Amaleq13

Hark! Do I hear the rapidly approaching feety-steps of judge?

Roland, if your opponent is Catholic, you might mention that this point Diogenes raises is repeated, albeit in a less definitive tone, by the Catholic Study Bible. The editors caution against assumptions of Petrine influence. They also explicitly reject any notion that Matthew was written by a disciple given the clear dependence on Mark.

Not to mention the consensus view that Q was also not written in Aramaic.

andrewcriddle

This isn't a scholarly publication in the sense of in a refereed Journal but the analysis at
A statistical approach to the synoptic problem
If interpreted in terms of Q at all, seems to imply that the form of Q used by Matthew and M proper are part of the same source, and this source was somewhat different from the form of Q used by Luke.

Andrew Criddle

judge

No...... :boohoo: I give up!...lol

judge

But does Matthew really use the Septuagint?

It seems at times he agrees with it, at times he partly agrees with it and at times he disagrees with itand agrees with the hebrew or some other version.

If we can conclude that Matthew uses the LXX by the quotes that agree with the LXX, why can we not also conclude that he uses the hebrew text, as at times the HB quotes appearing in Matthew agree with or are closer to the hebrew text.

Why can we use the argument one way but not another?

See here for one attempted comparison of the use of the LXX compared with the massoretic hebrew text.

S.C.Carlson

I thought that David Gentile's preferred interpretation of his evidence was the "Three Source Hypothesis," which basically holds that Luke used Mark, Matthew, and Q, while some parts of Q should be reclassified as M or Matthean redaction. So, it's a partial match.

Stephen Carlson

andrewcriddle

IMHO the results taken at face value are better explained without the use of Matthew by the original author of Luke, (some later assimilation to Matthew of the present text of Luke is another matter).

Do you regard the correlations (and non-correlations) found in this study as solid enough to require explanation ?

If so what would be your preferred explanation ?

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Can you elaborate on this? The stylistic analysis posted by Carlson would seem to indicate that Q and M are basically from Matthew. Do you think that is an artifact of the testing procedure?

Vorkosigan

S.C.Carlson

My view different: the fact that the results show that the Minor Agreements are Matthean and not Lukan would indicate that Luke had some knowledge of Matthew's redaction of Mark.

I've got to double-check the math and decide whether he's using the right model. Unfortunately, Gentile's exposition of his method is fairly obscure, so I'd have to almost redo the analysis from scratch for me to regard his study as solid enough. Nevertheless, the fact that his analysis found many of the non-controversial correlations (non-correlations) is an encouraging sign.

With one exception, his results support the Farrer Theory very well. The main problem is the correlation between Q (202) and Q/Lk (102), which might imply that Luke sometimes preserves Q's wording better than Matthew. A couple of explanations for this are possible (e.g. Luke's harmonizing the vocabulary of one saying with another, or textual corruption of Matthew or Luke). A detailed analysis of why there's a 202-102 correlation might be illuminating.

Stephen Carlson

andrewcriddle

IMO the results indicate that Q in Matthew and M preserve the original wording of this material in a way that Q in Luke does not.

However this material does not appear to be in the same style as genuinely Matthean redaction

210 and 211 (which assuming Marcan priority are clearly Matthean redaction) associate with each other and with 212 the 'minor agreements' which IMHO are to a substantial extent later assimilation of the text of Luke to Matthew.

202 and 201 (form of Q found in Matthew) associate with each other and with 200 (mostly M) but not with 102 (Luke's special form of Q) or 002 (Luke's special material).

However the group (210 211 212) which is mostly Matthean redactional material shows no significant association with the group (202 201 200) which is mostly M and Matthew's version of Q.

Hence although Matthew seems to preserve the original form of the Q type material better than Luke, it does not appear to be in Matthew's own style.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

IIUC there is no significant 202-102 correlation

David Gentile gives

202-102 .0058
102-202 .0031

which compares to the cutoff point for what he regards as significant associations of around .0005

Andrew Criddle