tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post853312818934380215..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Kloppenborg on Variation in the Reproduction of the Double TraditionMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-31508490548620180942007-09-25T14:20:00.000-04:002007-09-25T14:20:00.000-04:00To what extent do we try to put everything that se...To what extent do we try to put everything that seems to be an oral source into the category of Q? Does oral Q simply become terminology for the seemingly vast amount of oral sources the Synoptics may have had? Do we group Greco-Roman sources under the idea of oral Q? Something tells me the notion of Q is just not enough. It seems very limiting in fact.Nick Kigerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10874506643442301688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-43131568241529359902007-09-25T14:16:00.000-04:002007-09-25T14:16:00.000-04:00An example of what I'm talking about: "Kloppenborg...An example of what I'm talking about: "Kloppenborg is right to problematize the high proportion of verbatim agreement in double tradition material with respect to theories about an oral Q; I would like to take it a stage further and problematize the high proportion of verbatim agreement in double tradition material with respect to a written Q."<BR/><BR/>Is problematize a word? Even if it is, there is no excuse to use it, especially in such a lengthy sentence with so many competing ideas. <BR/><BR/>Also, you don't say why Kloppenberg is right or why verbatim agreement etc. would be a problem with respect to theories about Q. Unless somebody knows your views intimately, they will be completely at a loss here as to what is meant.<BR/><BR/>Look, I understand you are a scholar and not a writer, and this blog is intended for other scholars. So I could be out of school here for reading something not intended for my eyes, and if so, I apologize. But I think everyone is better off, the author included, when writing is more precise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-39522294294140708322007-09-25T13:58:00.000-04:002007-09-25T13:58:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, but I didn't understand this post at al...I'm sorry, but I didn't understand this post at all. Could you clarify for non-specialists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-16206290200433500392007-09-24T18:55:00.000-04:002007-09-24T18:55:00.000-04:00Mark, et al.- just for clarity...nowhere in any of...Mark, et al.- just for clarity...nowhere in any of my work do I suggest that Q is 'oral'. As I make clear at various points throughout my book, there is clearly literary redaction occurring throughout the DT (most clearly in pericopes displaying high levels of verbatim agreement). At the core of my work is the suggestion is that, given the extent to which oral communication dominated ancient discourse, we must be open to the possibility that oral tradition, at times, influenced the final form of the various syn gos parallel pericopes...<BR/><BR/>However, I do write this brief response not yet having had the opportunity to read Kloppenborg's article.Terence Mournet, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14941460939110462306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-11773341266261173782007-09-23T12:05:00.000-04:002007-09-23T12:05:00.000-04:00A correction is needed in my comment above. It is ...A correction is needed in my comment above. It is not only the Luke-Matthew consecutive-identical-word frequency distribution that has an anomalous tail, but also the Mark-Matthew one. So Matthew is the common term, which, according to a <A HREF="http://www.tjresearch.info/MAH.htm" REL="nofollow"> modified Augustinian hypothesis</A>, I attribute to the translator of Hebraic Matthew.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-85895504628730587282007-09-21T10:15:00.000-04:002007-09-21T10:15:00.000-04:00Actually Mark, I was kinda disappointed that Dunn'...Actually Mark, I was kinda disappointed that Dunn's book didn't engage some of your work on Q. Do you have thoughts on that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-12815222981259752792007-09-21T07:22:00.000-04:002007-09-21T07:22:00.000-04:00As you know, I have an interest in this. Tell me:...As you know, I have an interest in this. Tell me: Does Kloppenborg deal with statistics or in how one should measure verbal agreement (i.e., raw verbal agreement counts versus length of phrasal agreements)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-15541982896084071392007-09-20T23:17:00.000-04:002007-09-20T23:17:00.000-04:00One may look at this problem statistically, by ana...One may look at this problem statistically, by analyzing the rate at which the number of consecutive identical words (in Greek) between the parallel passages of two texts, like Matthew and Luke, falls off with increasing length of the word string. Typically this rate follows the geometic distribution, which is the same as an exponential fall-off. <BR/><BR/>Upon comparing Luke and Mark in this manner, and also Mark and Matthew, the geometric distribution is seen to occur, allowing for sampling error due to the finite lengths of the texts involved. But when comparing Matthew and Luke (Q verses) in this manner one finds a pronounced 2nd hump to the distribution for the longer word strings. It not only indicates that one copied from the other, but that it was done purposely and selectively for the longer word strings. This is shown <A HREF="http://www.tjresearch.info/priority.htm" REL="nofollow"> here</A>. A motivation for this strange editorial behavior is suggested.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-84402946478671835842007-09-20T15:47:00.000-04:002007-09-20T15:47:00.000-04:00This is an excellent point.This is an excellent point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com