Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] A circular argument re doublets

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    Ron, I think your post is not really taking into account where Fleddermann is coming from on this. 1) Fleddermann is not really presenting an argument against
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 12 9:06 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron,

      I think your post is not really taking into account where Fleddermann is coming from on this.

      1) Fleddermann is not really presenting an argument against Luke's use of Matthew (or Matthew's use of Luke) here. I think he's *presuming* that and presenting arguments for reconstructing Q as a written source. In that context, where we have extensive verbatim resemblances between Matthew and Luke against Mark in one version of a pericope, while there is also a version of that pericope where either Matthew or Luke agrees with Mark against the other, it supports his case.

      2) If we accept Fleddermann's presumption of the independence of Matthew and Luke (which I don't), then the doublets found once in the triple tradition and once in the double tradition must necessarily be *source* doublets, i.e., they are not the redactional work of Matthew or Luke.

      3) You want to take a doublet found only in Matthew as a *source* doublet, but one of the versions could be a redactional doublet, i.e., Matthew could have used the same material twice, perhaps rewriting it more extensively in one case or another. Fleddermann is using Matthew and Luke as independant witnesses. Since they don't know each other's redaction, the doublets must come from a source. In the case of doublets for which we don't have two or more independent witnesses, you would have to have some other grounds to demonstrate that a particular version is not redactional.

      Best,

      Ken

      Ken Olson
      PhD Student
      Duke University

      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      From: ron.price@...
      Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:07:23 +0000
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] A circular argument re doublets





















      Fleddermann appears to take a 'source doublet' as a pair of similar sayings

      of which one member looks as if it was derived from Mark and the other

      member from another source ('Q: A reconstruction and commentary', pp.54-58),

      and goes on to state that doublets help to establish the existence of Q.



      But he disqualifies Mt 5:29-30 // Mt 18:8-9 on the grounds that Luke has no

      parallel. Why so? Presumably because for Fleddermann the absence of a

      parallel in Luke means the saying could not belong to Q.



      It is wholly illogical to presume that Q equates to the Double Tradition, as

      part of an argument that there exists a Q which equates to the Double

      Tradition.



      The logical procedure is to take the source doublets at their face value,

      namely as evidence for a sayings source, and only when the source doublets

      have been assembled, to decide whether the sayings source could be equated

      with the Double Tradition. Any impartial observer will surely then come to

      the conclusion that the sayings source contains at least around a score of

      Double Tradition sayings, plus at least four sayings from outside the Double

      Tradition: Mt 5:29-30 // Mt 18:8-9; Mt 10:22 // Mt 24:9b,13; Mt 23:11 // Mt

      20:26; Mt 24:11 // Mt 24:24.



      Ron Price



      Derbyshire, UK



      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm























      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      Ron,   Excellent point.   Assuming the 2S hypothesis, Mt uses something like 80 percent of Mk, whereas Lk uses only about 60 percent (I m going by memory
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 12 9:31 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron,
         
        Excellent point.
         
        Assuming the 2S hypothesis, Mt uses something like 80 percent of Mk, whereas Lk uses only about 60 percent (I'm going by memory here).  If these were general tendencies (and I know one data point does not make a trend), then it would make sense that a good portion of M material was in Q, and Lk chose not to include it.  If there was a sayings source, we cannot know what was in; we can only speculate about what material can from it.
         
        Rev. Chuck Jones
        Atlanta, Georgia

        --- On Thu, 3/12/09, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:

        From: Ron Price <ron.price@...>
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] A circular argument re doublets
        To: "Synoptic-L elist" <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 11:07 AM






        Fleddermann appears to take a 'source doublet' as a pair of similar sayings
        of which one member looks as if it was derived from Mark and the other
        member from another source ('Q: A reconstruction and commentary', pp.54-58),
        and goes on to state that doublets help to establish the existence of Q.

        But he disqualifies Mt 5:29-30 // Mt 18:8-9 on the grounds that Luke has no
        parallel. Why so? Presumably because for Fleddermann the absence of a
        parallel in Luke means the saying could not belong to Q.

        It is wholly illogical to presume that Q equates to the Double Tradition, as
        part of an argument that there exists a Q which equates to the Double
        Tradition.

        The logical procedure is to take the source doublets at their face value,
        namely as evidence for a sayings source, and only when the source doublets
        have been assembled, to decide whether the sayings source could be equated
        with the Double Tradition. Any impartial observer will surely then come to
        the conclusion that the sayings source contains at least around a score of
        Double Tradition sayings, plus at least four sayings from outside the Double
        Tradition: Mt 5:29-30 // Mt 18:8-9; Mt 10:22 // Mt 24:9b,13; Mt 23:11 // Mt
        20:26; Mt 24:11 // Mt 24:24.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage. virgin.net/ ron.price/ index.htm



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ron Price
        ... Ken, This seems to me to be a strange and unnecessary presumption. Surely it would be better to work from first principles rather than rely on one
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 12 1:54 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Ken Olson wrote:

          > I think your post is not really taking into account where Fleddermann is
          > coming from on this.
          >
          > 1) Fleddermann is not really presenting an argument against Luke's use of
          > Matthew (or Matthew's use of Luke) here. I think he's *presuming* that and
          > presenting arguments for reconstructing Q as a written source.

          Ken,

          This seems to me to be a strange and unnecessary presumption. Surely it
          would be better to work from first principles rather than rely on one
          debatable hypothesis in order to help to prove another one.

          > .......
          > 2) If we accept Fleddermann's presumption of the independence of Matthew and
          > Luke (which I don't), then the doublets found once in the triple tradition and
          > once in the double tradition must necessarily be *source* doublets, i.e., they
          > are not the redactional work of Matthew or Luke.

          This is true.

          > 3) You want to take a doublet found only in Matthew as a *source* doublet,
          > but one of the versions could be a redactional doublet, i.e., Matthew could
          > have used the same material twice, perhaps rewriting it more extensively in
          > one case or another.

          Yes it *could* have been. Your argument here seems to leave its status
          uncertain. Fleddermann is certain that it was redactional. It's this
          certainty that seems so out of place. Surely he needs to show evidence for
          this if he ends up concluding, as he does, that the Q pericopes are
          precisely the Double Tradition pericopes. The absence of a version in Luke
          provides no evidence for the saying's absence from the *source*, unless he
          assumes that the source is limited in extent to Double Tradition material.
          But this would be yet another assumption over and above the assumption that
          Matthew and Luke wrote independently.

          Clearly Mt 5:27-28 is redactional (Matthean style). But it could well have
          been inserted in an attempt to illuminate 5:29-30. It is notable that
          5:27-30 is sandwiched between Double Tradition material, and this tends to
          support the view that it may have come from the same source, i.e. that the
          doublet of which it is one half is a source doublet. The scholarly Luke
          could well have omitted the saying from his gospel because he was repelled
          by its barbarity (if taken literally).

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.