Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

890Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Dec 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The 3ST as I've expounded it involves at its heart the hypothesis that the
      Double Tradition had two sources: part of it represents Luke copying Matthew
      directly, and the other part comes from an Aramaic sayings source.

      One of the predictions which can be made from this hypothesis is that if it
      is true we should expect in general to find the text of Matthew and Luke to
      be closer in the former case because (a) it only involves a single editor
      and (b) it does not necessitate translation.

      To test this prediction I have identified (with some computer help!) every
      Double Tradition string of more than ten consecutive Greek words identical
      in Matthew and Luke.

      I found 35 such strings varying from 11 to 27 words long. In material deemed
      to have originated with Matthew there are 23 strings with a total of 364
      words, and in material deemed to have originated in the sayings source there
      are 12 strings with a total of 205 words. I had actually allocated around
      60% of the DT to the sayings source, so a random selection with this split
      should have ended up with string words roughly in the ratio 2/3. The actual
      ratio of 364/205 therefore backs up the prediction. The text of Matthew and
      Luke does tend on the whole to be closer when Luke is editing Matthew than
      when both are editing the sayings source. (Of course my criteria for
      splitting the Double Tradition pericopes did not include assessing the
      closeness of the texts of Matthew and Luke.)

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic