[Synoptic-L] Added to interpretation page:
- Added to interpretation page:
For the 2SH the relation between 200 and 202 is a bit problematic, but it
could be explained by significant parts of 200 ? sondergut Matthew, being
part of Q. The 2SH would expect 212 to be roughly equally related to Luke
and Matthew. The fact that we did not find significant evidence of the
relation to Luke, does not mean that the relation does not exist. However,
the study tells us that the minor agreements (212), are clearly Matthian in
style, and that there is no clear distinction between sondergut Matthew
(200), and material that is clearly Q, on the 2SH (202). The combination of
these 2 results should make us suspect, that perhaps Luke did use Matthew.
At the very least Luke seems to have had among his sources, the following:
1) Markian material.
2) Markian material with a Matthian flavor seems likely, based on the fact
that category 212 seems Matthian and not Lukian.
3) Double tradition material. And based on the fact that 202 groups with
201, and not with 102, we would have to say on the 2SH that Matthew was
much more faithful to Q, than Luke was.
4) Based on the fact that 202 closely resembles 200, we would have to say
that Q contained much of what we call sondergut Matthew, and that Luke
So, we have that Luke had probably access to a Matthian looking triple
tradition, access to a Matthian looking double tradition, and access to at
least significant parts of what we know as sondergut Matthew. It is not a
large step from here to
say that Luke knew Matthew.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...