Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GentDave · 08-22-2003, 07:09 AM

Bernard:

Why Luke, very fluent in Greek, would look at GMatthew for his/her redaction, and hardly nothing else? I cannot understand that at all.
And I would not assume that most of Q had been around as long as you think. That might affect your thinking and your interpretation.
Inspiration? To change KAI to DE? Let's be reasonable.

Dave:

I think Luke as he wrote each bit, would have probably looked at all of his sources, and then procede to put it in his own words.
That is, the procedure I see for each pericope is:
1) Review Mark, Matthew, Q, and any other source.
2) Write the section in Luke's words, using Mark as the outline.
A result that follows Mark with a tad of Matthew here and there does not seem unreasonable.

However, that's a judgement call. If it seems unreasonable to you, there is not much I can do about that.

What I meant by "inspiration", is that Luke may have been satisfied with Mark and Q, but then Matthew shows up. Luke thinks that the idea of producing one document using both Mark and Q, in more elegent language, is a good idea, but he just does not like the way Matthew has gone about it.

GentDave · 08-22-2003, 07:23 AM

Bernard:
OK, my apology. The Markan overlaps are pieces of rewritten Markan material either appearing on their own in both GMatthew and GLuke, or as insertion in "Q" blocks such as JB's baptism or Jesus & Beelzebub. That's my definition & hopefully the right one, but I can be corrected.
But wait a minute: Are we talking about the pieces as they appear in GMark, or as they appear in Q? Because the redaction is quite different.

Dave:

It sounds like we are talking about the same thing. The Beelzebub bit is the archtype for me. On the 2SH one would have to say Mark used Q, or Q used Mark, or they both used a common source.

On the 3SH or FH Luke is following Matthew here, who followed Mark.

Personally, this looks to me like the whole thing is more complicated. Using my proto-Mark and proto-Matthew idea. I'd say proto-Mark did not have it. A saying or two of it are in Q. It appears first in near its current form in proto-Matthew. Luke and current Mark are both dependent on that prto-Matthew version.

But that's mostly speculation.

GentDave · 08-22-2003, 07:31 AM

Bernard:
Of course, if the overlaps were fabricated from the parallel in GMark, and put in Q, and from there in GMatthew & GLuke, then we would have agreement between GMatthew & GLuke against GMark!!!
And with the Q overlaps being from the same milieu as Matthew, there is a better chance these overlaps to be closer of GMatthew than GLuke.
Why bring 3SH for that? With all the problems it involves!
Because my front door is partially open, that's no reason to drive a truck through it.
Because I need sugar, that's no reason to bring the whole grocery store in my kitchen.
We have to be pragmatic, before going into absurdities.
How many overlaps do we have? Maybe twenty?
Dave, do you have a number for those?
Can you give a list?

Dave:
Unfortunately the data in the HHB is not broken up into a "overlap" category. That is the biggest problem I have with the data. Questions I have:
Does Mark in the overlap look like Mark other places?
Does Q in the overlap look like Q other places?
How do we tell an overlap from an MA?

There are a limited number of these, so I don't think they have a large impact on everything else, but I really would have liked a seperate treatment.

So the study really can't comment on the "overlap" specificly, it can comment on the MA's.

GentDave · 08-22-2003, 08:15 AM

Bernard:

I would love to go over those "occasional turn of phrase picked up from Matthew"
Can you specify when & where & how they occur?
How many we are talking about?
I am anxious to know how you define 'overlap'.

Dave:

I don't have counts. But we could try an example, I suppose.
I just fliped to a random page.

Mark 2:3
And they came bringing to him a paralytic.
Matthew 9:2
And behold, they brought to him a paralytic.
Luke 5:18
And behold, men were bringing on a bed, a man who was paralyzed.

Mark:
KAI ERCONTAI FERONTES PROS AUTON PARALUTIKON
Matthew:
KAI IDOU PROSEFERON AUTW PARALUTIKON
Luke:
KAI IDOU ANDRES FERONTES EPI KLINHS ANQRWPON OS HN PARALELUMENOS

Luke picks up IDOU, behold, from Matthew.

