Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
I think I made my point clear. If probability was to be weighed then considering necessity is a diversion.
|
Necessity for X lowers probability for NOT X.
Quote:
|
Well, let's just say I am not concerned with the practicality of the proposition but its glaring lack of disciplined thinking.
|
There's nothing undisciplined about it, you just seem to be having trouble grasping it.
Quote:
|
I am grateful. But then again, for someone who is sure he is not confused when he says that decreasing the improbability of something is not the same thing as increasing the the probability of same.....that's a hell of a promise to make.
|
This is just semantics. Removing an obstacle against a hypothesis is not positive evidence FOR a hypothesis.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
It's impossible that Matthew and Luke translated independently from a common Aramaic source.
|
Virtually ? or actually ? or practically ?
|
All three. If it makes things easier for you, I'm comfortable saying it's ACTUALLY impossible.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
If Luke knew Matthew then it is NOT impossible that Matthew used Aramaic and that Luke used Matthew's translations. "Not impossible" != "probable," though.
|
Does not follow the above but irrelevant to the query, in any case.
|
It follows perfectly. Read it again. If A then X is impossible. If NOT A then X is not impossible. It's not complicated.
Quote:
But that is a different argument. Remember the question ?
If Luke knew Matthew would this increase the possibility of Matthew using an Aramaic sayings source?
Nothing about Q.
|
Q IS the sayings source. It's the same thing. Do you actually know anything about the Q hypothesis? Maybe that's why you can't follow the argument. Here's a primer. Q (from the German
quelle which means "source") represents the sayings material which is common to Matthew and Luke but which did not come from Mark. Since the material is identical in Greek and since it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to have made identical translations from Aramaic independently, that means they either copied from a common Greek source or Luke copied Matthew.
Now pay attention to this next part because this is what's relevant to the thread.
If Luke did not know Matthew, they MUST have shared a common Greek source. A common Aramaic source is IMPOSSIBLE.
If Luke DID know Matthew, then Matthew didn't HAVE to have a Greek source for Q. It's not positive evidence that he used Aramaic, it just means it's not impossible anymore.
Quote:
|
Luke knowing Matthew, in and of itself, cannot test the proposition.
|
No one said it can. What I'm saying is that Lucan INDEPENDENCE of Matthew FASIFIES the hypothesis. Lucan knowledge of Matthew merely removes that falsification. It's not evidence FOR an Aramaic source and I haven't said that it is.
Quote:
|
from Even if we agree that the source was Q
|
The "source" and "Q" are the same thing.
Quote:
|
what was the guarantee there was not a Greek version of it before it got to Matthew ?
|
Nothing.
Quote:
|
How does Luke's knowledge of Matthew help us there ?
|
It makes it possible instead of impossible.
Yeah, quit putting spaces before question marks. It's annoying.
03-17-2007, 04:03 PM
