GentDave

Yuri,

I can't really comment much on other's work.

The study shows 102 just less that significantly related to 202.
201 is just more than significantly related to 202.
200 is significantly related to 202.
201 is very significantly related to 200.
102 is not significantly related to Luke's other categories.

Now how we interpret all that would depend on what hypothesis we are evaluating. What I would propose is that Luke may be closer on the true *sayings*. However, the section commonly called "Q", also contains things that originate in Matthew and were copied by Luke, and were not in "Q". On these things Luke copies Matthew, (Or proto-Matthew), so Matthew is more original.

GentDave

Bernard:

I want to add up here, my impression is Luke did some "smooth" rewriting of Q material (but without changing the meaning), when Matthew was a lot more "brutal" on the same material. If it is true, it is bound to make Q look more Matthean than Lukan!
That would be quite unfair: one writer (Matt) modifies Q more than the other one (Luke), so Matt is credited a hand on Q (according to your study), and the other one, Luke, is accused to change Q a significant lot.
So the consequence is the complete reverse of the initial hypothesis! Isn't it ironic!
Let's look at that in a different way: I have a rare text and I modify it, add up on it, with my own style & syntax. Another also uses the same rare text, but changes nothing.
No other version of this text is known. The initial text got lost.
What would be the conclusion?
According to your computer program (and with the (unproven) assumption the other guy HAD to work from the rewrite of the rare text, and NOT the initial text), the other guy is the corrupter!

Dave:

O.K. lets work with that. We also need to take into account that we have other samples of Luke's and Matthew's writting from the non-Q (triple-tradition and sondergut) sections.

Let's say Q is heavily modified by Matthew, and lightly modified by Luke. What would we find?

Category 202 will be the style of Q, this is where Matthew and Luke agree.

Category 102 will also be the style of Q. It will mostly reflect Luke's retaining the original Q, where Matthew made changes.

Category 201 will be the style of Matthew. Since this reflects Matthew's changes to Q.

So:
1) 202 and 102 should be related.
2) 201 and 202 should not be related.
3) 201 should be related to Matthew.
4) 102 should not be related to Luke.

#4 is true.
#3 is maybe as true as can be expected.
#2 is not true.
#1 is not true.

You can make this fit with a version of the 2SH, but it more naturally fits with the 3SH. Some of "Q" is really the saying source, and some of "Q" is rellay stuff Luke grabed from Matthew.

Bernard Muller

OK, let me massage that, but I want to keep your thoughts and study results 100%. The reason I am spelling everything is I want no misunderstandings.

#4: About "Luke's
(allegedly, because we do not know of original Q. Please note my correction is at my disadvantage)
retaining the original Q, where Matthew made changes.". Your study shows most occurrences of that (102) are related to Luke's style.
If it is so, did you consider Luke made quite a few extrapolations, extensions on Q passages to his/her liking (as the ones about giving or cancelling debts)? I noted that long ago. And Luke had reason to adopt the same Q style to make the Lukan additions look original. More so if Luke (and likely his/her community), as generally agreed, had more respect for Q than for GMark (and the reverse for Matthew). Furthermore, they are a lot more insertions in Q by Matthew than by Luke, which would confirm the point. You do not insert in a text you (or your community) highly consider and know.

#3: You seem to be leaning towards the change in Q here would be according to Matthew's style. Of course, that's OK by me.

#2: 202 & 201 are not related. That means Q passages would have GMatt & GLuke agreeing, but these passages are different of the ones agreeing with Luke's style.

#1: 202 & 102 are not related. That means Q passages would have GMatt & GLuke agreeing, but these passages are different of the ones agreeing with Matthew's style.

It seems to me we cannot draw any conclusion on #1 & #2, which neutralize each other.

For #4, I also agree that Luke might have rewritten Q passages in his/her style.

So in conclusion, I see Q passages (202) being faithfully transcribed by both Matthew & Luke.
I see other passages (102) either rewritten by Luke or in the style of Luke because of the Lukan additions on the same themes: "reverse effect".
I see still other passages (201) rewritten by Matthew (or in the style of Matthew because of the Matthean additions using the same expressions: "reverse effect").
The only thing tipping the balance so slightly is your comment for #3 "is maybe as true as can be expected", which I take as not as true as for #4.

Maybe I missed something, and I hope I did not misrepresent you, but I do not see any clear evidence for whatsoever.
Actually, and taking the "reverse effect" out of consideration, this is what could be expected: Each gospeler either being faithful or making changes on Q material in their own style.
Who made the most changes? We would have to assess the "reverse effect" first for both and look at the details & at the "coloring" of both gospelers.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

I notice Mark use IDOU in ten verses, starting at 1:2.
Luke used IDOU 55 times, Matthew 59 times (or 55/59 verses)
Luke used IDOU 9 times in Chapt. 1 & 2, which have no equivalent in GMark or GMatthew.
So right from there, I say Luke could have picked up IDOU from GMark; more, Luke seemed to be fond of IDOU!

