The goal of the thesis is to trace the sequence of materials of different origin in the synoptic Gospels through stylistic features. The question is whether an author's style is typical in the way it employs syntax. Using syntax, the thesis tests whether a sample can be correctly associated with one author, rather than incorrectly associated with another author. 'Syntax,' in this thesis, quite specifically intends 'an assessment of a very broad range of syntax.' The thesis reviews the literary debate over the 'synoptic problem,' finding that Luke knew and depended the triple tradition known to Mark. Luke did not know or use the unique parts of Mark. This set of materials, then, can be used to test whether syntax indicates a similar relationship. Regarding the literature on style in authorship attribution, the thesis develops principles for measuring style through syntax, and compares the distribution of the occurrence-the 'weighted sum of the logs of the ratio'--of syntax in each of three blocks of text. Such a distribution associates a reference block of text with the correct distribution from the distributions in two alternative texts offered. That is, a reference block drawn from the editorial layer in Mark proves to be closer to the remaining editorial layer in Mark (which is correct), than it proves to be to the editorial layer in Luke (which would be incorrect). This is at least a first step towards using this method with sources that appear in New Testament documents, even when they are small or fragmentary. The thesis then applies such an analysis to one of the clearest sources in the synoptic Gospels, namely, the 'triple tradition' as presented by Luke. The analysis is congruent with the results of literary criticism. This supports the idea that syntax can discern or define a source, and so it can help us understand more about the evolution of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the thesis finds that although Luke knew the 'triple tradition' that Mark used, yet Luke appears not to have fully relied on the version of the triple tradition that we know in, and as edited by Mark. / New Testament Studies / D.Th. (New Testament)

The goal of the thesis is to trace the sequence of materials of different origin in the synoptic Gospels through stylistic features. The question is whether an author's style is typical in the way it employs syntax. Using syntax, the thesis tests whether a sample can be correctly associated with one author, rather than incorrectly associated with another author. 'Syntax,' in this thesis, quite specifically intends 'an assessment of a very broad range of syntax.' The thesis reviews the literary debate over the 'synoptic problem,' finding that Luke knew and depended the triple tradition known to Mark. Luke did not know or use the unique parts of Mark. This set of materials, then, can be used to test whether syntax indicates a similar relationship. Regarding the literature on style in authorship attribution, the thesis develops principles for measuring style through syntax, and compares the distribution of the occurrence-the 'weighted sum of the logs of the ratio'--of syntax in each of three blocks of text. Such a distribution associates a reference block of text with the correct distribution from the distributions in two alternative texts offered. That is, a reference block drawn from the editorial layer in Mark proves to be closer to the remaining editorial layer in Mark (which is correct), than it proves to be to the editorial layer in Luke (which would be incorrect). This is at least a first step towards using this method with sources that appear in New Testament documents, even when they are small or fragmentary. The thesis then applies such an analysis to one of the clearest sources in the synoptic Gospels, namely, the 'triple tradition' as presented by Luke. The analysis is congruent with the results of literary criticism. This supports the idea that syntax can discern or define a source, and so it can help us understand more about the evolution of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the thesis finds that although Luke knew the 'triple tradition' that Mark used, yet Luke appears not to have fully relied on the version of the triple tradition that we know in, and as edited by Mark. / New Testament Studies / D.Th. (New Testament)

Thesis (M.A.)--St. Bernard's Institute, Childs, NY, 1997. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-146).

