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

[Synoptic-L] Gerasene Demoniac

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Emmanuel, As I said in my previous posting, in Mark the Gerasene Demoniac forms **a story duality** with the Capernaum Demoniac.
    Message 1 of 10 , May 19, 2001
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
      >
      >In this second answer, I come back to the Gerasene exorcism, and what
      >says Boismard about it. ...
      >Only in Mark :
      >the man first "came from the tombs to meet him". And then "When he saw
      >Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him".
      >twice the same action !
      >All these fit well with a double redaction process.
      >
      Emmanuel,
      As I said in my previous posting, in Mark the Gerasene Demoniac
      forms **a story duality** with the Capernaum Demoniac. On my hypothesis
      the Gerasene Demoniac is the result of an awkward combination of parts
      of two narratives.
      >
      >Do you want arguments based on redactionnal facts ? Look at that: ...
      >
      I have already noted and used the similarities you set out, and many
      other such similarities of wording, thank you, to show that story
      dualities, and two-fold repetitions, occur in the synoptic gospels.
      These duality phenomena are easily explained by my hypothesis.

      Incidentally, "arguments based on redactional facts" is confused and
      confusing. No fact is redactional. We cannot observe redaction anywhere
      in the synoptic gospels. We can ***deduce*** redaction, but only on the
      basis of assuming a documentary hypothesis of the relation between
      synoptic gospels. Of course, the truth of the deduced result depends on
      whether the documentary hypothesis is true. So there are no redactional
      facts. The truth of all supposed redaction is conditional upon the
      assumption of the truth of a documentary relationship between synoptic
      gospels. This is why it is so important to solve the synoptic problem.
      Unless we do have a solution to the synoptic problem that sets out
      clearly the documentary relationship between the synoptic gospels, we
      have no means of distinguishing redaction from tradition in the synoptic
      gospels.
      >
      >two different Greek words for "tombs" (MNEMEION and MNEMASIN)
      >two different Greek words for the demoniac ("demoniac" is Matthean, and
      >"unclean spirit" is Markan). Does this not look as a multi-stage
      >redaction ?
      >
      There is no need for a "multi-stage" redaction hypothesis. The
      repetition you describe is accounted for on my hypothesis as a result of
      the Gerasene Demoniac and the Capernaum Demoniac forming a story duality
      (both in Mark, and in Luke).

      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".
      _

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 5/19/2001 4:32:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
      Message 2 of 10 , May 20, 2001
        In a message dated 5/19/2001 4:32:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        brian@... writes:

        << There is no need for a "multi-stage" redaction hypothesis. The
        repetition you describe is accounted for on my hypothesis as a result of
        the Gerasene Demoniac and the Capernaum Demoniac forming a story duality
        (both in Mark, and in Luke). >>

        Brian, you probably do this on your web-page, but would you mind explaining
        exactly what you mean by "story duality" in the present context? Does your
        theory account for the absence of the Capernaum Demoniac story in Matt, and
        the strangely apocopated version of the Gadarene demoniac in Matt 8?

        Leonard Maluf

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Emmanuel Fritsch
        # In this second answer, I come back to the Gerasene exorcism, and what # says Boismard about it. ... # Only in Mark : # the man first came from the tombs
        Message 3 of 10 , May 21, 2001
          # >In this second answer, I come back to the Gerasene exorcism, and what
          # >says Boismard about it. ...
          # >Only in Mark :
          # >the man first "came from the tombs to meet him". And then "When he saw
          # >Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him".
          # >twice the same action !
          # >All these fit well with a double redaction process.
          # >
          # Emmanuel,
          # As I said in my previous posting, in Mark the Gerasene Demoniac
          # forms **a story duality** with the Capernaum Demoniac. On my hypothesis
          # the Gerasene Demoniac is the result of an awkward combination of parts
          # of two narratives.

          Yes !

          I would like to see how you developp this idea, taking into
          account the specific synoptic phenomena we find in this passage :

          - repetition of action
          - Lukan vocabulary on the synoptic part of the story
          but not on the capernaum-like part.
          - two kinds of vocabulary (for tombs and for demoniac)


          # >Do you want arguments based on redactionnal facts ? Look at that: ...
          # >
          # I have already noted and used the similarities you set out, and many
          # other such similarities of wording, thank you, to show that story
          # dualities, and two-fold repetitions, occur in the synoptic gospels.
          # These duality phenomena are easily explained by my hypothesis.

