An investigation of synoptic history and style by means of a comprehensive assessment of syntax chains

Abstract

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.