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

222 211 112 212 221 122 121

IDOU 2 18 6 5 2 0 0

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

Category 211 has a count of 18. Matthew likes adding this word to Mark's text. Matthew never ommits it if Mark has it. (122=0, 121=0)

The MA's (212) have a count of 5. Luke picks up some of Matthew's additions of "behold". Of the 13 times Luke uses the word in the triple tradition, 5 of them are exactly where Matthew added the word.

GentDave · 08-22-2003, 08:20 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave wrote:
Another way of putting it is that sondergut Matthew contains elements of Q that Luke did not use. (In this case just extra copies of things Luke did use). That could be all that is going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard:

This is not another way of putting it!
This is an endorsement of 3SH, which you do by assuming sondurgut Matthew contains part of Q not used by Luke. Where is the evidence for that?

Dave:

category 200 (sondergut Matthew) and 202 (Q Mt-Lk agreements) are strongly related. On the simple 2SH, they should not be. However, if 200 (sondergut Matthew) contains parts of Q that Luke skiped, then the 2SH can explain the relation between 200 and 202.

GentDave · 08-22-2003, 08:26 AM

Bernard:

"does not completely eliminate the 2SH".
Nothing I saw so far would do that:
We know now why Q would look Matthean, don't we?
And many of the MA's apparently comes from the Mark-Q overlaps. But if those overlaps were fabricated/modified from GMark, then of course they would generate all kinds of MA's!

Dave:

I don't claim the study can prove Luke used Matthew. I do think it provides some additional evidence in that direction, however. The 200-202 relation is strong. The MAs studyed are not mostly from the overlap. In fact, to be clasified as "MA", the HHB authors had to decide that the item was an MA and not an overlap. The size of the agreement was the primary criteria, as far as I can tell.

Bernard Muller · 08-22-2003, 10:33 AM

From BERNARD:
First, I want to thank you Dave for answering all my posts, more so when I feel I am given the silent treatment from others on this list.

Quote:

DAVE wrote:
Sondergut Luke: 5755
The number of words of triple agreement: 1493
The number of words in the MAs: 207
Note: This involves judgement, what is an MA and what is an overlap?
Matthew-Mark agreement against Luke: 992
Luke-Mark agreement against Matthew: 531

Correct me if I am wrong Dave, but I am under the impression Matthew rewrote about half of his Markan material, and produce the other half word by word. However Luke rewrote all (or almost all) his/her Markan material. If it is the case, that would explain why we have more agreements Matt-Mark against Luke than Luke-Mark against Matthew.

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!

I also notice the relative small number of MA's. Would that number include the DE replacing the KAI of GMark?

I'll have to study your next replies, and make some research on my own, because of the specifics you brought (I love specifics!).

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky · 08-22-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GentDave
:

Let me just add some totals from the study, that might be of intrest. The total of all the words in all the categories in the study is: 25,843
Sondergut Luke: 5755
The number of words of triple agreement: 1493
The number of words in the MAs: 207
Note: This involves judgement, what is an MA and what is an overlap?

Dave,

So, according to the HHB Synoptic Concordance, the number of the Anti-Markan Agreements (AMAs) is only 207?

But that's ridiculous! Even F. Neirynck, a hard core 2SH stalwart that he is, listed over 750 of them in his 1974 study, [Leuven University Press, 1974]! And the real number is around 1000...

Of course we also have to consider tons of _negative_ AMAs, as well, i.e. all those places where Mt and Lk both happen to miraculously "delete" the very same Markan words and phrases in unison.

So I conclude that the HHB Concordance is flawed right from the start, and thus it cannot provide an accurate picture of the Synoptic relationships.

Also, contrary to what you said, it's not true that the majority of the AMAs are just KAI => DE cases.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 08-22-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GentDave
Yuri writes:

"And the Q scholars have demonstrated in many detailed studies that, for the *majority* of the text that Matthew and Luke have in common outside of Mark, Luke is more original."

Dave:

I don't think that is the case.

Sure it is the case!

Quote:

Luke's order is generally supposed to be more original, but not necessarily his wording.

Luke's order is one thing (and also very significant), but his wording is also generally taken to be more original by the Q scholars. See that section in my ORIGINALITY OF LUKE article,

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=60324

These are the very basics of Q scholarship...

Quote:

Now, this is where we get to various possible interpretations of the results of the study, but what I believe is happening there is that sondergut Matthew contains parts of Q that Luke did not use, so that sondergut Matthew is really a composite of the styles of Q and Matthew.

Well, I don't believe in Q, in any case, so none of this really persuades me. The only part of Q scholarship that I do accept is that the Lukan Sayings Material is more original than that of Mt.

Regards,

Yuri.

GentDave · 08-22-2003, 11:49 AM

Yuri:

So, according to the HHB Synoptic Concordance, the number of the Anti-Markan Agreements (AMAs) is only 207?

Dave:

No. The study only covers about 800 of the most common Greek words, and actually KAI is left out, because they thought it was *too* common to tabulate. Plus, how many MAs you get depends on what you count as Mark-Q-overlap and what you count as MAs.

Yuri:

Of course we also have to consider tons of _negative_ AMAs, as well, i.e. all those places where Mt and Lk both happen to miraculously "delete" the very same Markan words and phrases in unison.

Dave:

Yes. I consider those negative agreements to be some of the best evidence available for a proto-Mark. You can see a related thing going on in the study, that I comment on in my proto-Mark section. I think it is quite reasonable to suppose those negative agreements were added to Mark after Matthew and Luke used its predicessor.

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

08-22-2003, 07:09 AM	#51
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: Why Luke, very fluent in Greek, would look at GMatthew for his/her redaction, and hardly nothing else? I cannot understand that at all. And I would not assume that most of Q had been around as long as you think. That might affect your thinking and your interpretation. Inspiration? To change KAI to DE? Let's be reasonable. Dave: I think Luke as he wrote each bit, would have probably looked at all of his sources, and then procede to put it in his own words. That is, the procedure I see for each pericope is: 1) Review Mark, Matthew, Q, and any other source. 2) Write the section in Luke's words, using Mark as the outline. A result that follows Mark with a tad of Matthew here and there does not seem unreasonable. However, that's a judgement call. If it seems unreasonable to you, there is not much I can do about that. What I meant by "inspiration", is that Luke may have been satisfied with Mark and Q, but then Matthew shows up. Luke thinks that the idea of producing one document using both Mark and Q, in more elegent language, is a good idea, but he just does not like the way Matthew has gone about it.

08-22-2003, 07:23 AM	#52
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: OK, my apology. The Markan overlaps are pieces of rewritten Markan material either appearing on their own in both GMatthew and GLuke, or as insertion in "Q" blocks such as JB's baptism or Jesus & Beelzebub. That's my definition & hopefully the right one, but I can be corrected. But wait a minute: Are we talking about the pieces as they appear in GMark, or as they appear in Q? Because the redaction is quite different. Dave: It sounds like we are talking about the same thing. The Beelzebub bit is the archtype for me. On the 2SH one would have to say Mark used Q, or Q used Mark, or they both used a common source. On the 3SH or FH Luke is following Matthew here, who followed Mark. Personally, this looks to me like the whole thing is more complicated. Using my proto-Mark and proto-Matthew idea. I'd say proto-Mark did not have it. A saying or two of it are in Q. It appears first in near its current form in proto-Matthew. Luke and current Mark are both dependent on that prto-Matthew version. But that's mostly speculation.