          I have read you page, but my level on english is quite low.
          So it would be nice to explain how you think Lukan vocabulary
          has been included in Markan redaction.

          If I only look on your diagram, Marko-Lukan phenomenon
          looks as a surnatural jump. But surely you will propose
          a more plausible explanation.


          # Incidentally, "arguments based on redactional facts" is confused and
          # confusing. No fact is redactional. We cannot observe redaction anywhere
          # in the synoptic gospels.

          Yes. You are right on that point.
          What I call "redactional facts" are "synoptic phenomena" that
          Boismard analyses as tracks of redaction process. Its demonstration
          looks so evident to me that I confuse. Since Boismard conclusion are
          not accepted, "redactional fact" is an abuse. Sorry.

          But on the facts, you provide no answer.

          # >two different Greek words for "tombs" (MNEMEION and MNEMASIN)
          # >two different Greek words for the demoniac ("demoniac" is Matthean, and
          # >"unclean spirit" is Markan). Does this not look as a multi-stage
          # >redaction ?
          # >
          # There is no need for a "multi-stage" redaction hypothesis. The
          # repetition you describe is accounted for on my hypothesis as a result of
          # the Gerasene Demoniac and the Capernaum Demoniac forming a story duality
          # (both in Mark, and in Luke).

          Once upon a time, the Gerasene Demoniac and the Capernaum
          Demoniac met, and decided to form a story duality.

          It would be great for us to explain how they met.

          a+
          manu

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 5/31/2001 2:12:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
          Message 4 of 10 , May 31, 2001
            In a message dated 5/31/2001 2:12:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            brian@... writes:

            << There is a great deal of data observable in the synoptic gospels without
            assuming any documentary hypothesis of the relation between the synoptic
            gospels. The minor agreements, for instance, are observed fact since
            they would be there irrespective of whether anyone holds any synoptic
            documentary hypothesis or not. What we should be doing is looking hard
            for synoptic phenomena that are not dependent on assuming any
            documentary hypothesis. We should then be using this objective data to
            test documentary hypotheses of the relationship between the synoptic
            gospels. This would be attempting to solve the synoptic problem.>>

            You say this, Brian, as though following this methodology would somehow
            miraculously avoid all possibility of subjective evaluation of data, and
            consequent widely divergent opinions and conclusions, of the kind that are so
            abundant when people use the more usual methodologies. I simply don't think
            this is the case. I like the fact that your method tries to begin with
            observable facts, rather than posit judgments that presuppose a particular
            hypothesis. But ultimately, the time comes when even your methodology
            requires a subjective evaluation of the evidence. And when this happens
            (e.g., in the process you describe in the second to last sentence above) --
            there will continue to be widely divergent views regarding the origin and
            interrelationship of the gospels.

            In my own way I have been trying to do much the same thing as you, namely, to
            restore some objectivity and less dependence on pre-accepted theories in the
            interpretation of the gospels. The whole point of my article on the pericope
            of the Gadarene demoniac (which was rewritten in three different forms, none
            of them yet published) was to experiment with a new methodology that would
            not simply presuppose a synoptic theory that was then read into the entire
            analysis of the given text. I was attempting to introduce a new methodology
            according to which one would build up a synoptic theory empirically and
            cumulatively, by raising, seriously, the question of priority in each given
            set of parallels one is studying. This is not done in most commentaries, and
            it makes a significant difference between my article on this pericope, and
            its treatment in Davies and Allison (and most other commentaries that I am
            familiar with). The latter do assume Markan priority, and are solely
            concerned with interpreting the passage in question on its basis. I, in
            contrast, raise sharply the issue as to which Synoptic gospel has the more
            original form of the story told in this particular set of parallels
            (independently of what one might think in terms of an overall synoptic source
            theory). This is why I am so sensitive to your repeated and complete equation
            of what Davies and Allison are doing, on the basis of the 2 DH, and what (I
            assume) you assume I am doing in my analysis. They are not the same thing,
            whether or not you think either of them is legitimate or valid.

            Leonard Maluf

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Emmanuel Fritsch
            To Brian : # On the contrary, phrase by phrase, word by word, the Davies and # Allison 2DH explanation is convincing, including especially the way in #
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 1, 2001
              To Brian :
              # On the contrary, phrase by phrase, word by word, the Davies and
              # Allison 2DH explanation is convincing, including especially the way in
              # which Matthew has edited the wording found in Mark, omitting extraneous
              # detail, abbreviating "Son of the Most High God" to "Son of God",
              # replacing Mark's "I adjure you by God, do not torment me" with a
              # question "Have you come here to torment us before the time" since, in
              # Matthew's view "one may ask Jesus a question, but one should never dream
              # of telling him what to do," and so on. Davies and Allison's explanation
              # is compelling and scholarly.

              And how do they explain that Matthew prefered to keep the
              non capernaum-like verses of the story ? How do they explain
              that Matthew changed absolutely all Lukan-like wording he found
              in Mark ?

              If they do not explain this two major issues, then I agree
              with Leonard when y says that you are too easily convinced.

              a+
              manu

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Leonard Maluf replied -- ... Leonard, I say this as though following this methodology we would at least be clear what constitutes
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 1, 2001
                Brian Wilson wrote --
                >
                >There is a great deal of data observable in the synoptic gospels
                >without assuming any documentary hypothesis of the relation between the
                >synoptic gospels. The minor agreements, for instance, are observed fact
                >since they would be there irrespective of whether anyone holds any
                >synoptic documentary hypothesis or not. What we should be doing is
                >looking hard for synoptic phenomena that are not dependent on assuming
                >any documentary hypothesis. We should then be using this objective data
                >to test documentary hypotheses of the relationship between the synoptic
                > gospels. This would be attempting to solve the synoptic problem.
                >
                Leonard Maluf replied --
                >
                >You say this, Brian, as though following this methodology would somehow
                >miraculously avoid all possibility of subjective evaluation of data,
                >
                Leonard,
                I say this as though following this methodology we would at
                least be clear what constitutes data. I am concerned that we should not
                be pretending to evaluate data when we are not even considering it. What
                hypothetically Matthew would have had to have done to produce his
                version of the Gadarene Demoniac(s) if he had used the Markan version as
                his source, is simply not data. I am concerned that we should not be
                using redaction-critical inferences as though they were observed fact,
                when they are not.
                >
                >and consequent widely divergent opinions and conclusions, of the kind
                >that are so abundant when people use the more usual methodologies.
                >
                I am not aware of any "more usual methodologies". The usual approach is
                for scholars to state that they favour a synoptic hypothesis and to give
                one or two arguments in support of this. I am not sure, for instance,
                whether Streeter could be said to have had a methodology for solving the
                synoptic problem. I would think he did not.
                >
                >I like the fact that your method tries to begin with observable facts,
                >rather than posit judgments that presuppose a particular hypothesis.
                >But ultimately, the time comes when even your methodology requires a
                >subjective evaluation of the evidence.
                >
                Yes. But at least hypotheses will be evaluated on the basis of the data,
                and not on the basis of redaction-critical inferences. We are trying to
                solve a historical problem -- what happened when the synoptic gospels
                came to be written. I would suggest it is therefore a good idea to start
                with observable data.
                >
                >And when this happens (e.g., in the process you describe in the second
                >to last sentence above) -- there will continue to be widely divergent
                >views regarding the origin and interrelationship of the gospels.
                >
                We do not know this yet, do we? It has not been tried.

                It may be that the present disagreements are the result of not having
                used a proper methodology, and that if a proper methodology is used
                there will be much agreement as a consequence.

                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".
                _

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch commented -- ... This is observably untrue. Matthew kept some of the Capernaum-like verses -- Capernaum Demoniac
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 1, 2001
                  Brian Wilson wrote --
                  >
                  >phrase by phrase, word by word, the Davies and Allison 2DH explanation
                  >is convincing, including especially the way in which Matthew has edited
                  >the wording found in Mark, omitting extraneous detail, abbreviating
                  >"Son of the Most High God" to "Son of God", replacing Mark's "I adjure
                  >you by God, do not torment me" with a question "Have you come here to
                  >torment us before the time" since, in Matthew's view "one may ask Jesus
                  >a question, but one should never dream of telling him what to do," and
                  >so on. Davies and Allison's explanation is compelling and scholarly.
                  >
                  Emmanuel Fritsch commented --
                  >
                  >And how do they explain that Matthew preferred to keep the non
                  >capernaum-like verses of the story?
                  >
                  This is observably untrue. Matthew kept some of the Capernaum-like
                  verses --

                  Capernaum Demoniac (Mk 1.23b-24) --
                  And he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have
                  you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."

                  Gadarene Demoniacs (Mt 8.29) --
                  And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God.
                  Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

                  The similarities in Greek are --

                  Mk 1.23 KAI ANEKRACEN
                  Mt 8.29 KAI...ANEKRACEN

                  Mk 1.24 LEGWN TI hHMIN KAI SOI
                  Mt 8.29 LEGONTES TI hHMIN KAI SOI

                  Mk 1.24 TOU QEOU
                  Mt 8.29 TOU QEOU

                  Mk 1.24 HLQES...hHMAS
                  Mt 8.39 HLQES...hHMAS

                  It is not true, therefore, that Matthew preferred to keep the non-
                  Capernaum Demoniac verses from the Gerasene Demoniac story in Mark.
                  >
                  >How do they explain that Matthew changed absolutely all Lukan-like
                  >wording he found in Mark ?
                  >
                  It is totally impossible to observe that Matthew changed anything
                  whatsoever in Mark. We cannot observe redaction in any synoptic gospel.
                  I have already made this point, and you have already agreed with me. So
                  there is no need to explain the hypothetical redaction you describe. We
                  should not expect Davies and Allison to explain what cannot be observed.

                  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".
                  _

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 6/1/2001 3:56:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 1, 2001
                    In a message dated 6/1/2001 3:56:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    brian@... writes:

                    << Brian Wilson wrote --
                    >
                    >There is a great deal of data observable in the synoptic gospels
                    >without assuming any documentary hypothesis of the relation between the
                    >synoptic gospels. The minor agreements, for instance, are observed fact
                    >since they would be there irrespective of whether anyone holds any
                    >synoptic documentary hypothesis or not. What we should be doing is
                    >looking hard for synoptic phenomena that are not dependent on assuming
                    >any documentary hypothesis. We should then be using this objective data
                    >to test documentary hypotheses of the relationship between the synoptic
                    > gospels. This would be attempting to solve the synoptic problem.
                    >
                    Leonard Maluf replied --
                    >
                    >You say this, Brian, as though following this methodology would somehow
                    >miraculously avoid all possibility of subjective evaluation of data,
                    >
                    Leonard,
                    I say this as though following this methodology we would at
                    least be clear what constitutes data. I am concerned that we should not
                    be pretending to evaluate data when we are not even considering it. What
                    hypothetically Matthew would have had to have done to produce his
                    version of the Gadarene Demoniac(s) if he had used the Markan version as
                    his source, is simply not data.>>

                    I'm glad to be making you spell out your methodologically quite clearly,
                    because it reveals, I think, your prejudice in favor of observable data.
                    Whether or not what Matthew would have had to have done to produce his
                    version of the Gadarene Demoniac(s) if he had used the Markan version as his
                    source is or is not originally data, in the pure sense of the term, it
                    becomes data of sorts once a legitimate reasoning process has preceded it.

                    << I am concerned that we should not be
                    using redaction-critical inferences as though they were observed fact,
                    when they are not.>>

                    Your British empiricism shows through here, doesn't it? In seminary I teach
                    this as a false philosophy, and am quite convinced that it is so. Can you
                    persuade me otherwise? If valid redaction-critical inferences can be used in
                    arguing a Synoptic theory, why should one press the point that these are not
                    observed fact. So what if they are not? Is "observed fact" the only valid
                    form (or basis) of knowledge? I believe in the validity of certain mediated
                    forms of knowledge, including those that involve syllogism.


                    << I am not aware of any "more usual methodologies". The usual approach is
                    for scholars to state that they favour a synoptic hypothesis and to give
                    one or two arguments in support of this. I am not sure, for instance,
                    whether Streeter could be said to have had a methodology for solving the
                    synoptic problem. I would think he did not.>>

                    This is a good point, with which I concur. One does have the impression of
                    utter chaos in terms of methodology, when one reads Streeter on the Synoptic
                    Problem.

