Subject: Re: Bob Schact's stats Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:29:19 GMT From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: University of Birmingham To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com On 25 Oct 98 at 20:30, Bob Schacht wrote: > From which I still conclude from the above computations that, given the > null hypothesis, the probability that a three-saying sequence would appear in > GThomas in the same order as the parallel three saying sequence in any of the > synoptics, by chance, is extremely small. > > The most logical alternative hypothesis, that the three-saying sequence in > GThomas that parallels the same three-saying sequence in one of the synoptics > did not happen at random, is therefore strengthened. > > But what would that mean? The following possibilities may be considered: > > 1. Thomas borrowed the sequence directly or indirectly from that synoptic > Gospel. > > 2. Thomas borrowed the sequence directly or indirectly from *the same > source* as the synoptic gospel. Many thanks for the doing the hard sums! It is interesting to see that this sequence might after all be more striking than I had thought. And option 2 is impossible here because the three saying sequence is from three different strands of material: Thom. 63 // Luke 12.15-21 (Rich Fool, L) Thom. 64 // Luke 14.15-24 (Banquet, Q) Thom. 65 // Luke 20.9-19 (Vineyard, Mk) [Thom. 66 // Luke 20.17 (Stone, Mk).] Mark ------------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham Recommended New Testament Web Resources: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre