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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Structural borrowing by Luke from Matthew?

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    ... All those kais edited to des? ... Two transmitters performing this peculiar operation on a third is simpler than three performing it on a fourth. ... It
    Message 1 of 60 , Aug 22, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

      > Brian Wilson wrote ---
      > >
      > > I am not so sure that the differences (between Matthew and Luke in
      > >similar passages) are trivial. If I am right in my analysis of "story
      > >dualities", then these are far from trivial,

      All those kais "edited" to des?

      > and the simplest
      > >documentary hypothesis which accounts for them

      Two transmitters performing this peculiar operation on a third is simpler
      than three performing it on a fourth.

      > is that all three
      > >synoptists independently used a common documentary source.

      It has been pointed out previously that a gospeler independent of previous
      gospels is no more likely than a biographer ignorant of previous
      biographies.

      In particular, Mt was in wide distribution. You couldn't *not* know it.

      >
      > >
      > Tim Reynolds replied --
      > >
      > >Then you have three eccentric transmitters instead of two.
      > >
      > Tim,
      > I have three synoptists each independently selecting and editing
      > material from the same documentary source in order to produce his
      > gospel. This is what the Greek Notes Hypothesis posits.
      >
      > Best wishes,
      > BRIAN WILSON

      Likewise,

      tim
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson replied -- ... Stephen, I think it may be worth looking more closely at this. I wonder whether the phrase Under
      Message 60 of 60 , Sep 6 8:07 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian Wilson wrote --
        >
        >My point is that (Stein's) redaction-critical argument can proceed only
        >if it is assumed that either the 2DH or the GH is true. His conclusion
        >is the **conditional** statement --
        >
        >If either the 2DH OR the GH is true, then, by comparing the use of the
        >title 'Son of David' in the synoptic gospels, it is seen that it is
        >more probable that the 2DH is true (in which Matthew used Mark) than
        >that the GH is true (in which Mark used Matthew).
        >
        >Stein's conditional statement does not answer the source-critical
        >question "Is the 2DH true?" or "Did Matthew use Mark?". For the
        >condition he sets allows the possibility that the 2DH is false or that
        >it could be true.
        >
        >My general point is I have yet to find a redaction-critical argument
        >which does answer a source-critical question. Maybe the nature of
        >redaction-criticism is such that its arguments cannot answer source-
        >critical questions.
        >
        Stephen Carlson replied --
        >
        >It occurs to me that your characterization of Stein's argument (quoted
        >hereinafter) does indeed answer a source critical question: Under given
        >circumstances, which source theory, the 2DH or the GH, is more probable
        >than the other?
        >
        >>If either the 2DH OR the GH is true, then, by comparing the use of the
        >>title 'Son of David' in the synoptic gospels, it is seen that it is
        >>more probable that the 2DH is true (in which Matthew used Mark) than
        >>that the GH is true (in which Mark used Matthew).
        >
        >Certainly seems like an answer to a source-critical question to me.
        >

        Stephen,
        I think it may be worth looking more closely at this. I wonder
        whether the phrase "Under given circumstances" may point to a weakness
        in your argument. I would suggest that the circumstances may not be
        given, but may be entirely hypothetical. (Indeed they may well be
        false.)

        The logic of Stein's argument is -- *IF* you answer one source-critical
        question, *THEN*, on that basis, I can answer another source critical
        question for you. But his answer to the second source-critical question
        is dependent on the answer to the first source-critical question being
        known. And the point is that the answer to the first source-critical
        question is not known. So Stein's argument answers no source-critical
        question. His argument would answer a source-critical question (Is the
        2DH more probable than the GH?) IF another source-critical question
        could first be answered (Is either the 2DH or the GH true?). But we do
        not know that either the 2DH or the GH is true, and indeed both may well
        be shown to be false on other grounds.

        The general point I am suggesting is that no redaction-critical argument
        can answer a source-critical question. The issue this raises, of course,
        is whether redaction-criticism is of any use in trying to solve the
        Synoptic Problem. I doubt that it is. I am sure that redaction criticism
        has a very important place in unravelling the implications of a solution
        to the Synoptic Problem once this has been established. Once a synoptic
        documentary hypothesis is accepted, then, on the assumption of that
        documentary solution, redaction-critical arguments can be used to try
        and work out how each writer treated his source material and what was
        the theological view-point of each writer. But such redaction criticism
        comes only after a solution to the Synoptic Problem has been found. It
        is not used in actually solving the Synoptic Problem.

        To quote from the ST MARK commentary in the "Black's NT Commentaries"
        series --
        >
        >"Can we be certain that the particular theory of literary relationships
        >between the Synoptics on which our redaction-critical analysis is based
        >is correct? Certainly a different theory will lead to different
        >results, and if we have chosen the wrong one our conclusions will be
        >false" (page 3).
        >
        The commentator takes it for granted that a solution to the Synoptic
        Problem is assumed before redaction-criticism can begin, and that if we
        have got our solution to the Synoptic Problem wrong then the redaction-
        critical arguments we base on it will be worthless.

        On this view, far from redaction-critical arguments justifying any
        hypothesis of the documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels,
        it is a hypothesis of documentary relationship between the synoptic
        gospels which justifies any redaction-critical arguments.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.