                    >
                    >And when this happens (e.g., in the process you describe in the second
                    >to last sentence above) -- there will continue to be widely divergent
                    >views regarding the origin and interrelationship of the gospels.
                    >
                    We do not know this yet, do we? It has not been tried.

                    It may be that the present disagreements are the result of not having
                    used a proper methodology, and that if a proper methodology is used
                    there will be much agreement as a consequence.>>

                    You have point here, but I just have a lurking suspicion that you are unduly
                    sanguine in this judgment.

                    Leonard Maluf

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Emmanuel Fritsch
                    To Brian :# And how do they explain that Matthew preferred to keep the non # capernaum-like verses of the story? # # This is observably untrue.
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 1, 2001
                      To Brian :

                      # >And how do they explain that Matthew preferred to keep the non
                      # >capernaum-like verses of the story?
                      # >
                      # This is observably untrue. Matthew kept some of the Capernaum-like
                      # verses --
                      # [...]
                      # It is not true, therefore, that Matthew preferred to keep the non-
                      # Capernaum Demoniac verses from the Gerasene Demoniac story in Mark.

                      OK, you are right. He chooses to keep with a special
                      care only the cry of the demoniac. This is the central
                      verses of the passage. But globally, (if 2DH is true)
                      then Matthew prefered to keep the non capernaum-like
                      verses of the story. Why ?

                      Thank you for your demonstration on vocabulary of v.7.
                      But why the Lukan words ("Most high" in the v.7) we find
                      in Mark has disappeared in the Matthean version ?

                      # >How do they explain that Matthew changed absolutely all
                      # >Lukan-like wording he found in Mark ?
                      # >
                      # It is totally impossible to observe that Matthew changed anything
                      # whatsoever in Mark. We cannot observe redaction in any synoptic gospel.

                      I just apply the 2DH, which according you offer a "convincing"
                      explanation for Gerasene Demoniac process : You said that it
                      is possible to build a valid theory positing that Matthew work
                      from the text of Mark.

                      I said that this theory is not valid, since if it is true,
                      then Matthew has changed all the lukan vocabulary he found in
                      Mark. And how to explain why he would have done so ?


                      # So
                      # there is no need to explain the hypothetical redaction you describe. We
                      # should not expect Davies and Allison to explain what cannot be observed.

                      If 2DH is true, i.e. if Matthew writes his gospel from Mark, then
                      It can be observed that Matthew has kept preferentially the part
                      of Mark story with the lukan vocabulary. But he canceled lukan
                      vocabulary. Why ?

                      I claimed that your count of hapaxes were not relevant, since you
                      do not take into account "ONOMA MOI - ONOMA SOI". Why in your count
                      do you not find this as markan hapax ?

                      a+
                      manu

                      PS : I wish to all christian a happy feast of holy spirit

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Brian Wilson replied -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch responded -- ... Emmanuel, If we assume the 2DH, then Matthew kept not only the
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 1, 2001
                        Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
                        >
                        >And how do they explain that Matthew preferred to keep the non
                        >capernaum-like verses of the story?
                        >
                        Brian Wilson replied --
                        >
                        >This is observably untrue. Matthew kept some of the Capernaum-like
                        >verses --
                        >Capernaum Demoniac (Mk 1.23b-24) --
                        >And he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have
                        >you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
                        >
                        >Gadarene Demoniacs (Mt 8.29) --
                        >And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God.
                        >Have you come here to torment us before the time?"
                        >
                        >The similarities in Greek are --
                        >Mk 1.23 KAI ANEKRACEN
                        >Mt 8.29 KAI...ANEKRACEN
                        >
                        >Mk 1.24 LEGWN TI hHMIN KAI SOI
                        >Mt 8.29 LEGONTES TI hHMIN KAI SOI
                        >
                        >Mk 1.24 TOU QEOU
                        >Mt 8.29 TOU QEOU
                        >
                        >Mk 1.24 HLQES...hHMAS
                        >Mt 8.39 HLQES...hHMAS
                        >
                        >It is not true, therefore, that Matthew preferred to keep the non-
                        >Capernaum Demoniac verses from the Gerasene Demoniac story in Mark.
                        >
                        Emmanuel Fritsch responded --
                        >
                        >OK, you are right. He chooses to keep with a special care only the cry
                        >of the demoniac. This is the central verses of the passage. But
                        >globally, (if 2DH is true) then Matthew preferred to keep the non
                        >capernaum-like verses of the story. Why ?
                        >
                        Emmanuel,
                        If we assume the 2DH, then Matthew kept not only the words
                        spoken by the demoniac, but also the narrative statement that he "cried
                        aloud, saying". The agreements are significant, and certainly not the
                        result of mere coincidence. It takes only one counter-example to
                        disprove the general rule. The agreements are a counter-example, and
                        therefore disprove your general statement. They show that your analysis
                        is wrong. The agreements show that it is just not true that "globally",
                        if the 2DH is assumed, then Matthew preferred to keep the non-Capernaum-
                        like verses. He did prefer to keep some of the Capernaum-like verses.
                        There is no global preference to omit them.

