, the common origin of the Luke group is Lukan redaction of Mark and Sondergut; for the Matthew group, it is Matthean priority; for Markan group, it is Markan redaction of Matthew and Sondergut; and for sayings group 1 it is Matthean priority. The presence of Markan redaction in Luke is predicted by the Augustinian Theory.
  
• For the Three Source theory (3ST), the common origin of the Luke group is Lukan redaction of Mark and Sondergut; for the Matthew group, it is Matthean redaction of Mark; for Markan group, it is Markan priority; and for sayings group 1 it is Matthean redaction of Sondergut and Q. The presence of Matthean redaction in Luke is predicted by the 3ST.
  

Here, the Two-Source and Neo-Griesbach theories are in the most trouble from Gentile's results. If the analysis could also tell us whether the groups are distinct (rather than merely failed to be proven indistinct), we might be about to further narrow the viable solutions.

Stephen Carlson

S.C.Carlson

Yes. It is somewhat different from other methods used in authorship attribution studies, so it would be interesting to see it does better or worse. The other wrinkle, however, is that there is relatively little work on authorship attribution involving literary interdependence among them.

Stephen Carlson

S.C.Carlson

Boy that was an easy mistake to make. Gentile's null hypothesis does not support that part of the "results."

Peter Kirby

Can you think of some examples of literature that would amenable to this kind of study?

I'm trying to think of some texts where you could do this. So far, what has come to mind is the shorter and longer Ignatius. The third recension is in Syriac, however, so one wouldn't have three documents to play with.

Thinking about this has me realizing the distinctiveness of the Synoptics as a grouping of literature.

best,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

It's hard to come with ancient analogies for the synoptic problem. Even though there probably was a fair amount of literary interdependence among ancient historiographers, the earlier or smaller versions tended to disappear, leaving only fragments. It is only by a quirk of dogma (the fourfold gospel canon) that Mark and perhaps even Luke survived at all to set to up the problem.

Perhaps one could look at 1,2 Kings // 1,2 Chronicles // Josephus, but I think that Josephus tends to just ignore 1,2 Chron. Come to think of it, there have been a lot of retellings of the OT narrative (Pseudo-Philo), so maybe there's synoptic problem analog lurking somewhere after all, only waiting to be discovered.

Stephen Carlson

andrewcriddle

One case that may possibly be an analogue is the rabbinic writings. The relations of the Mishnah Tosefta Jerusalem Talmud and Babylonian Talmud etc have a limited resemblance to the synoptic problem.

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

Is there any analogy in modernity, where the preservation of published work is a fetish?

best,
Peter Kirby