Re: [Synoptic-L] A statistical approach to the synoptic problem
- Mark Goodacre wrote:
> Matt. 6.25-33 // Luke 12.22-31, to take one example, is included inMark,
> 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?
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.
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@...