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

Re: [Synoptic-L] RE: [GPG] Matthew and "Q"

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    I want to respond to each of the previous posts in this thread, but not at the moment. So for now I ll just take the last response first. Chuck, The scenario
    Message 1 of 34 , May 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I want to respond to each of the previous posts in this thread, but not at the moment. So for now I'll just take the last response first.

      Chuck,

      The scenario you describe would not account for one important feature of my results (and I would assume also Dave I's results).

      Sonndergut Matthew (material found only in Matthew and no other gospel) has a vocabulary profile that is significantly related to all of the following:

      1) Matthew's "Q" material taken as a whole
      2) The vocabulary profile of words found in that material which are not shared with Luke
      3) The vocabulary profile of words found in that material which are common to both Matthew and Luke

      It very strongly suggests that Sonndergut Matthew and the double tradition had the same author. I think this is actually fatal for the 2SH without alteration. However, the 2SH survives if you propose things like "Q was much larger that is generally thought and included much of Sonndergut Matthew".

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL


      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Chuck Jones <chuckjonez@...> wrote:
      >
      > David, Since Mt used 90% of Mk while Lk used only 60%, your item number 2 can be explained this way:  Mt reworked his sources less than Lk, and the M material in question is simply parts of Q that Lk chose not to include.  So the "same author" is the author of Q.
      >  
      > Rev. Chuck Jones
      > Atlanta, Georgia
      > ______________________________
      >
      > David Inglis wrote:
      >  
      > I would say there are strong statistical indications that:
      >
      > 1. The material unique to each of Matthew, Mark, and Luke was written
      > by different people.
      >
      > 2. The unique material in Matthew was written by the same person who
      > wrote the material common to Matthew and Luke that is not shared with Mark.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Dave Gentile
      ... Dave: Better , is a subjective judgment. Personally I d prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that s just my subjective judgment.
      Message 34 of 34 , May 15, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron:

        >
        > Dave,
        >
        > What you propose is clearly not impossible. But it is certainly not as good
        > as the original. What you present here is a brief general call to
        > repentance, followed by scenarios of people eager to repent. In our extant
        > Luke there is a warning of wrath and fire, so that by verse 10 one can sense
        > the crowds feeling guilty and ready to make amends. It parallels an
        > evangelistic meeting where there is a lengthy build-up of emotion before a
        > challenge to commitment. Luke was a good storyteller!

        Dave:

        'Better', is a subjective judgment. Personally I'd prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that's just my subjective judgment.

        Consistency, and sticking with a theme is a less subjective measure.


        Ron:

        >
        > But there remains the jump in the opposite direction, between verses 3 & 4.
        > In the extant text vv. 4-6 represent a temporary departure from the theme of
        > repentance so that Luke can portray the Jewish scriptures as hinting at the
        > salvation of the Gentiles (v.6).

        I really don't see this as much of a jump, if any. v3 mentions forgiveness (group not named), and the quote from Isaiah's 'punchline' is about salvation (for all). "Forgiveness -> salvation" seems like theme continuity to me.

        I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.

        Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.