5 MA's on IDOU? Wouldn't that be a coincidence?
With 45 five IDOU left in his/her bag, Luke was bound to put some IDOU where Matthew put them.

More, these IDOU's were put in place where the author (Luke or Matthew) wanted to raise attention, that's why they would use "BEHOLD!". So Luke & Matthew, by judgment call, picked up five common spots separately for IDOU's (but Luke missed the other Matthew's spots (13 times!)).

Also to be considered: Luke covers only 50% of GMark, so we have 15 IDOU's when Mark has ten for the whole gospel. Luke is using some 3 times more IDOU's (density wise) on Markan material than Mark's. And with Matthew's using even more IDOU's on the triple tradition, that would increase the chance of coincidence.
But why a perfectly Greek literate person would look for pointers from another text, on such words like IDOU and DE?

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Now you are saying 200 and 202 are strongly resembling each other in style.
The relation can be explained by Q & GMatthew made in the same city, by the same group of people.
AND
Matthew using liberally expressions found in Q (as noted by Mark Goodacre & myself) creating the reverse effect.

"However, if 200 (sondergut Matthew) contains parts of Q that Luke skiped, then the 2SH can explain the relation between 200 and 202"

Why? If Q Mt-Lk agreements and sondergut GMatthew are similar, why a transfer of some of sondergut GMatthew to Q would be required?
Why adding more of the same thing to the same would change anything?


Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

========
1) 202 and 102 should be related.
2) 201 and 202 should not be related.
3) 201 should be related to Matthew.
4) 102 should not be related to Luke.

#4 is true.
#3 is maybe as true as can be expected.
#2 is not true.
#1 is not true.
==========

Let me rephrase to eliminate double negatives.
202 and 102 are not significantly related.
201 and 202 are significantly related.
201 is significantly related to sondergut Matthew (200)
102 is not related to Luke.

GentDave

Bernard:

Why? If Q Mt-Lk agreements and sondergut GMatthew are similar, why a transfer of some of sondergut GMatthew to Q would be required?
Why adding more of the same thing to the same would change anything?


Dave:

To make the 2SH work well with the results, I would suppose that what we call "sondergut Matthew (200)" contains some things written by Matthew, and some things written by author-Q that Matthew used and Luke did not. 202 would be all author-Q.

Since 202 was all Q, and 200 was partly Q, they might show some relation.

On the other hand, if 200 was only written by Matthew, I think it is less likely that it would be related to 202.

GentDave

Bernard:

I notice Mark use IDOU in ten verses, starting at 1:2.
Luke used IDOU 55 times, Matthew 59 times (or 55/59 verses)
Luke used IDOU 9 times in Chapt. 1 & 2, which have no equivalent in GMark or GMatthew.
So right from there, I say Luke could have picked up IDOU from GMark; more, Luke seemed to be fond of IDOU!

Dave:
I focused only on the triple tradition. The statistics reffer to that material. Focusing on only the triple tradition keeps the size of the text the same in all 3 gospels. Since Luke is larger than Mark, it is harder to compare apples to apples if we look at all occurances. We could do that but its harder to just eyeball. In the triple tradition Mark uses it 4 times. Matthew 27 Luke 13. So, no, Luke is not oppsed to the word.

Bernard:

5 MA's on IDOU? Wouldn't that be a coincidence?
With 45 five IDOU left in his/her bag, Luke was bound to put some IDOU where Matthew put them.

Dave:

No. It is not at all likely that 1/3 of Luke's additions would end up in the same places, when there are probably 100s of places they could have ended up.

But what the study does is calculate some real probabilites, across many words. The study concludes that the probability of the relation between 211 and 212 being only coincidence is about 5*10^-7 ( .0000005).

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.

Bernard Muller

I am abandoning on that one and others. I do not have any certitude of what you are trying to say. Did it occur to you that not everybody is a computer analyst?

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.

So for these 5 IDOU's, which fit in only 207 words (another surprise!), Luke had to know about GMatthew!
So category 212 is barely existing but you make all kind of conclusion from it, as being related to sondergut Matthew. How could it be used as a reference? I suppose if the 5 IDOU's were not there, a big chunk of tiny 202 would move somewhere else.

Computer study like that can go beserk in a nanosecond, when you do not associate it with the human element: such as Luke and Matthew placing their own IDOU's into appropriate special host locations, relatively few in number, in order to enliven their narration OR the reverse effect Mark & I talked to you about.
Another problem is, if a result is generated wrong, and use to compute other results, due to the cascading effect, all the rest will be erroneous. When I see your 207 words of 202, I am very concerned, more so because a lot depends on 202.

Best regards, Bernard