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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.