A Statistical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels (original) (raw)
Related papers
A statistical analysis of synoptic gospels
2006
A statistical analysis of two contingency tables calculated from the synoptic gospels is done by correspondence analysis (CA) and taxicab correspondence analysis (TCA). We deduce a variant of two gospel hypothesis from the results of TCA.
MAPSS - University of Chicago, 2019
The use of statistics and the empirical analysis of data in the Synoptic Gospels has largely revolved around positing a solution to the Synoptic Problem. As a result, synoptic scholars have often dismissed the use of data interpretation in the study of the gospels as being overly committed to a positivistic reading for the texts’ literary origins. In this paper I argue that empirical data and statistical analyses should not be disregarded from synoptic studies nor need they be committed to wholistic explanations of particular source theories. Rather, statistical tools can be used by New Testament scholars to aid in the interpretation of texts, and thus should be considered part of the repository of exegetical tools alongside more traditional avenues of interpretation such as textual, source, and redaction criticism. I demonstrate that a contingency table can be used to postulate an association between two gospel texts, which can then guide exegetical interpretation, and is also a useful source of information for designing a digital visualization of the gospel texts. In particular, I find that a contingency table posits a positive association between Matthew and Luke based on their common redaction of Mark in the pericope of the Healing of the Paralytic (Mt 9:1–8; Mk 2:1–12; Lk 5:17–26). Based on this contingency table and a digital visualization of the texts, I argue that Matthew’s and Luke’s common redaction of Mark in this pericope is in keeping with their larger programmatic goals set up in their introductory material to their gospel accounts (Mt 1:21–23; Lk 4:18–21), which designate Jesus as God’s Messiah who forgives sins, releases captives, and dwells with human beings as Emmanuel.
Running the Numbers on the Gospels: A Statistical Analysis of the Gospel of Matthew
The Christian Right polarized American society and politics with its vision of a Christ-centered nation. Advocates claim a scriptural basis for their beliefs, but many Christians question their interpretation of scripture and a few openly challenge their vision. When conflicting interpretations of scripture come into dispute, how can the conflicts be resolved? “Running the Numbers on the Gospels” proposes using statistical analysis of scriptural topics discussed by Gospel authors— which topics received the most emphasis and which received the least. If we assume New Testament writers gave more weight to issues of greater importance to their churches, then acknowledging those preferences should lend credence to which side of the dispute the author leaned. This article will focus on the Gospel of Matthew to determine if, indeed, the weight the author lends to particular topics supports or undermines the Christian Right’s interpretations of Jesus’ message.
A Flaw in McIver and Carroll’s Experiments to Determine Written Sources in the Gospels
Journal of Biblical Literature, 2014
published an article in JBL in 2002 in which they discussed experiments with Australian undergraduate students that might help with determining the existence of written sources in the Gospels. They suggested that sixteen words in exact conjoined sequence provided a clear indicator of the presence of copying. However, McIver and Carroll transferred the results of their experiments in English to the Greek Synoptics without making any adjustments for the differences in language. A noninflected language like contemporary English takes more words to say something than an inflected language like Koine Greek. The problem can be illustrated by taking McIver and Carroll's list of Synoptic parallels that feature sixteen-word sequential agreements and higher, and comparing these parallels with English translations. In practically every case, the English sequential agreements are substantially higher. The presence of this important flaw in the conceptualizing of the experiments places a major question mark over McIver and Carroll's case.
The Synoptic Gospels an overview.doc
The synoptic Gospel present an interesting set of books, all giving a perspective of the Life and ministry of Jesus Christ, though from different perspectives and target readerships. This paper gives a basic over view of the said Gospels as well as comments on the fourth. The reader s encouraged to proceed to a more detailed treatment of the subject after reading through this paper
Griesbach Rethought. The Synoptic Problem reviewed., 2022
This paper investigates the Two-Gospel hypothesis from an ancient compositional book-producing practices. Mark is seen as the middle term and most important is the theoretical framework of book production in antiquity through which we need to view the Gospels. The paper investigates common arguments in favor of the Two Document Hypothesis and finds that most arguments are reversible and can favor both Markan priority and Markan posteriority. However, to strengthen Markan posteriority, micro-conflation is required. Mark Goodacre’s fatigue in the Synoptics is treated, which he claims to be the strongest argument in favor of Markan priority. However, if micro-conflation can be proven to work, the Two-Gospel hypothesis can claim that Mark conflated the accounts instead of Matthew and Luke falling back into fatigue. Mark’s omission of the essential double tradition is treated and it is explained that such behavior was not improbable in light of the difficulty manoeuvring scrolls back and forth. The paper continues and discusses how Mark, if last, micro-conflated his two sources in the triple tradition. The paper aims to affirm that micro-conflation was doable due to wax tablets. The conclusion is that Mark’s behavior is defensible on the Two-Gospel hypothesis since Mark omitted important material from Matthew and Luke due to the difficulty affirming the material while at the same time he expanded material in the triple tradition due to the shorter pericopes with are easier accessible than the double tradition.
The Authenticity of the Gospels
The Authenticity of the Gospels, 2019
That the Gospels are the writings of their traditional Apostolic authors was long held to be settled truth. It was also long held that Matthew was first and as early as the 40sAD, followed by Mark and Luke, and lastly by John, and that all were written before about 70AD. These views have been doubted or denied by New Testament scholars from about the end of the 18thCentury. The dominant view is that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, though they depend on material that may go back to eyewitnesses. Mark is said to have been written first and not much before 70AD. Matthew and Luke are later and depend on Mark and some unknown sources. John is last, follows an independent tradition, and could be as late as 100AD. The reason for this change of views is the so-called historical critical method, which claims to be scientific and up to date in literary criticism and the detection of different temporal layers in written texts. The method also assumes that reports of miracles and other supernatural phenomena are not historical but later inventions added for religious purposes. This book shows that the historical critical method is not historical or critical or even a method. For the method assumes but cannot prove that supernatural happenings are unhistorical; it ignores the historical evidence about the origin and authorship of the Gospels; its literary criticism is unimaginative and its application of it to questions of dating arbitrary. There is no reason to accept its results as well founded or even believable. The traditional dating and authorship of the Gospels is the only account that makes sense. Nevertheless, elements of the historical critical method have a legitimate use if they are applied fairly and taken along with the historical evidence and the fact (well established by eyewitnesses) of supernatural realities. When these elements are so used they can be shown to give plausible and defensible accounts of the origin, in particular, of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which, along with Matthew, show signs of dependence and overlap. If the historical evidence is taken seriously, and if literary criticism is applied fairly, a plausible account can be given of the origin in particular of the Gospel of Mark, of how it arose from the preaching of Peter relative to the older Gospel of Matthew and to the newer Gospel of Luke sponsored by the Apostle Paul. This alternative account of the origins of Mark and Luke is a fine example of how historical evidence and literary criticism can be used to explain otherwise puzzling phenomena. This account is perhaps not the only one to save all the phenomena. But it shows how the traditional authorship and dating of the Gospels, contrary to the historical critical method, make excellent sense of all the phenomena: literary, historical, and rational. The traditional view about the Gospels is the only sensible view to adopt.