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

duality in Mark, and also in Matthew and Luke?

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Steve Davies wrote (SNIP) ... I think Neirynck says that he presents his book as a useful tool for anyone who cares to use it in the study of the synoptic
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 3, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve Davies wrote (SNIP)
      >it became obvious that Mark does frequently and radically redact his
      >sources. Indeed one can conclude this from Neirynck, F. 1988. Duality
      >in Mark : Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction. Leuven:
      >Leuven University Press which is a VERY significant contribution to
      >Synoptic-L type study.
      I think Neirynck says that he presents his book as a useful tool for
      anyone who cares to use it in the study of the synoptic gospels. He
      leaves open the possibility that the duality observed in Mark is not
      Mark redacting his source material, but the style of the writer of
      Mark's source material. He does not a priori rule out a Proto-Mark
      hypothesis, for instance.

      In "Duality in Mark" Neirynck lists 30 categories of repetition
      ("duality") in Mark, with hundreds of references, and then follows these
      with the text of Mark brilliantly arranged to indicate masses of
      repetitions of all sorts in Mark. On my count, there are over two
      thousand words of Mark scored as examples of duality. It is like a
      firework display, and well worth seeing (Part III, pages 139-191).

      A few months ago, I examined three passages in the double tradition,
      where Matthew and Luke agree very closely in wording, to see whether the
      duality that Neirynck observes in Mark is also present in what Neirynck
      considers to be "Q" material. I looked for examples of some of
      Neirynck's Markan-duality categories (the categories I thought were
      least subjective) in the Mt//Lk material, and compared their frequencies
      with the frequencies in Mark. One would suppose on the 2DH, and on the
      Farrer Hypothesis, that the style of Mark would be significantly
      different from the style of this double tradition material. In fact I
      found that the same duality which Neirynck observes in Mark is also
      present to much the same extent in these double tradition passages, as
      far as my test went.

      It would be fascinating to hear what Neirynck has to say about this. If
      the duality in Mark is also found equally in the double tradition, it
      would seem that either the 2DH and the Farrer Hypothesis have a
      problem, or that Neirynck's categories of duality in Mark are not
      terribly significant for source-critical purposes. (To be fair to him,
      Neirynck, of course, would say that his book is intended for use in
      redaction criticism rather than source criticism.)

      Does anyone know of anything written on Neirynck's categories of
      "duality" occurring not only in Mark but also in Matthew and/or Luke,
      please? I would very much like to hear if you have any information on

      Best wishes,

      E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
      SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
      10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.