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

8728RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Beelzebul controversy

Expand Messages
  • Eric Eve
    Oct 1, 2002
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

      > The Q theory, on that pericope :
      > - constraints Q to be "EXEIN" free, without any proof for that.
      > - constraints Matthew and Luke to have known Mark's "EXEIN", and have not
      > them.

      > Whatever the base of comparison, "EXEIN" as a later addition looks more
      > plausible.

      Well, I don't want to spend too much time on this, since I'm not an advocate
      for Q, but those who are might point you to the IQP critical edition of Q
      for an EXEIN-free Q here; and I don't see why the fact that Matthew and Luke
      both knew Mark's EXEIN but failed to use it is a problem for the theory that
      Matthew and Luke both chose to follow Q more than Mark (that is, if one were
      to accept the 2DH as a basis, which neither of us is doing!).

      >> Of course what I am attempting is the perhaps harder task of
      >> arguing for Markan priority without Q here,

      > This is just what I wanted to say : Matthew being dependent
      > upon Mark is less plausible than the reverse. It is the "harder
      > task", even if it is not impossible.

      Here I think you have misunderstood me. By 'harder task' I meant harder than
      arguing for Markan priority on the 2DH, not harder than arguing for
      Matthew's dependence on Mark. My point was simply that the 2DH would allow
      an appeal to an EXEIN-free Q which one can hard;y make if one wishes to
      dispense with Q!

      > Hey, for a Q' sceptical, you are quite surprising.

      > This is right that Markan posteriority does not mean Matthean or
      > Lukan priority. As a boismardian, I defend this for a long. But
      > it is not a popular point of view on this list ;-)

      My Q scepticism derives not from an aversion to other sources as such as to
      doubts about Luke's independence from Matthew. If Luke know Matthew and
      derived some of his double tradition material from Matthew, then it makes
      little sense to reconstruct Q as it is reconstructed, and hence somewhat
      misleading to use the name 'Q' for any other sources (written or oral) that
      the Evangelists may also have used.

      > Yes. The closer the writer redacts his source, the less likely he
      > will introduce some strange patterns. But here, the redaction (in
      > the hypothesis of Mark following Matthew) is not too close.

      Indeed, but that, surely, is reversible; the redaction on the hypothesis of
      Matthew following Mark is not too close either, which may equally allow
      Mark's EXEINs to drop out if they don't suit Matthean style (not so much
      because Matthew makes a conscious decision to excise them, but because in a
      free re-writing of Mark he has no particular reason to employ them if they
      are not part of his own style).

      > PS : I think this is my last answer on this thread - thank you very much
      > for all yours, that were comprehensive with my poor english, intelligent,
      > and productive, at least for my own.

      And thanks, too, for your contributions and clarifications.

      Best wishes,

      Eric Eve
      Harris Manchester College, Oxford

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic