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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Relationship

Expand Messages
  • R. Steven Notley
    David, Thanks for your response! ... Now you realize why I was seeking some clarification of the Sayings Source. The resort to a pure sayings source I must
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
      David,

      Thanks for your response!

      David Gentile wrote:

      > > 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
      >
      > 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 source, as
      > might the "blasphames" bit a little farther down. (Lk12:10)

      Now you realize why I was seeking some clarification of the "Sayings Source."
      The resort to "a pure sayings source" I must say resembles the similar "pea in
      the shell" game that occurs with two-source advocates with "Mark and Q
      overlaps." On those occasions, it becomes convenient to dismiss "minor
      agreements" by resort to "overlaps." Here it is clearly a "triple tradition"
      narrative text that has some sayings in it and Luke preserves (in this verse) a
      superior version. Any theory of synoptic development must take into account
      this phenomenon.

      Actually, your reference to Luke 12:10 demonstrates my point of where we can
      identify "Luke's contribution". On that ocassion we witness "Luke's" (not his
      purse sayings source) contribution with the mention of BLASFHMEIN. In Greek
      terms his contribution may be seen as an "improvement" but Matthew preserves
      the more superior "Hebraic Greek" saying (as contrasted with the breakdown in
      the previous verse Matt 11:31 under Markan influence). Compare Numbers 12:8
      "to speak against my servant" (LEDEBER B-). Contrary to the assumed opinion of
      NT scholarship, Luke does not "Semiticize" his Greek. Luke's contributions
      refine the Greek of his source(s)—and are clearly recognizable.

      >
      >
      > #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.
      >

      Again, the fundamental problem here is to define the parameters of the sayings
      source so that it does not appear as a "resort of convenience." What you
      attribute as a "sayings source" I would venture is actually remnants of the
      p-G.

      >
      > 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.
      > Mt8:2
      > Mt9:2
      > Mt9:18
      > Mt17:3
      > Mt26:47

      I am not following your reasoning. KAI IDOU occurs 28 times in Matthew and 26
      in Luke—never in Mark. This suggests a common non-Markan source shared between
      Matthew and Luke. However, it does not suggest interdependence between Matthew
      and Luke. BTW it occurs 8 times in Acts—6 times in I Acts (1-15) and 2 times
      in II Acts. I would argue that the significant drop in II Acts suggests that
      it is not indicative of "Lukan style" but a "Sourcism." Again, all of this
      suggests a shared source between Matthew and Luke but nothing to demonstrate
      interdependence.

      >
      > 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)

      Again, this does not necessitate Luke's knowledge and use of Matthew in the
      verse in question. It does (perhaps but the rarity of its use makes any
      conclusions tentative) suggest that use of the term is "non-Lukan" and thus
      perhaps a "Sourcism" in this verse—though the origins of it are a question;
      note its absence from the LXX rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures). In regards
      to Matthew, all one can say is that he and Luke here may share a common
      source. Regarding the use of the term elsewhere in Matthew, that does not
      demonstrate anything about Luke. I might note that the use of HUSTERON in
      Matthew 22:27 is "non-Matthean." He elsewhere does not follow the adverb with
      a gentitive object as here (PANTWN). If in this verse Luke is here relying
      upon Matthew, it is odd that he preserves the typically "Matthean" adverbal
      usage "Afterwards" rather than following Matthew's "After them all". Are we
      suggesting that Luke "corrected" Matthew here in light of Matt's usage on the
      other 6 occasions. I am doubtful. In sum, I see no clear indication of Luke's
      reliance upon Matthew in this verse. Certainly not on the basis of the
      appearance of HUSTERON.


