There has previously been discussion on this list regarding the
importance of testing the predictions of the various synoptic hypotheses
as a means of homing in on the solution to the synoptic problem. Of
course some hypotheses make more predictions than others, which can make
direct comparison difficult. Even so, it's a line that should be
followed up wherever possible.
The 3ST as I've presented it divides the double tradition material
into 'xQ' pericopae which Luke apparently copied from Matthew, and 'sQ'
pericopae which he took from an early Aramaic sayings source. If this
was the case, then both Matthew and Luke had to translate the Aramaic
sayings. Consequently we would not expect a very high degree of
agreement between the Matthean and Lukan versions of sQ material, for
they involved separate translations from Greek. This is a prediction
which can be tested. (Note that the degree of agreement in wording was
not one of the criteria used to distinguish between xQ and sQ material.)
Several scholars list pericopae which they see as having virtually the
same wording in Matthew and Luke. But there is a degree of subjectivity
in most of these lists.
However Kloppenborg Verbin (_Excavating Q_, p.56) lists seven examples
of "extremely high" (the highest?) verbal agreement taken from word
counts in Morgenthaler. Based on counts in Luke, these include 18 verses
of which I had allocated 16 to xQ and 2 to sQ (i.e. 11% sQ. Counting
words indicates 12% sQ). Considering that I had allocated more to sQ
than to xQ, this is a remarkable result: the great majority of similarly
worded texts are explained as cases where Luke more or less slavishly
copied Matthew's Greek. Opponents of the 3ST should have to explain how
it is that it produces such a 'good' result if it wasn't based on an
essentially correct analysis of the origins of the double tradition
Also Kloppenborg makes an interesting observation that Matthew and
Luke display a higher degree of verbal agreement in the double tradition
than in the triple tradition (ExQ, pp.57-58). The difference could in
principle be readily explained by the fact that any triple tradition
agreements between Matthew and Luke involve the accuracy of *two*
editors, whereas in the double tradition on Farrer, or for xQ double
tradition material on the 3ST, only *one* editor is involved!
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...