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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A statistical approach to the synoptic problem

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    Dave and Ron, I have two questions regarding the non-Markan, non-Matthean, third source of the 3ST. First, can the statistical method you re using distinguish
    Message 1 of 5 , May 12, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave and Ron,

      I have two questions regarding the non-Markan, non-Matthean, third source of
      the 3ST.

      First, can the statistical method you're using distinguish between Luke's
      direct use of a third source and Luke's indirect use of a third source
      through his use of Matthew? That is, if there are two kinds of material in
      Matthew, one where Matthew is following the source and one where he isn't,
      couldn't Luke show correlations with both types of material by taking them
      from Matthew? Is it necessary to posit Luke's direct knowledge of the third
      source?

      Second, if there is a third source needed to explain the "non-Matthean"
      correlations between Matthew and Luke, wouldn't that source most likely have
      been in Greek? Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
      Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan characteristics
      rather than close statistical correlation?

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • dgentil@sears.com
      K: First, can the statistical method you re using distinguish between Luke s direct use of a third source and Luke s indirect use of a third source through his
      Message 2 of 5 , May 12, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        K: First, can the statistical method you're using distinguish between
        Luke's
        direct use of a third source and Luke's indirect use of a third source
        through his use of Matthew? That is, if there are two kinds of material in
        Matthew, one where Matthew is following the source and one where he isn't,
        couldn't Luke show correlations with both types of material by taking them
        from Matthew? Is it necessary to posit Luke's direct knowledge of the
        third
        source?

        D:
        Here are some relevant results.
        202-201 .002
        202-102 .0058
        202-200 2E-06
        202-002 NR
        201-102 NR
        201-200 2E-10
        201-002 NR
        102-200 NR
        102-002 .213
        200-002 NR
        201-211 .9185
        102-112 .6858
        200-211 .2288
        002-112 2E-10
        102-112 .6858

        You are proposing:
        K + S => M
        K + M => L

        My only problem with that is that 202 and 201 have exactly the same
        authorship based on that hypothesis. Both are S material edited by Matthew.
        The only difference is caused by later selection or rejection by Luke.
        Based on that, I'd expect, 202 to look more like 201.

        One thing that makes me suspect a sayings source is this:
        202-201 .002
        202-102 .0058
        The only category we could attribute completely to the sayings source
        (202), looks symmetric, with respect to 102 and 201. It looks neither
        strongly Lukian nor Matthian. So if we have

        K + S => M
        K + S + M => L

        then 202 is authored by S (and retained by both Luke and Matthew)

        201 is Matthew's changes, and rejections by Luke, and looks a lot like 200.
        (202 also looks significantly like 200, and I suspect that is partly
        because 200 contains some S material that Luke rejected, as well as some
        original Matthew material.)

        102 is Luke's changes, and rejections by Matthew. It may not look much like
        002, because 002 is more narrative in character than 200 and 102 are, or
        because 002 contains no S material, or both.

        But the fact that the study did not find a significant 202-201 relation,
        does prove it does not exist. So, I think a saying source used by both Luke
        and Matthew is more likely, but I don't think the study rejects the
        hypothesis you've suggested either.

        Thanks for this comment. It will help me revise that section of the site a
        bit.

        K: Second, if there is a third source needed to explain the "non-Matthean"
        correlations between Matthew and Luke, wouldn't that source most likely
        have
        been in Greek? Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
        Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan characteristics
        rather than close statistical correlation?

        D: I'm not sure. I think where Matthew and Luke agreed in their
        translation, it would still be a style distinct from either Luke or
        Matthew. Also, they could have drawn off the same Greek translations,
        either oral or written.

        Dave Gentile
        Riverside Illinois
        M.S. Physics
        M.S. Finance






        "Ken Olson"
        <kaolson@mindspri To: <synoptic-l@...>, <dgentil@...>
        ng.com> cc:
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A statistical approach to the
        05/12/2003 11:10 synoptic problem
        AM






        Dave and Ron,

        I have two questions regarding the non-Markan, non-Matthean, third source
        of
        the 3ST.

