At 07:44 AM 5/24/2002 +0100, Ron Price wrote:
>> I don't see any reason why one half of a doublet
>>should not be able to come from oral tradition anyway.
> Of course it is possible. But we should be trying to find what was
>probable, not merely what was possible.
> Two written sources provide a better explanation for a doublet if the
>wording is reasonably close. This is because the editor, although
>presumably conscious of the duplication, allows it out of respect for
>the written documents in front of him. As in most situations, we would
>expect the editor to have more respect for a written tradition than an
>oral one, so written sources seem to me to be the more probable
>explanation. Even if it is only a small probability in favour of two
>written sources, this probability is increased when we take into account
>about 20 other Matthean doublets.
It is standard dogma that doublets come (or more likely to come)
from written sources, but part of what I am doing is questioning
the basis for this dogma. Where's the evidence? Has any study
been done? How many doublets does it take? How good do they
have to be?
Furthermore, if we look at Matthew's doublets as identified by
Hawkins, the 2ST can only explain about 1/3 of them. I assume
that your 3ST is in the same quandry. I count: 7 M-Mark doublets,
7 Q-Mark doubles, 4 M-Q doublets, 2 Mark-Mark doublets, and 2 M-M
doublets. Thus, out of 22 doublets, Mark-Q accounts for only 7
of them (I assume your proposal is to shift one double from the
M-Mark to the Q-Mark category, but the general problem remains).
Two of the doublets (nos. 13 and 19), both were doublets in Mark,
which Matthew inherited. Last time I checked, your theory did
not posit two written sources for Mark.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...