Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Relationship
- 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
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
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
112 = Words added to the triple tradition by Luke (not found in Matthew or
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
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
I'm not identifying Papias' Matthew with canon Matthew. I think the order
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.
Ph.D. Management Science candidate
>Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...