tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post4788318322358987305..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: James Edwards on McIver and CarrollMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-27644010439595870542010-05-27T12:03:06.697-04:002010-05-27T12:03:06.697-04:00That there had been copying I think has to be acce...That there had been copying I think has to be accepted as a given. It's the anomalous verbal-agreement aspect of this copying that should attract our attention. Why are there a significant number of very lengthy word strings in sequential order, (between parallel passages of Matthew/Mark and of Matthew/Luke), for word sequences of length 17 to 31 words? Upon examining their distribution of shorter word sequences, one finds that they decay to essentially zero, as expected for an exponential or geometric distribution, for word strings of length up to 16 or 17. So how could so many anomalously long word strings exist unless purposely replicated by a redactor? <br /><br />The hypothesis that Semitic Matthew was the first gospel allows that this redactor had been the translator of that initial gospel into Greek, after Mark and Luke had been written.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-25323486440612738372010-05-26T18:19:59.542-04:002010-05-26T18:19:59.542-04:00Mark, I agree that McIver and Carroll's work c...Mark, I agree that McIver and Carroll's work cannot be used as a tool to determine anything other than that there might have been copying. The direction of any copying requires another methodology and different data. It seems as though Edwards is trying to give the stats more weight than they are able to carry.Judy Redmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04350638846246966802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-13131298390115258502010-05-25T14:41:21.897-04:002010-05-25T14:41:21.897-04:00Thanks, Stephen, for reminding me of that. But the...Thanks, Stephen, for reminding me of that. But the failure by Voste and Butler to include Luke as also written before Hebraic Matthew was translated into Greek, leaves the strong verbal agreement of the double tradition unexplained by their Matthean priority hypothesis. I.e., If Luke copied the double-tradition material from a Greek Matthew, carefully replicating long strings of consecutive words, why would he not have done so even more fastidiously with Markan parallels? <br /><br />I believe Butler's arguments for rejecting Greek Matthew as being written subsequent to Mark can be reasonably explained even allowing for priority of a Semitic Matthew.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-7290446287107632942010-05-25T11:39:50.935-04:002010-05-25T11:39:50.935-04:00Hi Jim. Butler discusses that possibility (though...Hi Jim. Butler discusses that possibility (thought w/out considering Luke) on pp. 159-161 of his Originality of St. Matthew (1951).Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-60139489076607839852010-05-25T11:20:36.894-04:002010-05-25T11:20:36.894-04:00Regarding the "and/or" ambiguity, there ...Regarding the "and/or" ambiguity, there is also the hypothesis that (Hebraic/Aramaic) Matthew came first, as per the early church fathers, and Greek Matthew last. It easily explains the verbal agreement, with Matthew's later translater having inserted a few pro-gentile passages and a bit of reverential upgrading. <br /><br />Somehow Butler overlooked this possibility, in believing that Hebraic Matthew was translated into Greek before Mark and Luke were written.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-54798991963794766972010-05-25T10:32:45.433-04:002010-05-25T10:32:45.433-04:00That must be it.That must be it.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-64220976854950152342010-05-25T10:24:53.786-04:002010-05-25T10:24:53.786-04:00I've read that too. Sanders and Davies pretty...I've read that too. Sanders and Davies pretty much say it in Studying the Synoptic Gospels.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-56489599936305738762010-05-25T10:23:34.741-04:002010-05-25T10:23:34.741-04:00I've read someone somewhere saying that the mi...I've read someone somewhere saying that the middle term phenomenon means that the middle term is either first or third. I can't remember who offhand (McKnight?).Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-83793414078583346742010-05-25T09:47:08.637-04:002010-05-25T09:47:08.637-04:00Yes, I think you have parsed that well. The subse...Yes, I think you have parsed that well. The subsequent sentences confirm that the either / or is intended as conjunctive. Unfortunately, he does not specify what it is about the data that leads him towards the view that Matthew is either first or third, though I think your guess is a good one.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-86711231025962338352010-05-25T09:19:36.351-04:002010-05-25T09:19:36.351-04:00I can understand the confusion because he's us...I can understand the confusion because he's using "either ... or" twice in the same sentence, but with different meanings. The first one is disjunctive (exclusive possibilities), while the second is conjunctive (non-exclusive possibilities). I would say that using the word "either" is unusual for expressing the conjunctive meaning.<br /><br />After years of studying logic, I didn't realize that "and" and "or" are actually ambiguous in English until I took a patent contracts class. This issue about the ambiguity of "or" actually shows up in Greek exegesis too, e.g. Gal 1:10, which I was just looking at.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-50089988157725731372010-05-25T00:57:50.855-04:002010-05-25T00:57:50.855-04:00Yes, I wonder if it is something like that, Stephe...Yes, I wonder if it is something like that, Stephen. It's impossible to tell, though, because Edwards does not make clear what it is about the data that leads him to this view. He says, ". . . . conversely, that Matthew is the recipient of material from either Mark or Luke" and that appropriates to the view he holds, but his "either . . . or" here further confuses me.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-49526455754519678692010-05-24T22:47:23.466-04:002010-05-24T22:47:23.466-04:00This looks like Edwards is making some kind of Mid...This looks like Edwards is making some kind of Middle Term argument for Matthew (but just with pairs of long verbatim strings). Of course, as Butler, the middle term phenomenon works for all three positions: first, second, and third, not just first (or, as sometimes done, first and third).Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.com