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

[Synoptic-L] duplications in Matt: D. Marguerat

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In an otherwise excellent article by Daniel Marguerat ( Saul s Conversion [Acts 9, 22, 26) and the Multiplication of Narrative in Acts , in Luke s Literary
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In an otherwise excellent article by Daniel Marguerat ("Saul's Conversion
      [Acts 9, 22, 26) and the Multiplication of Narrative in Acts", in Luke's
      Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, [ed.] C. M. Tuckett; JSNT SS 116,
      Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995, 127-155) the author makes the following
      puzzling statement (p. 130): "The redaction of the Gospel of Luke avoids the
      literary doublets which, in the case of Matthew for example, are caused by
      the reception of traditions from Mark and Q; for instance, the duplication of
      the feeding miracle (Mk 6.32-44 and 8.1-9; Mt 14:13-21 and 15.32-38) is
      avoided by Luke (9.10-17)". This is certainly not an instance of a doublet in
      Matt "caused by the reception of material from Mark and Q". Or am I missing
      something?

      Furthermore, Marguerat notes on the following page (p. 131, n.13): "Matthew
      too is fond of the repetition device, which he uses for didactic purposes, in
      order to reinforce the adherence of the reader to the ideological point of
      view unfolded by the narrative". I agree. And is this not logically
      understood as the reason for, and source of the repetition referred to above
      -- initiated by Matthew, whose habit it is to employ "the repetition device",
      and followed by Mark, but in this case not by Luke, who will perhaps replace
      the second feeding incident with the Emaus story? This is, I think, one more
      example of an author, committed to the 2 SH, but, in spite of himself,
      unearthing evidence which really supports another Synoptic theory.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Leonard Maluf wrote - ... Leonard, I think Marguerat in the above quotation is talking about source doublets (he calls them literary doublets). On the Two
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 7, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Leonard Maluf wrote -
        >
        >In an otherwise excellent article by Daniel Marguerat ("Saul's
        >Conversion [Acts 9, 22, 26) and the Multiplication of Narrative in
        >Acts", in Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, [ed.] C. M.
        >Tuckett; JSNT SS 116, Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995, 127-155) the
        >author makes the following puzzling statement (p. 130): "The redaction
        >of the Gospel of Luke avoids the literary doublets which, in the case
        >of Matthew for example, are caused by the reception of traditions from
        >Mark and Q; for instance, the duplication of the feeding miracle (Mk
        >6.32-44 and 8.1-9; Mt 14:13-21 and 15.32-38) is avoided by Luke
        >(9.10-17)". This is certainly not an instance of a doublet in Matt
        >"caused by the reception of material from Mark and Q". Or am I missing
        >something?
        >
        Leonard,
        I think Marguerat in the above quotation is talking about
        source doublets (he calls them "literary" doublets). On the Two Document
        Hypothesis, some doublets in Matthew are source doublets because Matthew
        is supposed either to have copied them from Mark only as his source, or
        to have copied one component from Mark and the other from Q (which is
        supposed to be overlapped by Mark) as his sources. On this view, the
        doublet formed by the Five Thousand in Mk 6.32-44 and the Four Thousand
        in Mk 8.1-9 was copied by Matthew into his Gospel so forming a source
        doublet in Mt 14:13-21 and 15.32-38. Similarly, the doublet formed by
        the two sayings on divorce in Mt 19.9 and Mt 5.32 are the result of
        Matthew copying the first from Mk 10.11-12 and the other from "Q" (see
        Lk 16.16), so that this also is a source doublet in Matthew. I think
        that on this understanding, the doublet formed by the 5000 and the 4000
        in Matthew is indeed "caused by the reception of material from Mark and
        Q" since it is caused by the reception of material from Mark.
        >
        >Furthermore, Marguerat notes on the following page (p. 131, n.13):
        >"Matthew too is fond of the repetition device, which he uses for
        >didactic purposes, in order to reinforce the adherence of the reader to
        >the ideological point of view unfolded by the narrative". I agree. And
        >is this not logically understood as the reason for, and source of the
        >repetition referred to above -- initiated by Matthew, whose habit it is
        >to employ "the repetition device", and followed by Mark, but in this
        >case not by Luke, who will perhaps replace the second feeding incident
        >with the Emmaus story?
        >
        Not at all. Marguerat is assuming the Two Document Hypothesis to be true
        and applying this to the synoptic gospels to try and infer which
        material was taken by Matthew from his documentary sources, and which
        was supplied by Matthew himself.

        After all, we cannot determine just by examining a synoptic gospel which
        material the synoptist has taken from his sources and which he has
        supplied himself. But if we assume a hypothesis of the documentary
        relationship between the synoptic gospels, then this can be applied to
        the synoptic gospels and a dividing line between tradition and redaction
        can then be inferred.
        >
        >This is, I think, one more example of an author, committed to the 2 SH,
        >but, in spite of himself, unearthing evidence which really supports
        >another Synoptic theory.
        >
        I do not agree with Marguerat's conclusion, but I think his method and
        his argument are valid. He is not trying to support the 2DH; he is
        assuming it to be true, and then quite properly applying this to the
        synoptic gospels to distinguish between tradition and redaction in
        Matthew.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE
        SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson,
        10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 9/7/1999 9:39:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 7, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 9/7/1999 9:39:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          brian@... writes:

          << Leonard Maluf wrote -
          >
          >In an otherwise excellent article by Daniel Marguerat ("Saul's
          >Conversion [Acts 9, 22, 26) and the Multiplication of Narrative in
          >Acts", in Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, [ed.] C. M.
          >Tuckett; JSNT SS 116, Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995, 127-155) the
          >author makes the following puzzling statement (p. 130): "The redaction
          >of the Gospel of Luke avoids the literary doublets which, in the case
          >of Matthew for example, are caused by the reception of traditions from
          >Mark and Q; for instance, the duplication of the feeding miracle (Mk
          >6.32-44 and 8.1-9; Mt 14:13-21 and 15.32-38) is avoided by Luke
          >(9.10-17)". This is certainly not an instance of a doublet in Matt
          >"caused by the reception of material from Mark and Q". Or am I missing
          >something?

          [BRIAN]
          Leonard,
          I think Marguerat in the above quotation is talking about
          source doublets (he calls them "literary" doublets). On the Two Document
          Hypothesis, some doublets in Matthew are source doublets because Matthew
          is supposed either to have copied them from Mark only as his source, or
          to have copied one component from Mark and the other from Q (which is
          supposed to be overlapped by Mark) as his sources. On this view, the
          doublet formed by the Five Thousand in Mk 6.32-44 and the Four Thousand
          in Mk 8.1-9 was copied by Matthew into his Gospel so forming a source
          doublet in Mt 14:13-21 and 15.32-38. Similarly, the doublet formed by
          the two sayings on divorce in Mt 19.9 and Mt 5.32 are the result of
          Matthew copying the first from Mk 10.11-12 and the other from "Q" (see
          Lk 16.16), so that this also is a source doublet in Matthew. I think
          that on this understanding, the doublet formed by the 5000 and the 4000
          in Matthew is indeed "caused by the reception of material from Mark and
          Q" since it is caused by the reception of material from Mark.>>

          O.K. Brian, thanks for the clarification, and I think you're probably right
          in your explanation of what Marguerat means. However, if this is true, I'm
          still not sure why Marguerat should single out Matt as an Evangelist who is
          "fond of the repetition device" (See my quote below). If Matt only has
          repetitions where they can be explained by his sources, then he does not have
          them because he is "fond" of the repetition device. Or at least Mark, from
          whom Matt supposedly derivded some of his doublets, should be credited with
          being fond of repetition too. No?

          [LEONARD
          >Furthermore, Marguerat notes on the following page (p. 131, n.13):
          >"Matthew too is fond of the repetition device, which he uses for
          >didactic purposes, in order to reinforce the adherence of the reader to
          >the ideological point of view unfolded by the narrative". I agree. And
          >is this not logically understood as the reason for, and source of the
          >repetition referred to above -- initiated by Matthew, whose habit it is
          >to employ "the repetition device", and followed by Mark, but in this
          >case not by Luke, who will perhaps replace the second feeding incident
          >with the Emmaus story?
          >

          [BRIAN]
          <<Not at all. Marguerat is assuming the Two Document Hypothesis to be true
          and applying this to the synoptic gospels to try and infer which
          material was taken by Matthew from his documentary sources, and which
          was supplied by Matthew himself.>>

          This doesn't seem to me to describe accurately what Marguerat is doing. It
          may be true, but it can scarcely be derived from the cited quotation.

          [BRIAN]
          << After all, we cannot determine just by examining a synoptic gospel which
          material the synoptist has taken from his sources and which he has
          supplied himself. But if we assume a hypothesis of the documentary
          relationship between the synoptic gospels, then this can be applied to
          the synoptic gospels and a dividing line between tradition and redaction
          can then be inferred.>>

          Again I think this is all inapplicable to the note of Marguerat I cited.

          [LEONARD]
          >This is, I think, one more example of an author, committed to the 2 SH,
          >but, in spite of himself, unearthing evidence which really supports
          >another Synoptic theory.
          >
          [BRIAN]
          <>

          I think this misses my point. I never said that M. is "trying to support the
          2DH". I said that he is committed to it (which means approximately the same
          as your "he is assuming it to be true"), and yet the evidence he unearths in
          this quotation is supportive of a synoptic solution in which Matthew is
          presupposed as the first of the Evangelists to have written. If Matt is
          indeed "fond of the repetition device, which he uses for didactic purposes,
          in order to reinforce the adherence of the reader to the ideological point of
          view unfolded by the narrative", then there is no need to posit any sources
          at all to account for repetitions in Matt: neither Mark, nor Q, nor Mark and
          Q. Matt supplies them, because he is fond of the device of repetition.

          Leonard Maluf
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.