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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Relationship

Expand Messages
  • David Gentile
    ... Steven, I can t judge your claim about those passages, but I ll assume you are correct. I would speculate that #1 could have come from a pure sayings
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > I would be interested in some examples of minor-agreements that you
      > suggest are "Matthean" (and can not be Lukan or Sourcisms). As for the
      > Beelzebul controversy, note:
      > 1. The excellent Hebraism in Lukes: OIKOS EPI OIKON PIPTEI (=BAYIT 'AL
      > BAYIT NOFEL) which does not occur in either Mark and Matthew.
      > 2. Luke's preservation of a non-LXX Hebraism: EN DAKTULW THEOU which
      > is to be preferred to Matthew.
      > Shalom,
      > Steven Notley
      > Nyack College NYC


      I can't judge your claim about those passages, but I'll assume you are
      I would speculate that #1 could have come from a pure sayings source, as
      might the "blasphames" bit a little farther down. (Lk12:10)

      #2 If Luke was working with old sources, it is not unreasonable to assume he
      might be more familiar with the origins than the other authors. So, Luke
      might modify Matthew here, because he is familiar with the expression.

      As for the minor agreements, I can start with one word, and we can look at
      others, if we want to. The weight of the statistical argument comes from
      looking at many words, of course.

      IDOU occurs 5 times as a minor agreement.
      In the study there are only 207 words total in the minor agreements, so 5 is
      a very high number here.
      The word occurs only 7 times in Mark, and 62 times in Matthew. 36 of those
      are in the triple tradition. For more contrast, it appears only twice in
      triple agreement, but 25 times in Matthew alone, in the triple tradition.
      Luke has 14 in the triple tradition and 5 are the minor agreements.

      Clearly the word is a favorite of Matthew. If Luke were using Matthew only a
      little as reference while revising something more Mark-like, words that
      Matthew added to Mark often would be the sort of thing we should see often
      in the minor agreements.

      Other explanations are possible, but are at least slightly more complicated.
      (The word could be a favorite of both source, and Matthew, for example)
      If Luke and Matthew are only based on a common source, we would expect
      pointers like this in both directions to roughly cancel, but overall they
      don't. The Mt => Lk pointers outweigh the opposite direction pointers.

      USTERON is another good one. 7 times in Matthew, never in Mark, and once in
      Luke, as a minor agreement. (Lk20:32)

      For another point of view, here is Ron's page on things that look Matthian:


      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois
      M.S. Physics
      Ph.D. Management Science candidate

      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.