08-22-2003, 07:31 AM	#53
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: Of course, if the overlaps were fabricated from the parallel in GMark, and put in Q, and from there in GMatthew & GLuke, then we would have agreement between GMatthew & GLuke against GMark!!! And with the Q overlaps being from the same milieu as Matthew, there is a better chance these overlaps to be closer of GMatthew than GLuke. Why bring 3SH for that? With all the problems it involves! Because my front door is partially open, that's no reason to drive a truck through it. Because I need sugar, that's no reason to bring the whole grocery store in my kitchen. We have to be pragmatic, before going into absurdities. How many overlaps do we have? Maybe twenty? Dave, do you have a number for those? Can you give a list? Dave: Unfortunately the data in the HHB is not broken up into a "overlap" category. That is the biggest problem I have with the data. Questions I have: Does Mark in the overlap look like Mark other places? Does Q in the overlap look like Q other places? How do we tell an overlap from an MA? There are a limited number of these, so I don't think they have a large impact on everything else, but I really would have liked a seperate treatment. So the study really can't comment on the "overlap" specificly, it can comment on the MA's.

08-22-2003, 08:15 AM	#54
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: I would love to go over those "occasional turn of phrase picked up from Matthew" Can you specify when & where & how they occur? How many we are talking about? I am anxious to know how you define 'overlap'. Dave: I don't have counts. But we could try an example, I suppose. I just fliped to a random page. Mark 2:3 And they came bringing to him a paralytic. Matthew 9:2 And behold, they brought to him a paralytic. Luke 5:18 And behold, men were bringing on a bed, a man who was paralyzed. Mark: KAI ERCONTAI FERONTES PROS AUTON PARALUTIKON Matthew: KAI IDOU PROSEFERON AUTW PARALUTIKON Luke: KAI IDOU ANDRES FERONTES EPI KLINHS ANQRWPON OS HN PARALELUMENOS Luke picks up IDOU, behold, from Matthew. ================= 222 211 112 212 221 122 121 IDOU 2 18 6 5 2 0 0 ================= Category 211 has a count of 18. Matthew likes adding this word to Mark's text. Matthew never ommits it if Mark has it. (122=0, 121=0) The MA's (212) have a count of 5. Luke picks up some of Matthew's additions of "behold". Of the 13 times Luke uses the word in the triple tradition, 5 of them are exactly where Matthew added the word.

08-22-2003, 08:20 AM	#55
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave wrote: Another way of putting it is that sondergut Matthew contains elements of Q that Luke did not use. (In this case just extra copies of things Luke did use). That could be all that is going on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernard: This is not another way of putting it! This is an endorsement of 3SH, which you do by assuming sondurgut Matthew contains part of Q not used by Luke. Where is the evidence for that? Dave: category 200 (sondergut Matthew) and 202 (Q Mt-Lk agreements) are strongly related. On the simple 2SH, they should not be. However, if 200 (sondergut Matthew) contains parts of Q that Luke skiped, then the 2SH can explain the relation between 200 and 202.

08-22-2003, 08:26 AM	#56
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Bernard: "does not completely eliminate the 2SH". Nothing I saw so far would do that: We know now why Q would look Matthean, don't we? And many of the MA's apparently comes from the Mark-Q overlaps. But if those overlaps were fabricated/modified from GMark, then of course they would generate all kinds of MA's! Dave: I don't claim the study can prove Luke used Matthew. I do think it provides some additional evidence in that direction, however. The 200-202 relation is strong. The MAs studyed are not mostly from the overlap. In fact, to be clasified as "MA", the HHB authors had to decide that the item was an MA and not an overlap. The size of the agreement was the primary criteria, as far as I can tell.

08-22-2003, 11:49 AM	#60
GentDave Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 70	Yuri: So, according to the HHB Synoptic Concordance, the number of the Anti-Markan Agreements (AMAs) is only 207? Dave: No. The study only covers about 800 of the most common Greek words, and actually KAI is left out, because they thought it was too common to tabulate. Plus, how many MAs you get depends on what you count as Mark-Q-overlap and what you count as MAs. Yuri: Of course we also have to consider tons of _negative_ AMAs, as well, i.e. all those places where Mt and Lk both happen to miraculously "delete" the very same Markan words and phrases in unison. Dave: Yes. I consider those negative agreements to be some of the best evidence available for a proto-Mark. You can see a related thing going on in the study, that I comment on in my proto-Mark section. I think it is quite reasonable to suppose those negative agreements were added to Mark after Matthew and Luke used its predicessor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.