This study concerns the composition of the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and is part of a scholarly discussion within New Testament studies known as the “Synoptic Problem.” In this study, the composition of the Gospels is considered in light of ancient compositional practice, a field of study within the Synoptic Problem that has grown in popularity in recent decades. It specifically looks at the way that Matthew and Mark and Luke would have moved through their sources or exemplars (source-utilization movement) when they composed, presuming that some sort of direction of dependence is the case. Each of the Simple Solutions is considered in this regard—the Augustinian Hypothesis, the Büsching Hypothesis, the Farrer Hypothesis, the Griesbach Hypothesis, the Lockton Hypothesis, and the Wilke Hypothesis, as well as the Two-Document Hypothesis. It may be presumed some sort of direction of dependence is the case between the Synoptic Gospels, whatever direction this might be, and the form these sources took would have likely been bookrolls (or scrolls). The thesis introduces a neglected factor in Synoptic Problem studies. Whereas historically each Gospel text has been presumed to be a single bookroll, in this study, a multiple-bookroll hypothesis is also tested. Instead of there being one bookroll per Gospel, the possibility that each Gospel was distributed over several bookrolls is also tested. Additionally, the study takes into consideration the role of memory and memory-access of traditions in the process of composition. Several other matters concerning ancient compositional practice is also treated throughout. When the various Hypotheses are examined in terms of how the Gospel-authors would have moved through their texts, in light of a multiple bookroll hypothesis, among other factors, the result seems to favour strongly Lukan Absolute Posteriority (i.e., the Augustinian and Farrer Hypotheses). / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This study concerns the composition of the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and is part of a scholarly discussion within New Testament studies known as the Synoptic Problem. It considers the composition of the Gospels in light of ancient compositional practice. It specifically looks at the way that Matthew and Mark and Luke would have moved through their sources or exemplars during composition (source-utilization movement), according to a number of different hypotheses. Each Gospel may be presumed to have used sources when their authors composed, and the sources would have likely been bookrolls (or scrolls). A number of Hypotheses have been presented over the last two centuries concerning how the Gospels were composed and what direction of dependence that composition took. When these various Hypotheses are examined in terms of how the Gospel-authors would have moved through their texts, the result seems to favour two possibilities above others. Both of these possibilities have it that the author of Luke was the utilizing author of both Matthew and Mark.

Evangelicals have been characterized as a people committed to the Bible with historical roots to the fundamentalists who were engaged in controversy with liberals in North America at the beginning of the twentieth century. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle For The Bible (1976), led to a great deal of discussion about inerrancy among evangelicals which resulted in major conferences and the publication of a number of books and articles discussing inerrancy in the subsequent decade. The principal doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has been from its inception a statement on inerrancy. The inerrancy debate among evangelicals took a new direction with the publication of R H Gundry's commentary on Matthew (1982). This sparked a debate concerning redaction criticism and the compatibility of using the historical-critical methodology while maintaining a commitment to the doctrine of inerrancy. Just when the debate appeared to be dying down the publication of the results of the Jesus Seminar (1993) led to several responses from evangelicals. The most controversial publication was The Jesus Crisis (1998) which accused evangelicals and some within the ETS of embracing the same methodology as those of the Jesus Seminar, refueling the debate again. Consequently this debate amongst evangelicals, particularly those associated with the ETS has continued for almost two decades. The debate has ranged over a variety of issues related to historical criticism and the study of the Gospels, including presuppositions, the Synoptic Problem, the role of harmonization, and whether the Gospels provide a strict chronology of the life of Jesus. The role of form and tradition criticism and the criteria of authenticity and whether the Gospel writers were faithful historians or creative theologians have also been points of contention in the debate. The languages that Jesus spoke and whether the Gospels preserve the ipsissima verba or vox have highlighted the differing views about the requirements of inerrancy. The redaction criticism debate has proven to have a significant role in exposing differences in methodology, definitions, presuppositions, and boundaries among evangelicals and members of the ETS. / New Testament / D.Th. (New Testament)

Evangelicals have been characterized as a people committed to the Bible with historical roots to the fundamentalists who were engaged in controversy with liberals in North America at the beginning of the twentieth century. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle For The Bible (1976), led to a great deal of discussion about inerrancy among evangelicals which resulted in major conferences and the publication of a number of books and articles discussing inerrancy in the subsequent decade. The principal doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has been from its inception a statement on inerrancy. The inerrancy debate among evangelicals took a new direction with the publication of R H Gundry's commentary on Matthew (1982). This sparked a debate concerning redaction criticism and the compatibility of using the historical-critical methodology while maintaining a commitment to the doctrine of inerrancy. Just when the debate appeared to be dying down the publication of the results of the Jesus Seminar (1993) led to several responses from evangelicals. The most controversial publication was The Jesus Crisis (1998) which accused evangelicals and some within the ETS of embracing the same methodology as those of the Jesus Seminar, refueling the debate again. Consequently this debate amongst evangelicals, particularly those associated with the ETS has continued for almost two decades. The debate has ranged over a variety of issues related to historical criticism and the study of the Gospels, including presuppositions, the Synoptic Problem, the role of harmonization, and whether the Gospels provide a strict chronology of the life of Jesus. The role of form and tradition criticism and the criteria of authenticity and whether the Gospel writers were faithful historians or creative theologians have also been points of contention in the debate. The languages that Jesus spoke and whether the Gospels preserve the ipsissima verba or vox have highlighted the differing views about the requirements of inerrancy. The redaction criticism debate has proven to have a significant role in exposing differences in methodology, definitions, presuppositions, and boundaries among evangelicals and members of the ETS. / New Testament / D.Th. (New Testament)