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

907Re: Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    Dec 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      At some point I might try to investigate how significant these
      numbers are, but I'll wait until I can devote more time to it.

      For now, I'm thinking through alternative explanations, assuming
      these numbers are significant. What is interesting is that sQ
      probably contains more direct quotes of Jesus, and we might expect
      those to be more similar than other text. Your finding of the
      opposite does seem to require an explanation, and an Aramaic saying
      source would be one such explanation.

      An alternative - the more narrative sections of Mt/Lk agreement,
      things that look Matthian, in your view – what if these are mostly
      the result of redaction of Luke, not a product of the original
      author of Luke. The redactor then did what he did well; he copied
      from Matthew to Luke, resulting in identical strings. I suppose the
      first argument against this alternative is that we don't have the un-
      redacted version of Luke.

      And although obviously the later authors are less faithful to Mark
      than their other source(s), at least by this measure, it also still
      seems that the total length of the section could be important. One
      piece of information that might be useful here – how many contiguous
      blocks of material are there in xQ and how many are in sQ? How many
      total words in sQ? xQ? This would give us the average length of the
      contiguous passages of general agreement. Although, ideally we'd
      want the total length of each contiguous passage, and the length of
      any identical strings found in it. I think from that one could
      construct a comparison, which would not be at all biased by the
      length of the contiguous passages of general agreement. We would
      count of the number of possible 10 word agreements in each, and the
      number of actual agreements. Here an 11 word string would count as 2
      potential 10 word strings, etc... Using this procedure, my intuition
      would be that the effect would be diminished, eliminated, or even
      reversed.

      Note that a negative result here is not a bad thing for the 3SH in
      general, but I suppose it would show a lack of support for the idea
      of independent translation of sQ. Luke might then have just worked
      from Matthew's translated version, or something along those lines.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL



      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dave Gentile wrote:
      >
      > > .......
      > > 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?
      >
      > Dave,
      >
      > The narrative pericopes tend to be longer, but it seems that they
      > tend to be copied less faithfully. At least this is my
      interpretation of the
      > following:
      >
      > In the material derived from Mark I have found only ten strings
      common to
      > Matthew and Luke which have more than ten words (format Matthew //
      Luke /
      > number of consecutive common words):
      >
      > 3:3 // 3:4 / 14
      > 8:2 // 5:12-13 / 18
      > 12:4 // 6:4 / 11
      > 14:19 // 9:16 / 12
      > 16:21 // 9:22 / 14
      > 16:25 // 9:24 / 16
      > 17:17 // 9:41 / 12
      > 22:44 // 20:42-3 / 15
      > 24:19 // 21:23 / 11
      > 24:34 // 21:32 / 13
      >
      > These 10 cases in the Markan set of data can be compared with the
      23 I found
      > in the part of the Double Tradition assigned to xQ, which is less
      than a
      > fifth of the size of the Mark-related data!
      >
      > Ron Price
      >
      > Derbyshire, UK
      >
      > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      >
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic