[Synoptic-L] 3SH testability (was: "True Kin Case study")
- Stephen Carlson wrote:
> I'd just like to know if it is logicallyStephen,
>possible for the 3SH to be a worse explanation than both the FH
>and the 2SH.
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
> 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
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
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@...