        First, can the statistical method you're using distinguish between Luke's
        direct use of a third source and Luke's indirect use of a third source
        through his use of Matthew? That is, if there are two kinds of material in
        Matthew, one where Matthew is following the source and one where he isn't,
        couldn't Luke show correlations with both types of material by taking them
        from Matthew? Is it necessary to posit Luke's direct knowledge of the
        third
        source?

        Second, if there is a third source needed to explain the "non-Matthean"
        correlations between Matthew and Luke, wouldn't that source most likely
        have
        been in Greek? Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
        Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan characteristics
        rather than close statistical correlation?

        Best Wishes,

        Ken

        kaolson@...







        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ron Price
        ... Ken and Dave, It depends whether we take Papias seriously. Papias wrote about a Hebrew/Aramaic TA LOGIA which was interpreted/translated. This description
        Message 3 of 5 , May 12, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Ken Olson wrote:

          > Second, if there is a third source needed to explain the "non-Matthean"
          > correlations between Matthew and Luke, wouldn't that source most likely have
          > been in Greek?

          Ken and Dave,

          It depends whether we take Papias seriously. Papias wrote about a
          Hebrew/Aramaic TA LOGIA which was interpreted/translated. This description
          appears to fit sQ nicely.

          > Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
          > Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan characteristics
          > rather than close statistical correlation?

          Good question. I think a definitive answer would require investigation by
          a linguistic expert. It seems to depend on the amount of choice the
          translator had when tackling the typically down-to-earth language in a rural
          setting which makes up most of the wording in the sayings attributed to
          Jesus.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, 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@...
        • Mark Goodacre
          On 13 May 2003 at 7:18, Ron Price wrote: [Ken Olson] ... Matt. 6.25-33 // Luke 12.22-31, to take one example, is included in your sQ but features extensive
          Message 4 of 5 , May 13, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On 13 May 2003 at 7:18, Ron Price wrote:

            [Ken Olson]

            > > Wouldn't Luke and Matthew's independent translations of an
            > > Aramaic document tend to show divergent Matthean and Lukan
            > > characteristics rather than close statistical correlation?
            >
            > Good question. I think a definitive answer would require
            > investigation by
            > a linguistic expert. It seems to depend on the amount of choice the
            > translator had when tackling the typically down-to-earth language in a
            > rural setting which makes up most of the wording in the sayings
            > attributed to Jesus.

            Matt. 6.25-33 // Luke 12.22-31, to take one example, is included in
            your sQ but features extensive verbatim agreement between the two in
            Greek. This is pretty unlikely if both were independently
            translating something from a source document, isn't it?

            Mark
            -----------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
            Birmingham B15 2TT UK

            http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
            http://NTGateway.com


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Ron Price
            ... Mark, I m not too impressed by the parallels here. I think I d be right in saying that in every Greek sentence there are at least two differences between
            Message 5 of 5 , May 13, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark Goodacre wrote:

              > Matt. 6.25-33 // Luke 12.22-31, to take one example, is included in
              > your sQ but features extensive verbatim agreement between the two in
              > Greek. This is pretty unlikely if both were independently
              > translating something from a source document, isn't it?

              Mark,

              I'm not too impressed by the parallels here. I think I'd be right in
              saying that in every Greek sentence there are at least two differences
              between the Matthean and Lukan versions.

              Furthermore there are many Greek words here which according to their NT
              usage appear to have little in the way of practical alternatives.
              Thus according to my concordance (Morrison's on the RSV):
              KRINON, SOLOMWN, APOQHKH, NHQW, DOXA, KLIBANOS, QEOS, PATHR, BASILEIA
              appear to have no alternative in practice in the NT, and
              ESQIW, PINW, SWMA, SPEIRW, QERIZW, AUXANW, AGROS, KOPIAW
              are by far the most popular words for their respective meanings.
              So I suggest that a near literal translation of the posited Aramaic
              (whatever that was, for I don't know Aramaic) would have had only limited
              scope for variation.

              As for that wonderfully graphic compound word OLIGOPISTOS which occurs in
              this saying in both Matthew and Luke, I think it's a special case, a
              Mattheanism which had fascinated Luke when he had read the saying during his
              preparatory study of Matthew, causing him to add it from memory to his
              translation of the saying.

              Ron Price

              Derbyshire, 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.