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

Re: Fatigue

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... A: ---X------Y---- B: ---Y------Y----, where P0=point prior to P, Y=A s redaction of L that produces inconsistency with X (from L?) and B s rough copy of
    Message 1 of 4 , May 6, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:06 5/4/98 -0700, Jim Deardorff wrote:
      >Below is an outline
      >of plausible events that leads to a false "fatigue" conclusion when taken
      >out of context:
      > (1) A redacts his source (L) at a certain point P in his text, the
      >redaction producing an inconsistency or illogic; then
      > (2) B roughly copies A and his redaction at P, but redacts A's text PRIOR
      >to point P so as to remove A's inconsistency.

      Diagrammatically:
      ---P0-----P----
      A: ---X------Y----
      B: ---Y------Y----,
      where P0=point prior to P, Y=A's redaction of L that produces inconsistency
      with X (from L?) and B's rough copy of A, and X=B's redaction of A to remove
      A's inconsistency.

      >In the above outline, B's redaction can be said to be a characteristic
      >expression of B's, since it stemmed from B. B then agrees with A's
      >characteristic expression about the same issue
      >at P because B copied A's redaction there.

      In the above scenario, it is posited that at point P, A's text is both
      "characteristic" and inconsistent. Characteristic because it is A's
      redaction and inconsistent _ex hypothesis_. Further in this scenario,
      B redacts A at some previous point (P0) to remove the inconsistency.
      B's redaction is termed characteristic because it stemmed from B.

      To avoid the circularity typical of reversible arguments, there is the
      requirement of "characteristic expression." However, one should not
      presume that one's text is characteristic merely from an assumption
      that it is a redaction. The whole point of the fatigue argument is to
      *determine* which text is the redaction. Rather, characteristic expression
      ought to be derived from an evangelist's pattern of usage.

      For the above scenario to work, it is asserted that Y is characteristic
      of B and, simultaneously, Y is characteristic of A. To me, this seems
      internally inconsistent. Furthermore, if A's usage differs as widely as
      in this scenario, I have trouble independently concluding that A's Y
      is somehow characteristic of A, especially if Y is also characteristic
      of B.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
      scarlson@... : and songs chant the words.
      http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... OK, you caught me there. A s text at point P was inconsistent or incorrect, and shouldn t really be considered characteristic of A, even though A may
      Message 2 of 4 , May 6, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 12:15 AM 5/6/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
        >At 10:06 5/4/98 -0700, Jim Deardorff wrote:
        >>Below is an outline
        >>of plausible events that leads to a false "fatigue" conclusion when taken
        >>out of context:
        >> (1) A redacts his source (L) at a certain point P in his text, the
        >>redaction producing an inconsistency or illogic; then
        >> (2) B roughly copies A and his redaction at P, but redacts A's text
        >>PRIOR to point P so as to remove A's inconsistency.

        >Diagrammatically:
        > ---P0-----P----
        >A: ---X------Y----
        >B: ---Y------Y----,
        >where P0=point prior to P, Y=A's redaction of L that produces >inconsistency
        >with X (from L?) and B's rough copy of A, and X=B's redaction of A to
        >remove A's inconsistency.

        >>In the above outline, B's redaction can be said to be a characteristic
        >>expression of B's, since it stemmed from B. B then agrees with A's
        >>characteristic expression about the same issue
        >>at P because B copied A's redaction there.

        >In the above scenario, it is posited that at point P, A's text is both
        >"characteristic" and inconsistent. Characteristic because it is A's
        >redaction and inconsistent _ex hypothesis_. Further in this scenario,
        >B redacts A at some previous point (P0) to remove the inconsistency.
        >B's redaction is termed characteristic because it stemmed from B.

        OK, you caught me there. A's text at point P was inconsistent or incorrect,
        and shouldn't really be considered "characteristic" of A, even though A may
        have made scores of errors in his redaction of L. Sorry if this caused you
        an undue amount of cerebration.

        Let me clarify a couple things on your diagram, however, in order that you
        can understand the general circumstances I was trying to point out that Mark
        G.'s argument ignores.

        P0 P ---> Text progresses to the right
        ---X------Y---- This is the L text = the source
        A: ---X------Y'--- This is A's text
        B: ---Y"-----Y'--- This is B's text

        where P0=point prior to P, Y'=A's error or redaction of L that produces
        inconsistency within A's text and Y'=B's rough copy of A at point P, and
        Y"=B's redaction of A at P0 that removes A's inconsistency.

        Y" isn't necessarily a word or phrase that's identical with Y', but merely
        one which removes the inconsistency between X and Y' of A's text. Y" could
        be an omission, for example.

        Another variation on this has Y=Y' in the L source; i.e., the author of the
        source document has to be allowed to have made an occasional inconsistency
        himself. In that case, A went along with the error in L.

        >To avoid the circularity typical of reversible arguments, there is the
        >requirement of "characteristic expression." However, one should not
        >presume that one's text is characteristic merely from an assumption
        >that it is a redaction. The whole point of the fatigue argument is to
        >*determine* which text is the redaction. Rather, characteristic
        >expression ought to be derived from an evangelist's pattern of usage.

        The main point of the diagram above is that what Mark G. referred to as a
        fatigue argument is easily explained as being B's removal of A's
        inconsistency, with the roles of A and B being reversed to what Mark G.
        supposed.

        The secondary point is that the above diagram admits external evidence and
        source criticism while Mark G.'s argument ignores them.

        To demonstrate that the diagram above would be no rare circumstance, crafted
        for the express purpose of striking down another's argument, consider that
        A, in redacting L, could easily have made 1000 alterations. These would be
        the number of omissions, insertions and substitutions of individual words,
        phrases, sentences and blocks of sentences. Within these alterations, there
        could easily be some 200 errors, inconsistencies and illogicalities (each
        block of substituted or inserted sentences could contain several
        inconsistencies). So there could be some 200 points we would label P within
        A's text. Of these 200 inconsistencies in A's text, B could easily have
        removed 20 of them through the mechanism diagrammed above. Mark G. pointed
        out a handful of them.

        As many more inconsistencies would be removed through B's redactions of A
        occurring at points later in the text than P (including instances where A's
        inconsistency occurred through altering X not Y). If B is an abbreviator,
        as the external evidence indicates, many more would be removed through B's
        omissions of portions of A's text that contain points P.

        >For the above scenario to work, it is asserted that Y is characteristic
        >of B and, simultaneously, Y is characteristic of A. To me, this seems
        >internally inconsistent. Furthermore, if A's usage differs as widely as
        >in this scenario, I have trouble independently concluding that A's Y
        >is somehow characteristic of A, especially if Y is also characteristic
        >of B.

        The above diagram explains how cases that come under Mark G.'s "fatigue"
        argument, along with its "characteristic" argumentation, could be
        misinterpretations arising from ignoring the external evidence that allows
        both A and B to be redactors. I.e., "Matthew compiled the Logia..." is
        easily interpreted as meaning that the writer of Matthew redacted the source
        known to Papias as the Logia.

        Jim Deardorff
        Corvallis, Oregon
        E-mail: deardorj@...
        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
      • E. Bruce Brooks
        Topic: Fatigue (was: Wording in Matthew) From: Bruce In Response To: Stephen Carlson STEPHEN: Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe,
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 9, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Topic: Fatigue (was: Wording in Matthew)
          From: Bruce
          In Response To: Stephen Carlson

          STEPHEN: Has anyone so far looked for fatigue on the part of Mark? Maybe,
          however,
          there is a possible example of Mark's "fatigue" of a source like Matthew -
          Mk 6:4 differs from Matthew in unparalleled material, using "Baptizer" for
          John in Mark's characteristic language, but Mk6:5 agrees with Mt14:8, in
          Matthew's more characteristic language, the "Baptist."

          BRUCE: From the mere methodological standpoint, it strikes me that
          "fatigue" in this technical sense isn't something one *can* look for. The
          first presumption must be that authors, even when using a particular
          source, are consistent. Fatigue strikes me as a way of rationalizing the
          residue: If your arguments have led you to a presumptive Mt-using-Mk
          stratum, say, and you find inconsistencies of terminology in that stratum,
          AND you also find that the inconsistencies have a directionality within the
          stratum, being characteristic of the second author at the beginning of the
          sample, and always or sometimes characteristic of the source author at the
          end of the sample, THEN you have a "fatigue" explanation. If not, you have
          as a default the "inconsistency" explanation. "Fatigue" has a higher
          threshold, and so is a little more elegant if you can get it.

          But to go looking for fatigue: how would you? You would have as a first
          presumption that the second author will behave inconsistently (albeit with
          a vector in the inconsistency). I feel it would be hard to use as a search
          tool. What I think Stephen is doing with his Baptist example (no time to
          verify by checking the text) is examining a Mt/Mk common section for signs
          of fatigue both ways, as a possible test of directionality. This would be
          different from a primary search based on a first presumption of authorial
          fatigue. It looks to me both valid and interesting.

          This term is however proprietarily MarkG's, and I will leave it to him to
          comment further.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.