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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Relationship

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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  I have written on this List before that these assumptions are at least 50 years out of date with what we know was the linguistic setting in first century Judea.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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.