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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Relationship

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.