                        Emmanuel Fritsch continued --
                        >
                        >Thank you for your demonstration on vocabulary of v.7. But why the
                        >Lukan words ("Most high" in the v.7) we find in Mark has disappeared
                        >in the Matthean version ?
                        >
                        Why should they not disappear? Assuming the 2DH, Matthew is massively
                        abbreviating this story, as he does a great deal of material from Mark.
                        Davies and Allison say, in fact, that "Matthew is again abbreviating"
                        (page 81).

                        Emmanuel Fritsch had asked --
                        >
                        >How do they explain that Matthew changed absolutely all Lukan-like
                        >wording he found in Mark ?
                        >
                        Brian Wilson had replied --
                        >
                        >It is totally impossible to observe that Matthew changed anything
                        >whatsoever in Mark. We cannot observe redaction in any synoptic gospel.
                        >I have already made this point, and you have already agreed with me. So
                        >there is no need to explain the hypothetical redaction you describe. We
                        >should not expect Davies and Allison to explain what cannot be
                        >observed.
                        >
                        Emmanuel Fritsch responded --
                        >
                        >I just apply the 2DH, which according you offer a "convincing"
                        >explanation for Gerasene Demoniac process : You said that it
                        >is possible to build a valid theory positing that Matthew work
                        >from the text of Mark.
                        >
                        That is not the point. You still have failed to describe what it is that
                        can be observed in the synoptic gospels that you want explained under
                        the 2DH. If I had never heard of any synoptic document hypothesis, and
                        just had a synopsis of Matthew, Mark and Luke, how would I find "Lukan-
                        like wording" in the Gerasene Demoniac in Mark? After all, the word KAI
                        is very common in Luke. In fact it occurs 1469 times in the gospel of
                        Luke, more times than in Matthew or Mark. Is that what you mean? If so,
                        then Matthew uses a Lukan-like word, KAI, about 8 times in his version
                        of the Gadarene Demoniac(s). If a word that occurs 1469 times in Luke is
                        not Lukan, then what word is? How do we find words that are "Lukan-like
                        wording". You have not told us, have you?
                        >
                        >I said that this theory is not valid, since if it is true, then Matthew
                        >has changed all the lukan vocabulary he found in Mark. And how to
                        >explain why he would have done so ?
                        >
                        I am really not sure that there is anything to explain. What is "lukan
                        vocabulary"? On 29th May, I asked you --
                        >
                        >Is "Lukan wording" wording in the style of the writer of the
                        >gospel of Luke? If so, then how do we discover what his style was?
                        >
                        You seem to have no answer to this question.
                        >
                        >If 2DH is true, i.e. if Matthew writes his gospel from Mark, then it
                        >can be observed that Matthew has kept preferentially the part of Mark
                        >story with the lukan vocabulary. But he cancelled lukan vocabulary.
                        >Why?
                        >
                        I am not sure that any such thing can be observed. How can we observe
                        "lukan vocabulary" when we do not even know how to recognize whether a
                        word fits this description?

                        I would ask again, Is "Lukan wording" wording in the style of the
                        writer of the gospel of Luke? If so, then how do we discover what his
                        style was?

                        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".
                        _

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.