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

[Synoptic-L] 3SH testability (was: "True Kin Case study")

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Stephen, The 3SH, at least as I ve expounded it, could in theory be giving a worse explanation than both the FH and the 2SH in some instances. For I ve
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen Carlson wrote:

      > I'd just like to know if it is logically
      >possible for the 3SH to be a worse explanation than both the FH
      >and the 2SH.

      Stephen,

      The 3SH, at least as I've expounded it, could in theory be giving a
      worse explanation than both the FH and the 2SH in some instances. For
      I've taken the 3SH to its logical conclusion and proposed that the early
      sayings source ('sQ') was in Aramaic and should be identified with
      Papias' TA LOGIA, and that it was produced by the first followers of
      Jesus under the leadership of James the brother of Jesus.
      The language claim could be disproved if:
      (a) the different versions of sQ sayings were shown to be so close as to
      demand a Greek original (Kloppenborg did this for Q, but the scope of
      sQ, though overlapping, is different).
      (b) the half dozen or so Matt/Luke differences which I explain as due to
      mistranslation by Matt or Luke from the Aramaic could be demonstrated to
      be no such thing.
      The connection with James et al. could be disproved on the basis of
      the bitter controversy between James and Paul, if it could be shown that
      sQ's many aphorisms include subtle references to Pauline theology, or
      for that matter if they include anything which could not have been
      advocated by a Jew.
      The connection with Papias's TA LOGIA could be disproved if anyone
      could identify convincingly some other document to which TA LOGIA
      refers.

      > Can it be tested, or is Occam's razor all we've got?

      Yes, it can be tested just as easily as the 2SH or the FH.
      (A) If we investigate alternating primitivity and find it to be a valid
      phenomenon, and doublets and find that many of them indicate the use of
      two written sources, then these conclusions support the 2SH or the 3SH.
      (B) If we investigate the minor agreements and find them to indicate
      that Luke knew Matthew, and e.g. Lk 1:1 and find it to confirm this,
      then these conclusions support the FH or the 3SH.
      If we then put the two sets of conclusions together we find that of
      the 2SH, 3SH and FH, only the 3SH can explain both sets of observations.

      There are four possibilities here.
      1. for (A) and against (B) leads to the 2SH.
      2. against (A) and for (B) leads to the FH.
      3. for (A) and for (B) leads to the 3SH.
      4. against (A) and against (B) would leave us in a bit of a quandary.

      Thus only if we came to the opposite conclusions regarding *both* sets
      of observations (number 4.) would we be left with Occam's razor as all
      we've got to explain the almost identical wording in some of the double
      tradition.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      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.