Browse Groups

• ## Re: [Synoptic-L] A statistical approach to the synoptic problem

(5)
• NextPrevious
• Dave and Ron, I have two questions regarding the non-Markan, non-Matthean, third source of the 3ST. First, can the statistical method you re using distinguish
Message 1 of 5 , May 12, 2003
View Source
Dave and Ron,

I have two questions regarding the non-Markan, non-Matthean, third source of
the 3ST.

First, can the statistical method you're using distinguish between Luke's
direct use of a third source and Luke's indirect use of a third source
through his use of Matthew? That is, if there are two kinds of material in
Matthew, one where Matthew is following the source and one where he isn't,
couldn't Luke show correlations with both types of material by taking them
from Matthew? Is it necessary to posit Luke's direct knowledge of the third
source?

Second, if there is a third source needed to explain the "non-Matthean"
correlations between Matthew and Luke, wouldn't that source most likely have
been in Greek? Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan characteristics
rather than close statistical correlation?

Best Wishes,

Ken

kaolson@...

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• K: First, can the statistical method you re using distinguish between Luke s direct use of a third source and Luke s indirect use of a third source through his
Message 1 of 5 , May 12, 2003
View Source
K: First, can the statistical method you're using distinguish between
Luke's
direct use of a third source and Luke's indirect use of a third source
through his use of Matthew? That is, if there are two kinds of material in
Matthew, one where Matthew is following the source and one where he isn't,
couldn't Luke show correlations with both types of material by taking them
from Matthew? Is it necessary to posit Luke's direct knowledge of the
third
source?

D:
Here are some relevant results.
202-201 .002
202-102 .0058
202-200 2E-06
202-002 NR
201-102 NR
201-200 2E-10
201-002 NR
102-200 NR
102-002 .213
200-002 NR
201-211 .9185
102-112 .6858
200-211 .2288
002-112 2E-10
102-112 .6858

You are proposing:
K + S => M
K + M => L

My only problem with that is that 202 and 201 have exactly the same
authorship based on that hypothesis. Both are S material edited by Matthew.
The only difference is caused by later selection or rejection by Luke.
Based on that, I'd expect, 202 to look more like 201.

One thing that makes me suspect a sayings source is this:
202-201 .002
202-102 .0058
The only category we could attribute completely to the sayings source
(202), looks symmetric, with respect to 102 and 201. It looks neither
strongly Lukian nor Matthian. So if we have

K + S => M
K + S + M => L

then 202 is authored by S (and retained by both Luke and Matthew)

201 is Matthew's changes, and rejections by Luke, and looks a lot like 200.
(202 also looks significantly like 200, and I suspect that is partly
because 200 contains some S material that Luke rejected, as well as some
original Matthew material.)

102 is Luke's changes, and rejections by Matthew. It may not look much like
002, because 002 is more narrative in character than 200 and 102 are, or
because 002 contains no S material, or both.

But the fact that the study did not find a significant 202-201 relation,
does prove it does not exist. So, I think a saying source used by both Luke
and Matthew is more likely, but I don't think the study rejects the
hypothesis you've suggested either.

Thanks for this comment. It will help me revise that section of the site a
bit.

K: Second, if there is a third source needed to explain the "non-Matthean"
correlations between Matthew and Luke, wouldn't that source most likely
have
been in Greek? Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan characteristics
rather than close statistical correlation?

D: I'm not sure. I think where Matthew and Luke agreed in their
translation, it would still be a style distinct from either Luke or
Matthew. Also, they could have drawn off the same Greek translations,
either oral or written.

Dave Gentile
Riverside Illinois
M.S. Physics
M.S. Finance

"Ken Olson"
<kaolson@mindspri To: <synoptic-l@...>, <dgentil@...>
ng.com> cc:
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A statistical approach to the
05/12/2003 11:10 synoptic problem
AM

Dave and Ron,

I have two questions regarding the non-Markan, non-Matthean, third source
of
the 3ST.

First, can the statistical method you're using distinguish between Luke's
direct use of a third source and Luke's indirect use of a third source
through his use of Matthew? That is, if there are two kinds of material in
Matthew, one where Matthew is following the source and one where he isn't,
couldn't Luke show correlations with both types of material by taking them
from Matthew? Is it necessary to posit Luke's direct knowledge of the
third
source?

Second, if there is a third source needed to explain the "non-Matthean"
correlations between Matthew and Luke, wouldn't that source most likely
have
been in Greek? Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan characteristics
rather than close statistical correlation?

Best Wishes,

Ken

kaolson@...

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... Ken and Dave, It depends whether we take Papias seriously. Papias wrote about a Hebrew/Aramaic TA LOGIA which was interpreted/translated. This description
Message 1 of 5 , May 12, 2003
View Source
Ken Olson wrote:

> Second, if there is a third source needed to explain the "non-Matthean"
> correlations between Matthew and Luke, wouldn't that source most likely have
> been in Greek?

Ken and Dave,

It depends whether we take Papias seriously. Papias wrote about a
Hebrew/Aramaic TA LOGIA which was interpreted/translated. This description
appears to fit sQ nicely.

> Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
> Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan characteristics
> rather than close statistical correlation?

Good question. I think a definitive answer would require investigation by
a linguistic expert. It seems to depend on the amount of choice the
translator had when tackling the typically down-to-earth language in a rural
setting which makes up most of the wording in the sayings attributed to
Jesus.

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

E-mail: ron.price@...

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@...
• On 13 May 2003 at 7:18, Ron Price wrote: [Ken Olson] ... Matt. 6.25-33 // Luke 12.22-31, to take one example, is included in your sQ but features extensive
Message 1 of 5 , May 13, 2003
View Source
On 13 May 2003 at 7:18, Ron Price wrote:

[Ken Olson]

> > Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
> > Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan
> > characteristics rather than close statistical correlation?
>
> Good question. I think a definitive answer would require
> investigation by
> a linguistic expert. It seems to depend on the amount of choice the
> translator had when tackling the typically down-to-earth language in a
> rural setting which makes up most of the wording in the sayings
> attributed to Jesus.

Matt. 6.25-33 // Luke 12.22-31, to take one example, is included in
your sQ but features extensive verbatim agreement between the two in
Greek. This is pretty unlikely if both were independently
translating something from a source document, isn't it?

Mark
-----------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
Birmingham B15 2TT UK

http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
http://NTGateway.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... Mark, I m not too impressed by the parallels here. I think I d be right in saying that in every Greek sentence there are at least two differences between
Message 1 of 5 , May 13, 2003
View Source
Mark Goodacre wrote:

> Matt. 6.25-33 // Luke 12.22-31, to take one example, is included in
> your sQ but features extensive verbatim agreement between the two in
> Greek. This is pretty unlikely if both were independently
> translating something from a source document, isn't it?

Mark,

I'm not too impressed by the parallels here. I think I'd be right in
saying that in every Greek sentence there are at least two differences
between the Matthean and Lukan versions.

Furthermore there are many Greek words here which according to their NT
usage appear to have little in the way of practical alternatives.
Thus according to my concordance (Morrison's on the RSV):
KRINON, SOLOMWN, APOQHKH, NHQW, DOXA, KLIBANOS, QEOS, PATHR, BASILEIA
appear to have no alternative in practice in the NT, and
ESQIW, PINW, SWMA, SPEIRW, QERIZW, AUXANW, AGROS, KOPIAW
are by far the most popular words for their respective meanings.
So I suggest that a near literal translation of the posited Aramaic
(whatever that was, for I don't know Aramaic) would have had only limited
scope for variation.

As for that wonderfully graphic compound word OLIGOPISTOS which occurs in
this saying in both Matthew and Luke, I think it's a special case, a
preparatory study of Matthew, causing him to add it from memory to his
translation of the saying.

Ron Price

Derbyshire, UK

E-mail: ron.price@...

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@...
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.