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

892Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    Dec 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce writes:

      >
      > More generally, I guess I would like to see a list of the 35 test
      passages,
      > together with their assignments to either Mt or Ar. Is there one
      somewhere
      > on the 3ST site?
      >

      Ron,

      I'd be interested as well. At least from initial appearances, this
      result would not serve to separate your idea from mine in any way,
      since I think we'd both make about the same predictions here. But it
      might be helpful in seperating our ideas from the Mark-without-Q
      idea.

      Although - I'm not sure how much we can gather from a long
      agreement. It might mean that there was no saying source for that
      passage, or it might mean that Luke was satisfied with Matthew's
      rendition of the saying source. Still, that should produce a
      statistical bias, I can see how this is a positive result for your
      specific division of the material.

      One other concern - one of the criteria you use, I believe, is that
      narrative material belongs to Matthew, in general. Wouldn't these
      tend to be longer? And might that then tend to produce longer
      stretches of agreement? That would make the confirmation a bit
      circular. I agree with your "narrative" criteria, I'm just concerned
      that this may be a proxy for it.

      For other listeners -

      Ron and I both favor some form of the 3-source hypothesis. The main
      difference is that Ron favors an authentic early saying source, and
      I favor a scenario in which the author of the gospel of Matthew
      forges a saying source in the name of the disciple Matthew, in order
      to justify the creation of the "gospel of Matthew".

      In both my scenario, and Ron's Luke considers the saying source to
      be old and consideres Matthew to be contemporary. I did some work
      towards separating the ideas here -

      http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Q_forgery.html

      but I've not revisited the idea for awhile. (I've been occupied with
      a paper in the philosophy of science area, dealing with Bayesian
      statistics)

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic