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

Three-Source Theory

Expand Messages
  • Geoffrey Riggs
    As a new member here, I am interested, please, in the extent to which a recent statistical analysis I have just perused on line may now be superseded by more
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      As a new member here, I am interested, please, in the extent to which a recent
      statistical analysis I have just perused on line may now be superseded by more
      recent scholarship. This analysis

      (http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html)

      appears to provide a statistical pattern in word combinations that may point to
      the validity of the Three-Source Theory. Although the preparer of this analysis
      also tends toward one supposition in particular that is not entirely necessary
      to account for the statistical pattern he describes (the supposition that the
      common sayings tradition Matt./Luk. stems from a source slightly later than Mark
      rather than contemporaneous with Mark or earlier), the basics of the
      Three-Source Theory are still (apparently) borne out by the pattern duly
      unearthed here.

      I am wondering, please, if current scholarship might put this kind of
      statistical analysis in some serious question, or if it seems like valid work.
      Does it seem possible that the statistical conclusions here are valid and that
      the possible connections traced, through these statistics, between discrete word
      patterns in the common sayings tradition and more exclusively Matthean material
      are plausible? Thank you.

      Also, is there any current work being done, please, on the (apparent?)
      connections between exclusively Matthean material and common-sayings material?
      Or have such perceived connections been subjected to serious question-marks?
      Again, thanks.

      I have no brief, myself, for the Three-Source Theory. But I suppose that if I
      have any bias at all, it is toward concrete analyses, such as statistical data
      and rigorous philological analysis, over and above more impressionistic or
      strictly content-related theorizing. Philology and idiosyncratic word style
      simply bulk larger in my view. (To an extent, I sense that may be true of the
      posters on this board as well.)

      With thanks for your attention,

      Geoffrey Riggs





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Mealand
      Geoffrey Riggs asks about Dave Gentile s work on Synoptic agreement data. For those who may not have looked closely at Dave Gentile s work it is based on
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Geoffrey Riggs asks about Dave Gentile's
        work on Synoptic agreement data.

        For those who may not have looked closely at
        Dave Gentile's work it is based on analysis
        of the data contained in the HHB
        (= Hoffmann, Hieke, & Bauer)
        Synoptic Concordance which divides the evidence into
        19 categories showing varying patterns of agreement
        from full triple agreement to material found in
        one gospel only, and differentiating full and
        partial agreements.

        DG analyses 807 of the most frequent words (HHB
        doesn't give data for some very frequent words
        though). His analysis produces end results which
        show which of the 19 types of material correlate
        closely with which other ones.

        His conclusion runs as follows:
        >
        > So, in conclusion, based on this study and other more traditional
        > forms of evidence, not presented here, I believe the 3SH, or some
        > variation of it is most likely the correct solution. The study also
        > provides almost as much support for the FH, and I do not believe the
        > 2SH can be eliminated by this study.

        A cross check on his correlations using an
        entirely different method suggests they are
        well founded. However some caution
        needs to be noted a) some of the 19 categories are very
        large and some very small b) this makes it difficult to
        partition the data to check within-group consistency
        c) HHB omits details of the words of highest frequency
        d) some allowance needs to be made for differences due
        to genre and HHB does not encode for this. Despite
        these words of caution I think this study makes very
        good use of the data from HHB and I don't know of
        anything else which does it better. Can anyone else
        point to a comparable study based on HHB ?

        David M.

        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.