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

FW: [Synoptic-L] The 3ST: a simple linguistic test

Expand Messages
  • Goodell, Donald (Donald)
    Ron: I think you meant to write (in sentence) #6 below: Consequently we would not expect a very high degree of agreement between the Matthean and Lukan
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron:

      I think you meant to write (in sentence) #6 below:

      "Consequently we would not expect a very high degree of agreement between
      the Matthean and Lukan versions of sQ material, for they involved separate
      translations FROM THE ARAMAIC" [or perhaps "INTO THE GREEK"] rather than
      "from the Greek" ??

      Is there any wiggleroom (in explaining the overlap of material in "Luke" and
      in "Matthew") for an ORAL GREEK source AND an ORAL ARAMAIC source in your
      calculations as well as positing separate Greek and Aramaic written sources
      ?

      Is it possible to posit a third language possibility from the Aramaic BEFORE
      the Greek, e.g. Coptic, in view of the large cluster of diaspora-Jews in
      Alexandria that may have been open to a Messianic-Nazorean/Christian
      message(AD 70-170)?

      If so, would it be safe to say that such an "oral" scenario might skew the
      numbers a little, mathematically?

      DG
      dgoodell@...

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ron Price [mailto:ron.price@...]
      Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:29 AM
      To: Synoptic-L
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] The 3ST: a simple linguistic test


      There has previously been discussion on this list regarding the
      importance of testing the predictions of the various synoptic hypotheses
      as a means of homing in on the solution to the synoptic problem. Of
      course some hypotheses make more predictions than others, which can make
      direct comparison difficult. Even so, it's a line that should be
      followed up wherever possible.
      The 3ST as I've presented it divides the double tradition material
      into 'xQ' pericopae which Luke apparently copied from Matthew, and 'sQ'
      pericopae which he took from an early Aramaic sayings source. If this
      was the case, then both Matthew and Luke had to translate the Aramaic
      sayings. Consequently we would not expect a very high degree of
      agreement between the Matthean and Lukan versions of sQ material, for
      they involved separate translations from Greek. This is a prediction
      which can be tested. (Note that the degree of agreement in wording was
      not one of the criteria used to distinguish between xQ and sQ material.)
      Several scholars list pericopae which they see as having virtually the
      same wording in Matthew and Luke. But there is a degree of subjectivity
      in most of these lists.
      However Kloppenborg Verbin (_Excavating Q_, p.56) lists seven examples
      of "extremely high" (the highest?) verbal agreement taken from word
      counts in Morgenthaler. Based on counts in Luke, these include 18 verses
      of which I had allocated 16 to xQ and 2 to sQ (i.e. 11% sQ. Counting
      words indicates 12% sQ). Considering that I had allocated more to sQ
      than to xQ, this is a remarkable result: the great majority of similarly
      worded texts are explained as cases where Luke more or less slavishly
      copied Matthew's Greek. Opponents of the 3ST should have to explain how
      it is that it produces such a 'good' result if it wasn't based on an
      essentially correct analysis of the origins of the double tradition
      pericopae.

      Also Kloppenborg makes an interesting observation that Matthew and
      Luke display a higher degree of verbal agreement in the double tradition
      than in the triple tradition (ExQ, pp.57-58). The difference could in
      principle be readily explained by the fact that any triple tradition
      agreements between Matthew and Luke involve the accuracy of *two*
      editors, whereas in the double tradition on Farrer, or for xQ double
      tradition material on the 3ST, only *one* editor is involved!

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.