Peter Kirby

Hey! This deserves publication. I strenuously object to restricting this info to a web page.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

quote:

"In addition to the minor agreements, the other piece of evidence that points to Luke using Matthew, is that Sondergut Matthew looks similar to the common Matthew/Luke text in "Q".

So material that must be Q on the 2SH, looks like stuff that appears only in Matthew. (Category 202 looks like 200)"

- What about "Matthew" liking so much Q material that he expanded on it?
- If they are some 700 minor agreements between GLuke & GMatthew against GMark, then "Luke" must have slept many nights with GMatthew under his/her pillow (if "Luke" knew about GMatthew)! But it is rather strange GLuke is not obvious about a prior knowledge of GMatthew and the two gospels have many conflicts between them.
- GentDave, do you have any idea about the nature of these 700 items? I am most interested. Would many be explained by the fact "Luke" & "Matthew" have good knowledge of Greek, contrary to "Mark"?

Best Regards, Bernard

GentDave

Peter Kirby wrote:
Hey! This deserves publication. I strenuously object to restricting this info to a web page.

Dave:
The problem is I work in the corporate world, and don't have easy access to a good library for adding footnotes and stuff. I'm also not formally trained in Theology, and am not good with the generally verbose style. I tend to be more scientific and terse.
(Plus I have 2 little ones at home now, taking up my time.)

And given that the math and the text are very different areas of study, there are not a lot of people that can assist.

GentDave

Bernard Muller wrote:
- What about "Matthew" liking so much Q material that he expanded on it?

From
http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/sayings.html

The results for category 200, are also important.

202-200 2E-06
201-200 2E-10

The 202-200 relationship should not be there on the 2SH, at least at first glance. On the 2SH, 200 is Matthew, and 202 is Q. But the 200-202 relationship is strong in spite of the fact that they cover different topics, and at least a large part of 200 is narrative. i.e. Matthew chapters 1 and 2. The only recourse I see for the 2SH is to say that 200 also contains significant amounts of Q material that Luke did not use. For example, there are cases where a “Q” phase is used multiple times in Matthew. This re-use by Matthew tends to draw 200 and 202 together. Mark Goodacre has pointed out that this phenomenon makes the style attributed to Q and the style attributed to Matthew similar. However, I think we would also have to speculate that other parts of 200 were also in Q, and that Luke did not use them even once, in order to account for the strong observed relationship.

Now I’d like to present the way the 3SH would view these relationships. On the 3SH 202 is mostly the saying source S, with a little Matthew mixed in. 102 is more than half Luke, and less than half S. 201 is less than half S and more than half Matthew. 200 is also some S and mostly Matthew.

Based on this we would not expect 102 to look much like the narrative categories of Luke, since there is a difference in genre, a difference in topic, and a difference in authorship for something like half of the material. 102 and 201 would show some symmetry around 202, since both are about half S, and share the same genre and topics. 200 would show a strong relationship to 201, since both are mostly Matthew, with some S. And finally, 200 and 202 would be related, but less strongly that 201-200, since 202 would be mostly S with some Matthew, and 200 would be mostly Matthew, with some S.

Thus, the 3SH most naturally explains the observed results, while the FH and 2SH can not be eliminated.

GentDave

Bernard Muller writes:

- If they are some 700 minor agreements between GLuke & GMatthew against GMark, then "Luke" must have slept many nights with GMatthew under his/her pillow (if "Luke" knew about GMatthew)! But it is rather strange GLuke is not obvious about a prior knowledge of GMatthew and the two gospels have many conflicts between them.
- GentDave, do you have any idea about the nature of these 700 items? I am most interested. Would many be explained by the fact "Luke" & "Matthew" have good knowledge of Greek, contrary to "Mark"?

Dave:

I tend to see Luke as liking some of the corrections to Mark's Greek that Matthew made, but not liking a lot of the content changes. Luke did not see Matthew as authoritative, in my view.

I'm familiar with the nature of the MAs, and many could be explained the way the 2SH suggests. However, the study suggests the MAs (cat. 212) are Matthian in style much more than Lukian, suggesting Luke borrowing from Matthew.

I also think the agreements of omission against Mark are too large to explain by completely independant action. I think there must have been a proto-Mark that they both used, or Luke knew Matthew's omissions and tended to agree.

Yuri Kuchinsky

[Replying to Dave]

DAVE: ... if the minor agreements, by themselves don't disprove the 2SH

YURI: Why do you think they don't disprove the 2SH?

DAVE: It is possible, maybe even probable, that the true solution is more complicated than the ones considered here.

YURI: That's for sure! So here we agree...

DAVE: So, in conclusion, based on this study and other more traditional forms of evidence, not presented here, I believe the 3SH, or some variation of it is most likely the correct solution.

YURI: Impossible.

DAVE: The study also provides almost as much support for the FH, and I do not believe the 2SH can be eliminated by this study.

YURI: Your three options, i.e. 2SH, 3SH, and FH, are the three Pink Elephants, neither of which has any connection with reality. So your study has determined that one of these Pink Elephants might be marginally preferable to others, while, nonetheless, the other two cannot be eliminated by your study.

More power to you!

Now, speaking about those Anti-Markan Agreements, in real terms, what they demonstrate is that the chances of 2SH being valid are something like 1 in 1,000,000. Now, your study has determined that these chances might actually be more like 1 in 1,000,100.

Again, more power to you!

And here's my own solution to the Synoptic Problem. NONE OF THESE GOSPELS IS THE EARLIEST! And this happens to explain ALL the evidence on the ground.

Best,

Yuri.

GentDave

I believe the 3SH outlines the general frame of what happened. I strongly suspect there were more complications, beyond the ability of the study to decern, however.

I also think the original gospel was highly similiar to Mark, although it may not have been Mark. The study provided additional evidence that Matthew and Luke both used something similiar to Mark, if not Mark itself.

I am in general agreement with you about the minor agreements. But without hard numbers, I prefer to understate the case. I think major proponents of the 2SH would agree that the real solution is more complex, but feel they have the basic outline.

So, what would lead you to believe that the 3SH is not at least approximately correct?

Toto

Dave - when I try to download your spreadsheet, it asks for a password.

GentDave

Toto: when I try to download your spreadsheet, it asks for a password.

Dave: That's odd. I tried it and it didn't ask fo anything.
Did anyone else have a problem?

This should be the link

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

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dave,

Sure, it was similar to Mk in so far as it was probably very short, and lacked much in the way of sayings materials.

Quote:

So, what would lead you to believe that the 3SH is not at least approximately correct?

IMO, there are some basic problems that plague both the FH and the 3SH. Among the biggest ones are,

-- An unquestioning acceptance of the canonical Markan priority.

-- Both FH and 3SH fail to account for an awful lot of material in Lk that is completely original, i.e. not found in either Mt or Mk.

-- Both tend to ignore plenty of material in Lk that appears to be much earlier vis-a-vis both Mt and Mk.

This early Lukan material is the key to understanding the early history of the gospels IMO. In fact, out of the 3 Synoptics, Luke seems to have more early material than any of the others!

I think it's about time that I gathered together in one article some of the evidence that I have for the Lukan priority. There's really quite a lot. So I will post this here pretty soon, and will also put it up on my webpage.

Cheers,

Yuri.