      >
      >
      > For another point of view, here is Ron's page on things that look Matthian:
      >
      > http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_xQxQ.html
      >
      > 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@...
    • David Gentile
      Hello Steven, The sayings source does contain some overlap with Mark. The individual units of the sayings source were probably circulated by oral tradition as
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
        Hello Steven,

        The sayings source does contain some overlap with Mark. The individual
        units of the sayings source were probably circulated by oral tradition as
        well. Mark may possibly have had access to it as well. As a very general
        statement, I'd say the "Mark/Q overlaps", when Matthew becomes the middle
        term, involve the use of Matthew, Also the narrative parts of "Q" could be
        from Matthew. But most of the other material generally assigned to "Q" can
        be found in the sayings source.

        Steven:
        Contrary to the assumed opinion of
        NT scholarship, Luke does not "Semiticize" his Greek.

        Dave:
        How would you demonstrate that he *never* does this?

        However, I'd like to concentrate on the HHB results.

        Steven:
        >
        > IDOU occurs 5 times as a minor agreement.
        > Mt8:2
        > Mt9:2
        > Mt9:18
        > Mt17:3
        > Mt26:47

        I would argue that the significant drop in II Acts suggests that
        it is not indicative of "Lukan style" but a "Sourcism." Again, all of this
        suggests a shared source between Matthew and Luke but nothing to demonstrate
        interdependence.

        Dave: It also is less common in Sondergut Luke, so we agree it is
        non-Lukian.
        However, it could be Matthian.

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

        Again, this does not necessitate Luke's knowledge and use of Matthew in the
        verse in question. It does (perhaps but the rarity of its use makes any
        conclusions tentative) suggest that use of the term is "non-Lukan" and thus
        perhaps a "Sourcism"

        Dave:
        Yes, the minor agreement looks un-Lukian. Agreed it is only one example,
        with low frequency. But the point of the HHB analysis is that this is
        quantifiable. We can specify in exact numerical terms how much more likely
        one scenario is than another. One word by itself proves nothing, but many
        words can show a statistically significant pattern. The minor agreements are
        significantly more Matthian than Lukian. This indicates one of two things:
        A) Luke used Matthew
        B) Luke and Matthew used a common source whose vocabulary was significantly
        more Matthian.

        If the minor agreements come from a common source, you would have to
        postulate that Luke reworked his triple tradition, enough to make his
        material clearly non-source-like, while Matthew, substantially, only copied
        the source, or even more unlikely successfully imitated the vocabulary
        signature of the source.

        Combined with other hints of Matthew from other arguments, and the HHB
        analysis finding that parts of Sondergut Matthew and the double tradition
        probably had the same author. We have that Luke uses a source that
        A) Looked Matthian in the triple tradition
        B) Probably contained some Sondergut Matthew
        C) Contained the double tradition.
        D) Contained some Matthian themes

        This is enough for me to call the source document "Matthew".
        Although, again, I don't think Luke *only* used Matthew. I think Luke
        only referred to Matthew a little.

        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@...
      • R. Steven Notley
        ... I repeat that it is an assumption that Luke s Hebraisms are artificial Biblicisms (Septuagintalisms). This is based on _nothing_ more than the false
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
           

          David Gentile wrote:

          Hello Steven,

          The sayings source does contain some overlap with Mark.  The individual
          units of the sayings source were probably circulated by oral tradition as
          well. Mark may possibly have had access to it as well. As a very general
          statement, I'd say the "Mark/Q overlaps", when Matthew becomes the middle
          term, involve the use of Matthew, Also the narrative parts of "Q" could be
          from Matthew. But most of the other material generally assigned to "Q" can
          be found in the sayings source.

          Steven:
          Contrary to the assumed opinion of
          NT scholarship, Luke does not "Semiticize" his Greek.

          Dave:
          How would you demonstrate that he *never* does this?

          I repeat that it is an assumption that Luke's Hebraisms are artificial Biblicisms (Septuagintalisms).  This is based on _nothing_ more than the false assumption that Hebrew was dead in the first century and that if there are valid Semitisms to be found in the Gospels they _must_ be Aramaisms.  Since Luke's Semitisms are Hebraisms and not Aramaisms [this is not as simple as I have stated it, but nevertheless essentially true]  ergo they (are assumed to) be fabricated by Luke.  I have written on this List before that these assumptions are at least 50 years out of date with what we know was the linguistic setting in first century Judea.

          David as you well know, it is extremely difficult to "prove a negative."  My response would be simply two-fold:  Do we find it consistently Luke's style to biblicize his Greek (including Acts 15-28 where I think Luke write free from Semitic sources)?  The answer is no.  Second, what is to be made of "non-Septuagintal Hebraisms"  (including post-biblical Hebraisms)?  Where did Luke get them and what in the world would have motivated him to contort his Greek to a non-biblical Hebrew style?  It is just all too weird to imagine.  Finally, is there any example where it can be demonstrated with certainty that Semitisms in Luke are the product of his own hand and not simply a result of his Semitic source(s).  Again, I know of none.

           

          However, I'd like to concentrate on the HHB results.

          Steven:
          >
          > IDOU occurs 5 times as a minor agreement.
          > Mt8:2
          > Mt9:2
          > Mt9:18
          > Mt17:3
          > Mt26:47

          I would argue that the significant drop in II Acts suggests that
          it is not indicative of "Lukan style" but a "Sourcism."  Again, all of this
          suggests a shared source between Matthew and Luke but nothing to demonstrate
          interdependence.

          Dave: It also is less common in Sondergut Luke, so we agree it is
          non-Lukian.
          However, it could be Matthian.

          No, I am not sure we are agreed about this.  All I am saying is that I do not see that KAI IDOU comes to Luke from Matthew.
           

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

          Again, this does not necessitate Luke's knowledge and use of Matthew in the
          verse in question.  It does (perhaps but the rarity of its use makes any
          conclusions tentative) suggest that use of the term is "non-Lukan" and thus
          perhaps a "Sourcism"

          Dave:
          Yes, the minor agreement looks un-Lukian. Agreed it is only one example,
          with low frequency. But the point of the HHB analysis is that this is
          quantifiable. We can specify in exact numerical terms how much more likely
          one scenario is than another. One word by itself proves nothing, but many
          words can show a statistically significant pattern. The minor agreements are
          significantly more Matthian than Lukian. This indicates one of two things:
          A) Luke used Matthew
          B) Luke and Matthew used a common source whose vocabulary was significantly
          more Matthian.

          If the minor agreements come from a common source, you would have to
          postulate that Luke reworked his triple tradition, enough to make his
          material clearly non-source-like, while Matthew, substantially, only copied
          the source, or even more unlikely successfully imitated the vocabulary
          signature of the source.

          This is not entirely true.  Both Matthew and Luke re-work their sources.
           

          Combined with other hints of Matthew from other arguments, and the HHB
          analysis finding that parts of Sondergut Matthew and the double tradition
          probably had the same author. We have that Luke uses a source that
          A) Looked Matthian in the triple tradition

          No
           
          B) Probably contained some Sondergut Matthew
          If by that we mean, Matthew freed from Markan influence, okay.
           
          C) Contained the double tradition.
          Contained material that included (non-Markan) double tradition material.  I think it also is reflected in triple tradition material.  Because of Markan interference upon Matthew, I think it is more clearly identified in Luke in triple tradition than Matthew.
           
          D) Contained some Matthian themes
          I don't know what you mean here.
           

          This is enough for me to call the source document "Matthew".

          Not canonical Matthew.  BTW one of the biggest problems those of us who work in Hebrew have with identifying the Papias tradition with canonical Matthew is the fact that it is clear our Matthew was not written in Hebrew.  Instead, we would be willing to grant that the p-G source that lies behind our Gospels could be (but it remains far from certain) identified with Papias' "Matthew.
           
          Although, again, I don't think Luke *only* used Matthew. I think Luke
          only referred to Matthew a little.
          Again, I have yet to see any examples of where Luke's knowledge and use of Matthew is demonstrated and not assumed.

          Shalom,
          Steven

           

          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@...

