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

[Synoptic-L] redaction-critical arguments - CORRECTION

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    I am sorry that in a recent letter to Tom Westbury, in editing a sentence I did not successfully change its structure. The last sentence of the penultimate
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 3, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I am sorry that in a recent letter to Tom Westbury, in editing a
      sentence I did not successfully change its structure. The last sentence
      of the penultimate paragraph should have been -- "For the condition he
      sets allows the possibility that the 2DH is false, or that it could be
      true" -- as below.

      The correct text is --

      >Brian Wilson wrote --
      >I think Stein is trying to compare the Two Document and the
      >Griesbach Hypotheses by showing that it is more probable, on the 2DH,
      >that Matthew added seven instances of the theological title 'Son of
      >David' to the four he found in Mark, than that Mark and Luke, on the
      >GH, independently coincidentally copied the same four instances of the
      >title 'Son of David' from Matthew, omitting the other seven. The
      >conclusion he draws is that therefore the 2DH is more probably true
      >than the GH.
      >The question is, however, what assumptions Stein is making in order
      >supposedly to compare these probabilities and reach this conclusion.
      >After all, it is possible that both the 2DH and the GH are false.
      >Suppose they are both false. What does this say about Stein's
      >comparison of the two probabilities? If both the 2DH and the GH are
      >false, has he actually made the comparison he says he has made? ...
      Tom Westbury replied --
      >If they are both false then his conclusion is also false. However, from
      >the way you present his theses he is following a generally accepted
      >scholarly method which is all you can do in these things.
      Surely it is sometimes sensible to question generally accepted
      scholarly method and ask what assumptions are being made in it --
      especially if it seems no-one has done this previously. Is not
      questioning what is generally accepted by scholars part of being a
      scholar yourself?
      >Here, (Stein) starts with the hypothesis that Mark wrote his gospel
      >first without knowledge of Matthew and Luke and that these latter two
      >each independently wrote their gospels.
      I am not sure you have got this right. If he started with the assumption
      that Mark wrote first, he thereby assumed that the Griesbach Hypothesis
      is false, and therefore denied himself the possibility of considering
      the probability that Mark and Luke omitted the title 'Son of David' from
      Matthew at all. Yet he claims to consider this probability, doesn't he?

      I think what Stein assumes is that EITHER the Two Document Hypothesis is
      true (and therefore Mark wrote first), OR that the Griesbach Hypothesis
      is true (and therefore Matthew wrote first). Without BOTH halves of this
      alternation, Stein could not have proceeded with his comparison of the
      two probabilities, one assuming the 2DH, and the other assuming the GH.
      >There is nothing wrong with starting with this hypothesis if the
      >overall evidence suggests such a possibility and it is reasonable to
      >assume it might have happened this way.
      There would be nothing wrong if indeed he had started only with the Two
      Document Hypothesis which affirms that Mark wrote first. But Stein did
      not start merely with this hypothesis, but with the assumption that one
      of two mutually-exclusive hypotheses is true.
      >When the overwhelming majority of a group agrees on a certain
      >hypothesis you really have to SHOW it is wrong rather than just saying
      >you don't like it.
      I agree. I would hope the overwhelming majority of the group reading
      this posting would accept that this has been my conviction which I have
      followed, for instance the talk I gave in Finland on "Duality in the
      Synoptic Gospels" which is on my home-page.
      >Nor does attacking the method work if that method is a generally
      >accepted scientific way to go about these things which certainly
      >appears the case here.
      I think that before you can say that a method is a generally accepted
      scientific way to go about things, it might be a good idea to try and
      analyse the method being used and make sure that you understand what it
      is. Without such an analysis, how does anyone know that it is
      >If Stein is a reputable scholar he did not intend his "conditional
      >statement" to be the answer to these (source-critical) questions.
      This is not true. (I am not denying that he is a reputable scholar!) He
      explicitly states that his aim is to show that redaction-criticism is an
      argument for "a priority of Mark" (see page 77, for instance. See also
      page 83). He aims to use his redaction-critical arguments to show that
      the Two Document Hypothesis is more probable than the Griesbach
      Hypothesis. He sets out to use redaction criticism to answer a source
      critical question. The heading of the section is, in fact, "The Priority
      of Mark" which is a source-critical theory.

      My point is that his 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 the 2DH could be 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.

      Best wishes,

      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.