Re: [XTalk] Redaction and Creativity: Matthew Created SM?
- On 10 Dec 2002 at 13:02, William Arnal wrote:
> Thus itBut as I understand Occam's Razor, it's not about the question of
> is much less complex to assume that Ted leashes his dog because it
> once got out of hand somehow than to assume that he did so to avoid
> speeding tickets (and what a GRAET story this is!). See, there is NO
> INTRINSIC reason for "what happened" to be simple. This includes the
> production of texts as much as anything else. When we have to make
> inferences about "what happened," of course, we speak, loosely, of
> "theories." But our sloppy terminology does NOT make these "theories"
> high-level generalizations. And so Occam's razor does not apply to
"complex" and "simple"; it's the principle that entities should not
be multiplied beyond what is necessary. The context in this thread
was Betz's extraordinary theory of the origin of Matthew's Sermon on
the Mount, which for most critics multiplies entities unnecessarily,
hypothesising not only a pre-Matthaean epitome but also a QMatt and a
QLuke. The best answer to Betz I know of is the ICC commentary on
Matthew of Davies and Allison which to me shows satisfactorily that
the Sermon on the Mount is so driven through with Matthaean
structures, thought, terminology and language that Betz's additional
hypothetical entities are unnecessary.
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
Birmingham B15 2TT UK