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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Relationship

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
         

        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 3 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
               

              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 6 of 7 , Apr 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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.