Re: Three-source theory
- Well, I'm here, so I can comment. (And thanks for the interest).
First, about me:
I'm an interested amateur in the area of biblical studies. I have no formal training in the area. I've just hung around on lists like this for more that 10 years now. My formal degrees are in Physics, and essentially financial engineering (M.S. in each), I work as a statistician, and I'm pursuing yet another degree in that.
The study has never been formally published, so it has never been peer-reviewed in that way. Never-the-less over the years it has attracted interested parties with the background needed to evaluate and comment on it. While nothing is ever perfect, I'm still fully satisfied that it demonstrates the minimal claims it makes.
I've also never seen any other statistical analysis using the amount of data used in that study, so at least in that respect, it has not been superseded. The tools for this sort of thing are becoming more common, however. I was recently in contact with anther individual using advanced statistical techniques to look at this stuff as well. His conclusions were similar.
Mark Goodacre has pointed out that his hypothesis can not be excluded on the basis of the study by itself. I agree, although I think the study tends to point more towards some variety of the 3ST. Mostly, however, I would argue for the 3SH here on other grounds.
Ron Price and I have discussed his version of the 3ST verses mine. I think there is some minimal statistical support for diving up the double tradition into sayings, and longer narrative categories, and that these categories tended to have a different history associated with them. I don't agree with Ron's exact breakdown, but I do agree with the idea in general.
As for whether or not the saying source was an early source, or a later one, the statistical study is silent on that point. I would argue the saying source was post-Markian reactionary document, trying to turn back to a more Jewish Christianity, but you are correct, that nothing in the study itself supports (nor undermines) this idea.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]