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

893Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Dec 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > BRUCE: Some would say an Aramaic sayings source lies behind Matthew. Is that
      > your view also?

      RON: Yes, for I contend that the logia was in Aramaic, and that Matthew used
      the logia.

      > BRUCE: ....... I am puzzled as to the scenario. I imagine that it
      > is this: An Aramaic sayings source lies behind Matthew, and Matthew is a
      > translation of at least parts of that source from Aramaic into Greek.

      RON: Matthew translated almost all of the logia.

      > BRUCE: Other parts of the sayings source are unused by Matthew, and remain
      > only in the original source.

      RON: But Luke translated most of the logia, and Mark about half of it. Thus
      the synoptic writers between them translated virtually all of it.

      > BRUCE: Luke possessed both Matthew and his source, and used, not
      > only the parts of the source taken over by Matthew, but also at least some
      > of those parts of the source NOT taken over by Matthew. In other words, all
      > of Luke that is not taken from Mark is taken, either at first or second
      > hand, from a source older than Matthew and probably also older than Mark. Is
      > this a correct reconstruction of the 3ST position?

      RON: Not all of Luke. He added lots of his own material as well as what he
      took from the logia, from Mark or from Matthew.

      > BRUCE: The last part eliminates the obvious possible circularity in method,
      > and is welcome accordingly. But what exactly IS the criterion for
      > separation? Previous opinion? If so, whose?

      RON: Previous opinion doesn't come into it, at least not directly, because
      this part of what I'm proposing is new. The criteria are mainly literary:
      narratives, pericopes which are distinctly Matthean in style, or which
      appear to depend on the Matthean context are deemed to have originated with
      Matthew; doublets in Matt or Luke, and aphorisms which are consistent with
      them, are deemed to have originated in the logia.

      > BRUCE:
      > And are there not other tests of the hypothesis that might be applied prior
      > to this one?

      RON: Yes. But the purpose of my email was to bring to light a new test.

      > BRUCE: For instance, if Matthew has translated, and thus perhaps
      > edited, his early source, then the Matthean part of this material (we can
      > call it Double Tradition if Ron likes) ought at least at some points to be
      > theologically later than the original source itself, and perhaps in part
      > also later than that source as we know it via Luke. Is this the case?

      RON: Yes indeed. Mt 11:25-27 // Lk 10:21-22 is a good example of probable
      post-70 theology (the logia was written ca. 45 CE).

      > BRUCE: Taking
      > the respective Birth narratives, which are Double Tradition in the sense
      > that both Matthew and Luke have them, and Mark does not, I can only suspect
      > that the Lukan form, not the Matthean form, is the later. For instance, in
      > Luke the miraculous conception topos is extended from Jesus also to John the
      > B, who is made to be Jesus's cousin, and John is made to acknowledge Jesus,
      > not on the banks of the Jordan, let alone later in his ministry, but already
      > in the womb. This is surely a later literary construction than the Matthean
      > account, no? Then if this examination is relevant, the 3ST as Ron here
      > outlines it seems to fail the test. What the test shows is that in this
      > material, Luke is later than Matthew.

      RON: True. Indeed the 3ST is dependent on the hypothesis that Luke is later
      than Matthew.

      > BRUCE:
      > Is there another passage, or couple of passages, which Ron would like to
      > offer as tests for the possibility that Luke, where Lk is NOT paralleled by
      > Matthew, is earlier in content than Luke where Lk IS paralleled by Matthew?

      RON: Ken Olson mentioned two such passages in one of his emails to
      Synoptic-L dated 12 Feb 2004.

      > BRUCE:
      > 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: It isn't there yet. But here's the list with Matthew ref., Luke ref.,
      xQ (from Matthew) or sQ (from the logia), then the number of consecutive
      identical words. Using NA27 or UBS3 or equivalent text it should be easy to
      find the strings.

      3:7-8 // 3:7-8 / xQ / 12
      3:9-10 // 3:8-9 / xQ / 24
      3:10 // 3:9 / xQ / 20
      3:11-12 // 3:16-17 / xQ / 15
      4:6 // 4:11 / xQ / 11
      6:24 // 16:13 / sQ / 26
      6:29-30 // 12:27-28 / sQ / 13
      7:3 // 6:41 / sQ / 14
      7:7-8 // 11:9-10 / sQ / 24
      7:11 // 11:13 / sQ / 11
      8:9 // 7:8-9 / xQ / 25
      8:20 // 9:58 // sQ / 24
      9:37-38 // 10:2 / sQ / 15
      11:5-6 // 7:22-23 / xQ / 11
      11:7-8 // 7:24-25 / xQ / 19
      11:8-10 // 7:25-27 / xQ / 18
      11:10 // 7:27 / xQ / 14
      11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12
      11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12
      11:25 // 10:25 / xQ / 11
      11:25-27 // 10:21-22 / xQ / 27
      11:27 // 10:22 / xQ / 11
      12:27 // 11:19 / xQ / 15
      12:28 // 11:20 / xQ / 13
      12:30 // 11:23 / sQ / 15
      12:41 // 11:32 / sQ / 24
      12:42 // 11:31 / sQ / 16
      12:43 // 11:24 / xQ / 14
      12:45 // 11:26 / xQ / 14
      13:17 // 10:24 / sQ / 11
      13:33 // 13:21 / sQ / 13
      23:37 // 13:34 / xQ / 14
      23:37-38 // 13:34-35 / xQ / 12
      24:47-48 // 12:44-45 / xQ / 14
      24:50-51 // 12:46 / xQ / 26

      > BRUCE:
      > Does one portion of this material as Ron has divided it show more or fewer
      > Aramaisms,

      RON: I don't know. This would be a really major exercise and beyond my
      linguistic skills.

      > BRUCE: ..... or possible mistranslations from the Aramaic, than the other?

      RON: Yes. The logia material appears to have more mistranslations.

      > BRUCE:
      > Again: If OT quotations are included, are the passages derived from Mt close
      > to the Septuagint,

      RON: If we go by the list of quotations at the end of UBS3 there are 'Q'
      quotations at Lk 4:4, 8, 10-11, 12, 7:27 and 13:35; and separately Mt 10:35
      and 15:14. The Lukan quotations here are LXX, and all assigned by me to
      Luke's copying of Matthew.

      > BRUCE: ..... and those taken direct from the Aramaic source (which was
      > presumably not getting its Scriptures from a Greek translation of them) not?

      RON: The last two are from the logia. Mt 15:14 is not from LXX. In Mt 10:35
      //Lk 12:53 it is not clear whether the synoptic use of NUMFH was influenced
      by the LXX or was simply common usage in the 1st. century.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

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