        • David Gentile
          Thank you for the response. Steven writes: Where did ... his ... Maybe Luke spoke Hebrew and Greek and it was natural for him? ... copied ... You miss my point
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
            Thank you for the response.

            Steven writes:

            Where did
            > Luke get them and what in the world would have motivated him to contort
            his
            > Greek to a non-biblical Hebrew style?

            Maybe Luke spoke Hebrew and Greek and it was natural for him?

            > >
            > > If the minor agreements come from a common source, you would have to
            > > postulate that Luke reworked his triple tradition, enough to make his
            > > material clearly non-source-like, while Matthew, substantially, only
            copied
            > > the source, or even more unlikely successfully imitated the vocabulary
            > > signature of the source.
            >
            > This is not entirely true. Both Matthew and Luke re-work their sources.

            You miss my point here. It is demonstrated mathematically by the analysis
            that the minor agreements are significantly more Matthian than Lukian, given
            this, my statement *is* true, unless we can think of another way to explain
            the minor agreement being Matthian and not Lukian.

            > >
            > > D) Contained some Matthian themes
            >
            > I don't know what you mean here.
            >

            I'm referring to some arguments Mark Goodacre makes regarding "judgment"
            being a theme of both Matthew and Q. The word turns up in the HBB analysis,
            as well, as a contributor to making 200 look like 202. (Sondergut Mathew
            looks like the double tradition agreements)

            >
            > Not canonical Matthew.

            That would be difficult (impossible) to prove, but I think we can
            demonstrate a number of similarities to Matthew. Then given that, and given
            that it was not used frequently, there don't seem to be very good reasons to
            suppose that it was not Matthew.





            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • redskins@gowebway.com
            Remove Synoptic-L. Please, Please, Please!!! redskins@gowebway.com On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:38:09 -0500 R. Steven Notley wrote:   David
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
              Remove Synoptic-L. Please, Please, Please!!!

              redskins@...

              On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 16:38:09 -0500 "R. Steven Notley" <Notley@...> wrote:




              David Gentile wrote:
              Hello Steven,
              The sayings source does contain some overlap with Mark.� The individual
              units of the sayings source were probably circulated by oral tradition
              as
              well. Mark may possibly have had access to it as well. As a very general
              statement, I'd say the "Mark/Q overlaps", when Matthew becomes the
              middle
              term, involve the use of Matthew, Also the narrative parts of "Q" could
              be
              from Matthew. But most of the other material generally assigned to
              "Q" can
              be found in the sayings source.
              Steven:
              Contrary to the assumed opinion of
              NT scholarship, Luke does not "Semiticize" his Greek.
              Dave:
              How would you demonstrate that he *never* does this?
              I repeat that it is an assumption that Luke's Hebraisms are artificial
              Biblicisms (Septuagintalisms).� This is based on _nothing_ more than
              the false assumption that Hebrew was dead in the first century and that
              if there are valid Semitisms to be found in the Gospels they _must_ be
              Aramaisms.� Since Luke's Semitisms are Hebraisms and not Aramaisms
              [this is not as simple as I have stated it, but nevertheless essentially
              true]� ergo they (are assumed to) be fabricated by Luke.�
              I have written on this List before that these assumptions are at least
              50 years out of date with what we know was the linguistic setting
              in first century Judea.
              David as you well know, it is extremely difficult to "prove a negative."�
              My response would be simply two-fold:� Do we find it consistently
              Luke's style to biblicize his Greek (including Acts 15-28 where I think
              Luke write free from Semitic sources)?� The answer is no.� Second,
              what is to be made of "non-Septuagintal Hebraisms"� (including post-biblical
              Hebraisms)?� Where did Luke get them and what in the world would have
              motivated him to contort his Greek to a non-biblical Hebrew style?�
              It is just all too weird to imagine.� Finally, is there any example
              where it can be demonstrated with certainty that Semitisms in Luke are
              the product of his own hand and not simply a result of his Semitic source(s).�
              Again, I know of none.

              However, I'd like to concentrate on the HHB results.
              Steven:
              >
              > IDOU occurs 5 times as a minor agreement.
              > Mt8:2
              > Mt9:2
              > Mt9:18
              > Mt17:3
              > Mt26:47
              I would argue that the significant drop in II Acts suggests that
              it is not indicative of "Lukan style" but a "Sourcism."� Again,
              all of this
              suggests a shared source between Matthew and Luke but nothing to demonstrate
              interdependence.
              Dave: It also is less common in Sondergut Luke, so we agree it is
              non-Lukian.
              However, it could be Matthian.
              No, I am not sure we are agreed about this.� All I am saying is that
              I do not see that KAI IDOU comes to Luke from Matthew.

              Steven:
              >
              > USTERON is another good one. 7 times in Matthew, never in Mark, and
              once
              in
              > Luke, as a minor agreement. (Lk20:32)
              Again, this does not necessitate Luke's knowledge and use of Matthew
              in the
              verse in question.� It does (perhaps but the rarity of its use
              makes any
              conclusions tentative) suggest that use of the term is "non-Lukan"
              and thus
              perhaps a "Sourcism"
              Dave:
              Yes, the minor agreement looks un-Lukian. Agreed it is only one example,
              with low frequency. But the point of the HHB analysis is that this
              is
              quantifiable. We can specify in exact numerical terms how much more
              likely
              one scenario is than another. One word by itself proves nothing, but
              many
              words can show a statistically significant pattern. The minor agreements
              are
              significantly more Matthian than Lukian. This indicates one of two
              things:
              A) Luke used Matthew
              B) Luke and Matthew used a common source whose vocabulary was significantly
              more Matthian.
              If the minor agreements come from a common source, you would have to
              postulate that Luke reworked his triple tradition, enough to make his
              material clearly non-source-like, while Matthew, substantially, only
              copied
              the source, or even more unlikely successfully imitated the vocabulary
              signature of the source.
              This is not entirely true.� Both Matthew and Luke re-work their sources.

              Combined with other hints of Matthew from other arguments, and the HHB
              analysis finding that parts of Sondergut Matthew and the double tradition
              probably had the same author. We have that Luke uses a source that
              A) Looked Matthian in the triple tradition
              No

              B) Probably contained some Sondergut Matthew
              If by that we mean, Matthew freed from Markan influence, okay.

              C) Contained the double tradition.
              Contained material that included (non-Markan) double tradition material.�
              I think it also is reflected in triple tradition material.� Because
              of Markan interference upon Matthew, I think it is more clearly identified
              in Luke in triple tradition than Matthew.

              D) Contained some Matthian themes
              I don't know what you mean here.

              This is enough for me to call the source document "Matthew".
              Not canonical Matthew.� BTW one of the biggest problems those of us
              who work in Hebrew have with identifying the Papias tradition with canonical
              Matthew is the fact that it is clear our Matthew was not written in Hebrew.�
              Instead, we would be willing to grant that the p-G source that lies behind
              our Gospels could be (but it remains far from certain) identified with
              Papias' "Matthew.

              Although, again, I don't think Luke *only* used Matthew. I think Luke
              only referred to Matthew a little.
              Again, I have yet to see any examples of where Luke's knowledge and use
              of Matthew is demonstrated and not assumed.
              Shalom,
              Steven

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, Illinois
              M.S. Physics
              Ph.D. Management Science candidate
              Synoptic-L Homepage: <a href="http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l">http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l</a>
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • R. Steven Notley
              ... This may seem radical but I see no evidence that the Evangelists knew Hebrewócertainly none that Luke spoke Hebrew. There are inherent Hebrew idioms in
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
                 

                David Gentile wrote:

                Thank you for the response.

                Steven writes:

                Where did
                > Luke get them and what in the world would have motivated him to contort
                his
                > Greek to a non-biblical Hebrew style?

                Maybe Luke spoke Hebrew and Greek and it was natural for him?

                This may seem radical but I see no evidence that the Evangelists knew Hebrew—certainly none that Luke "spoke Hebrew."  There are inherent Hebrew idioms in Jesus sayings that are completely overlooked/misunderstood by the Evangelists.  One gets the distinct sense that they are working entirely in Greek.
                 

                > >
                > > If the minor agreements come from a common source, you would have to
                > > postulate that Luke reworked his triple tradition, enough to make his
                > > material clearly non-source-like, while Matthew, substantially, only
                copied
                > > the source, or even more unlikely successfully imitated the vocabulary
                > > signature of the source.

                You I think the divergence between Matthew and Luke in the triple tradition texts is Markan influences upon Matthew—not Luke's reworking the material to look "non-source like."
                 
                >
                > This is not entirely true.  Both Matthew and Luke re-work their sources.

                You miss my point here. It is demonstrated mathematically by the analysis
                that the minor agreements are significantly more Matthian than Lukian, given
                this, my statement *is* true, unless we can think of another way to explain
                the minor agreement being Matthian and not Lukian.

                Excuse my ignorance.  Is your identification of "Matthian" mean Matthean vocabulary, style, syntax?
                 

                > >
                > > D) Contained some Matthian themes
                >
                > I don't know what you mean here.
                >

                I'm referring to some arguments Mark Goodacre makes regarding "judgment"
                being a theme of both Matthew and Q. The word turns up in the HBB analysis,
                as well, as a contributor to making 200 look like 202. (Sondergut Mathew
                looks like the double tradition agreements)

                I am unaware of Goodacre's suggestion that "judgment" was a special theme of Matthew and Q.  I was under the impression that this was a Jewish notion and not limited to Matthew and Q.
                 

                >
                > Not canonical Matthew.

                That would be difficult (impossible) to prove, but I think we can
                demonstrate a number of similarities to Matthew. Then given that, and given
                that it was not used frequently, there don't seem to be very good reasons to
                suppose that it was not Matthew.

                Again, my biggest problem identifying Papias' Matthew with canonical Matthew is that (on the basis of linguistic analysis) there is no question canonical Matthew was not written in Hebrew.  Thus, if you are identifying Papias' Matthew with the canonical Matthew, you will need to do something about his report of the original language.
                 

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

              • David Gentile
                Hello Steven, Let me try to start over here. I know you ve said you did not listen in on any of the HHB analysis discussion, so that s probably part of the
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
                  Hello Steven,

                  Let me try to start over here. I know you've said you did not listen in on
                  any of the HHB analysis discussion, so that's probably part of the
                  communication gap.

                  Let me see if I can summarize the relevant part.

                  The data is divided into categories. I'll describe what the relevant
                  categories represent, in terms of the 2SH, so we know what we're dealing
                  with.

                  212 = minor agreements between Luke and Matthew in the triple tradition
                  211 = Words added to the triple tradition by Matthew (not found in Luke or
                  Mark)
                  112 = Words added to the triple tradition by Luke (not found in Matthew or
                  Mark)

                  Each of these categories has a "vocabulary profile", some words are common,
                  and some are uncommon.

                  What we can show is that category 212 is significantly related to 211, but
                  212 is not significantly related to 112.

                  By "related", I mean that if we know the frequency of a word is
                  above(/below) average in one category, it significantly increases the
                  chances of it being above(/below) average frequency in the other category.

                  Based on this relationship, I can only see two reasonable possible
                  explanations.
                  1) Luke used Matthew
                  2) Luke used a Greek source for the triple tradition that looked
                  significantly like Matthew in terms of vocabulary usage.

                  This is the argument that, added to other evidence, "tipped the scales" in
                  my mind. I think it is likely that Luke used something at least close to
                  canon Matthew.

                  I'm not identifying Papias' Matthew with canon Matthew. I think the order
                  is:
                  Mk => Mt => Lk, although all could have had earlier additional sources.
                  I don't think Matthew was an early source. It was probably the latest of a
                  number of sources used by Luke.

                  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.