GentDave

Bernard:

Dave, does the 5 IDOU's in the MA's count for 5 words out of the 207 words in the 212 category?

Dave:

Yes. IDOU counts for 5 of the 207. Of the 800 vocabulary items many have a count of 0 or 1 in the category 212.

Bernard:

If I go through that first step, how many words are in each of your categories you listed?

Dave:

Not sure I understnd the question. Is this the information?

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

Bernard:

For the 212 category, can you provide more IDOU-like keywords with the related verses, clauses, sentences, whatever?

Dave: Did one. I'll get another, on another night.

Bernard:
What is the keyword which generates the most MA's in 212?

Dave: EIPON - 27 of them. This is by far the most for any vocabulary item.

This word actually works reasonably well with the 2SH. Generally Mark is speaking in a differant voice/tense. So one decision on the part of Matthew and Luke to use a differant voice, could generate a lot of these agreements. This is not a vocabulary item that would have contributed much of anything to my study, of the MAs however. All the categories reasonably reflect the frequency in the gospels on the whole. So, since the word is not particularly associated with anyone's style, it's just a neutral item in the study.

Bernard Muller

Dave, I do not have the book in question and excel on my computer, so I would have to stop soon on that.
However these results are of great values.
I rearranged:

C222 C211 C112 C212 C221 C122 C121 C022 C012 C021
1493 1248 1710 0207 0992 0531 1311 0285 0340 0406

C220 C120 C210 C020 C202 C201 C102 C200 C002
1097 0983 0829 0641 1621 1332 1220 3842 5755

What strike me is the results for 201 & 102: so close!
Without looking at relations, from that I cannot see a clear pattern: both authors seem to have deviated almost equally on Q. And 202 has 1621 words, big enough to provide a solid middle ground.

It is obvious Luke deviated more on TrTrad than Matthew, looking at 211 & 112, and also 221 & 122

I gather that, because the MA's (and 202) are happening more on Matthean key words (that is words more used by Matthew than Luke, in appropriate various categories), the MA's (and 202) would be "Matthean".
But if Luke deviated more from GMark in style than Matthew ever did (which is certain according to 211,112,221&122), with his/her use of keywords (including frequency), that would be expected.
I also wonder if Matthew made more use of GMark, the additionnal "Markan" keywords becoming Matthew's would give GMatthew a bigger/stronger arsenal of "Markan" keywords than for GLuke.
As far as explaining the 202 Matthean flavor, it might be because Matthew used expressions from Q with gusto, more so than Luke.

What would trouble me more is the so-called coincidences in 212, a much bigger argument for me against the 2SH. Can they be explained by concordance of thoughts by the two authors, without Luke having to look at GMatthew or subset?
I think I will not know that for myself soon, except if you send me the info I (and Yuri too) requested. At last, I would have a better appraisal.

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

Bernard:

I gather that, because the MA's (and 202) are happening more on Matthean key words (that is words more used by Matthew than Luke, in appropriate various categories), the MA's (and 202) would be "Matthean".
But if Luke deviated more from GMark in style than Matthew ever did (which is certain according to 211,112,221&122), with his/her use of keywords (including frequency), that would be expected.

Dave:

It seems like you are trying to base the MAs looking like Matthew, on Matthew looking like Mark.
212 looks like 211 and 210, Matthian caategories.
212 does not look like Markian categories like 121 or 020, so Mark would not seem to have much to do with it.

Barnard:
As far as explaining the 202 Matthean flavor, it might be because Matthew used expressions from Q with gusto, more so than Luke.

Dave: That may indeed contribute to the explination. I don't think it fully explains it, but this does need to be taken into account. It's part of the reason I say the study does not completely eliminate the 2SH.

Bernard:

What would trouble me more is the so-called coincidences in 212, a much bigger argument for me against the 2SH. Can they be explained by concordance of thoughts by the two authors, without Luke having to look at GMatthew or subset?

Dave: Well, I don't think they can. But there are multiple possible ways they could be explained, IMO.

Bernard:

I think I will not know that for myself soon, except if you send me the info I (and Yuri too) requested. At last, I would have a better appraisal.

Dave:

I posted one word. Is there something else specific you wanted. Getting Excel would help greatly.

Dave

Bernard Muller

Thank you Dave for your patience:
Dave wrote:
It seems like you are trying to base the MAs looking like Matthew, on Matthew looking like Mark.
212 looks like 211 and 210, Matthian categories.
212 does not look like Markian categories like 121 or 020, so Mark would not seem to have much to do with it.

Yes Dave, I did not express myself well. What I meant is that Matthean style would be like super-Markian style.
According to two examples provided (IDOU & PROSERXOMAI) my conclusion would be:
a) The key words of the MA's appear in GMark.
b) For whatever reasons, Matthew makes a lot of use of these key words.
c) For whatever reasons, Luke makes more use of these keywords than Mark, but less than Matthew.
d) Consequently the MA's occurring on these key words would look Matthean.

Additionally, I would like to know if the fact that the ratio Markian/sondergut is much higher in GMatthew than GLuke would influence the ratio Matthean flavor/Lukan flavor, more so because the sondergut Luke has a lot of parables and sayings not much in the style of GMark.

My guess from the above is that GLuke has less keywords with high "strength" (because the overall "strength" would be more evenly distributed) relative to GMatthew. Did you observe that?

You mention the neutral case about the many EIPON's.
What would be the ratio Matthean flavor/Lukan flavor for the MA's, approximatly? Taking out the neutral cases.

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

Bernard: Yes Dave, I did not express myself well. What I meant is that Matthean style would be like super-Markian style.
According to two examples provided (IDOU & PROSERXOMAI) my conclusion would be:
a) The key words of the MA's appear in GMark.
b) For whatever reasons, Matthew makes a lot of use of these key words.
c) For whatever reasons, Luke makes more use of these keywords than Mark, but less than Matthew.
d) Consequently the MA's occurring on these key words would look Matthean.

Dave:
What you say in a,b,c is observed, but you leave out that word is also of unusually high frequency in the MAs.

Let's try this differently. What the study finds is that if a word is of exceptionally high frequency in Matthew, it is more likely to be of exceptionally high frequency in the MAs. Conversely, if the word is of unusually low frequency in Matthew it is more likely to be of low frequency in the MAs (probably absent).

No such relationship to Mark is observed. There is no positive relation between the frequency of a word in Mark, and in the MAs. The same is true of Luke.

Bernard:

Additionally, I would like to know if the fact that the ratio Markian/sondergut is much higher in GMatthew than GLuke would influence the ratio Matthean flavor/Lukan flavor, more so because the sondergut Luke has a lot of parables and sayings not much in the style of GMark.

Dave: Not quite sure of the question here. But, remember the sondergut sections are their own categories. 002 is all of sondergut Luke. 200 is all of sondergut Matthew. The minor agreements look like 211, the additions to the triple tradition, by Matthew. So, the sondergut sections should not have any impact on this.

Bernard:

My guess from the above is that GLuke has less keywords with high "strength" (because the overall "strength" would be more evenly distributed) relative to GMatthew. Did you observe that?

Dave:

There are words that are particular to Luke. But, also, an extreamly low concentration of a word can be a style marker.

Bernard:

You mention the neutral case about the many EIPON's.
What would be the ratio Matthean flavor/Lukan flavor for the MA's, approximatly? Taking out the neutral cases.

Dave: If you took out only things that were completely neutral, the result would not change. But many words lean slightly this way or that.

Bernard Muller

Bernard: You mention the neutral case about the many EIPON's.
What would be the ratio Matthean flavor/Lukan flavor for the MA's, approximatly? Taking out the neutral cases.

Dave: If you took out only things that were completely neutral, the result would not change. But many words lean slightly this way or that.

OK, let's remove the neutral bit.
My question is still: What would be the ratio Matthean flavor/Lukan flavor for the MA's, approximatly?

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

Bernard,

I don't know exactly what the "ratio of flavor would be".
I do know that the study finds category 212 has no relation to Luke, and something like a 10^-8 probability that Matthew is related to the MAs only by chance.

If you took out only neutral items that result would not change.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks for this info, Dave.

Thus, for the word PROSERXOMAI, we seem to have 6 AMAs altogether in the triple tradition (4 positive and 2 negative), where both Mt and Lk happen to agree against Mk.

This is what I've found so far.

The 4 positive AMAs:

Lk 8:24/Mt 8:25/Mk 4:38
Lk 8:44/Mt 9:20/Mk 5:27
Lk 20:27/Mt 22:23/Mk 12:18
Lk 23:52/Mt 27:58/Mk 15:43

The 2 negative AMAs:

Lk 4:39/Mt 8:14/Mk 1:31
Lk 10:25/Mt 22:35/Mk 12:28

Is this right?

Quote:

So these MAs again look more like Matthew than Luke. Luke picked up, here and there, this word typical of Matthew.

But when I looked up these same passages in the Old Syriac gospels, it turns out that 3 out of the 6 aren't even there in the OS gospels! (The Syriac textual tradition only has 2 positive and 1 negative AMAs in the 6 passages above.)

So the whole thing looks really strange. By the looks of it, the 3 AMAs that aren't there in the OS gospels may have been added by some late Greek editors. (Of course, in my view, OS gospels are more original than their Greek counterparts.)

So if these 3 AMAs were indeed added later by Greek editors, then it may well be the case that they were indeed Matthean editors, just like your study suggests.

Later, I can provide a detailed breakdown of the comparisons that I did. Any comments so far?

Yuri.

Bernard Muller

Dave:
What you say in a,b,c is observed, but you leave out that word is also of unusually high frequency in the MAs.

Let's try this differently. What the study finds is that if a word is of exceptionally high frequency in Matthew, it is more likely to be of exceptionally high frequency in the MAs.

Ok, that means essentially that the MA's occurs on relatively few distinct "vocabulary items", that is one sample of each MA's words with the same spelling.
One "vocabulary item" = one IDOU
IDOU words in the MA's = 5

How many distinct Voc. Items we have in 212? I would say around 40, according to the examples I saw.
I can see that as a good argument for the deutero-Mark, with these 40 or so Voc. Items, multiplied in words in the text, above what shows in the original GMark, would generate MA's words.
Or on the flip side, for whatever reasons, both Matthew & Luke decided separately to use these 40 or so distinct vocabulary items, to great number of words, above what shows in GMark, therefore creating the condition for MA's to appear. And for whatever reasons, most of the time, Matthew upstaged Luke in that regards.

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

Dave:

There are 109 distinct vocabulary items that appear in category 212, and the other 700 or so items that do not appear in 212, are not always without significance. If for example a word were very common in Luke, and not in Matthew, and it did not appear in the MAs, this has significance.

Bernard:

I can see that as a good argument for the deutero-Mark, with these 40 or so Voc. Items, multiplied in words in the text, above what shows in the original GMark, would generate MA's words.

Dave: Then the Mas sould look like Mark. They don't.

Bernard:

Or on the flip side, for whatever reasons, both Matthew & Luke decided separately to use these 40 or so distinct vocabulary items, to great number of words, above what shows in GMark, therefore creating the condition for MA's to appear. And for whatever reasons, most of the time, Matthew upstaged Luke in that regards.

Dave: But Luke added lots to Mark, more than Matthew. But if we isolate the few times he argees with Matthew against Mark, Luke has imitated Matthew style, whereas normally, he does not.

The same can not be said in reverse. If we look at the MAs in Matthew, there is nothing special about them. They are in Matthew's style, like the rest of MAtthew. They do not suddenly imitate Luke.