3443RE: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory
- Jul 1, 2011Ron, apologies for confusing both you and myself in my post! I was trying to
make it short, but in the process took out too much clarifying info. I'm in
the final stages of a stylistic analysis of the synoptics (starting from a
completely 'agnostic' view of the synoptic problem) that appears to be
telling me this:
1. The general order of the form of the gospels as we see them is Mk
-> Mt -> Lk
2. Mk was the main source used by Mt, but Mt had access to other
written material as well.
3. Mk and Mt were the main sources used by Lk, but Lk had access to
other written material as well.
4. The other written source(s) available to Mt and Lk included
material not in Mk, which was the source for at least some of the agreement
between Mt and Lk against Mk (both double and triple traditions)
5. Mt and Lk may have also had access to oral material, but if so we
have no way of knowing what it was. We assume that it contributed to the Mt
and Lk sonderguts, but could have also contributed to some of the
differences in wording in the double tradition.
Note that I'm not saying here whether the written sources(s) available to Mt
and Lk were exactly the same or not, but whatever they were they overlapped.
I'm also not saying that the overlap was Q, or anything like Q. I'm just
saying that there was some additional common written material available to
Mt and Lk. Also, whether you believe additional written sources (Q or
something else) are necessary or not, my analysis is saying that something
did exist. Finally, this kind of analysis can in no way help with any
discussion as to which of the synoptics has the 'best' order of pericopes. I
hope that's a little clearer.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ronald Price
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A modified 3SH theory
On 30/06/2011 23:47, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...
<mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:
> As I understand it, the addition of the Mt -> Lk arrow to the 2SH (thusaLk
> creating the 3SH) basically allows for slight editing of text from Mt by
> to create the minor agreements. In other words, the 3SH assumes that Q ->Mt
> followed by Q -> Lk is now the double tradition is created, and Mt -> Lkis
> where aLk edits the result slightly. However, using the same arrows, howwould
> things change if Q -> Mt followed by Mt - > Lk is what creates the doublerid
> tradition, and then Q -> Lk is where aLk makes the slight edits. This gets
> of the problem of how Q became 'lost' if it was so important,aLk.
> because with my modification Q is only a minor source for both aMt and
I don't understand this. If Q is taken to be more or less equivalent to the
double tradition, as is usually the case in the 2ST, then this source will
surely only be more minor for aLk.
The minor agreements relate to the triple tradition, which is where your
"slight editing" shows up. In regard to the double tradition, are you
suggesting that in Q -> Lk, Luke merely makes a few 'corrections' to the
double tradition based on a supposedly more ancient Q? This would be quite a
difficult procedure if Matthew had substantially altered the order of the Q
More crucially, if the double tradition is explained as comprising the
pericopes which Luke copied from Matthew, you would then have to explain why
you think there was a Q source. Also it would be a remarkable coincidence if
in Mt -> Lk Luke copied all of the Q pericopes and no others from Matthew.
Even if he knew the contents of Q by studying it carefully, extracting each
of the 60+ repositioned pericopes from Mt would be very difficult.
If on the other hand you were to start from my radical version of the 3ST
and alter it by positing that Luke copied the logia material from Mt rather
than directly from the logia, with perhaps a few minor corrections based on
the original logia, then this would not explain why (if my analysis is
correct) Luke has ordered many of the sayings more accurately than Matthew.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>