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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.