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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Gerasene Demoniac

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Jun 1 12:43 AM
      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 2 of 10 , Jun 1 12:50 AM
        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 3 of 10 , Jun 1 2:49 AM
          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 4 of 10 , Jun 1 4:13 AM
            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 5 of 10 , Jun 1 11:28 AM
              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 6 of 10 , Jun 1 3:55 PM
                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.