Re: [Synoptic-L] A circular argument re doublets
- Ken Olson wrote:
> I think your post is not really taking into account where Fleddermann isKen,
> 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.
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.
> .......This is true.
> 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,Yes it *could* have been. Your argument here seems to leave its status
> 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.
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).
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm