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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Relationship

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.