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

[Synoptic-L] Markan wording: methodology

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch replied -- ... Emmanuel, I am not clear what your answer to my question is. In simple words, I think -- (1) KAI is
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 19, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Wilson wrote --
      >
      >My question now is, suppose the test shows that KAI is not randomly
      >distributed in Mark, then can such an observed synoptic phenomenon be
      >shown to be a difficulty for any synoptic documentary hypothesis?
      >
      Emmanuel Fritsch replied --
      >
      >Allways the same problem, I think : the scholar is then challenged
      >to propose at least a plausible redaction scenario, in the frame of
      >its own theory, and that fit with the observed phenomenon.
      >
      >Is it right ?
      >
      Emmanuel,
      I am not clear what your answer to my question is.

      In simple words, I think --

      (1) KAI is non randomly distributed in Mark.

      (2) This is no difficulty for the 2DH.

      (3) So there is no challenge to find anything.

      Am I right?

      If not, where have I gone wrong?

      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@...
    • Emmanuel Fritsch
      # Emmanuel Fritsch replied -- # # Allways the same problem, I think : the scholar is then challenged # to propose at least a plausible redaction scenario,
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 21, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        # Emmanuel Fritsch replied --
        # >
        # >Allways the same problem, I think : the scholar is then challenged
        # >to propose at least a plausible redaction scenario, in the frame of
        # >its own theory, and that fit with the observed phenomenon.
        # >
        # >Is it right ?
        # >
        # Emmanuel,
        # I am not clear what your answer to my question is.
        #
        # In simple words, I think --
        #
        # (1) KAI is non randomly distributed in Mark.
        #
        # (2) This is no difficulty for the 2DH.
        #
        # (3) So there is no challenge to find anything.
        #
        # Am I right?
        #
        # If not, where have I gone wrong?

        I am not qualified to say you are right or wrong. But if I well
        understood Stephen, I would say that the scenario you proposed
        (thread Matthew's TOTE etc.) is not plausible, so that the
        difficulty for 2DH still remains.

        a+
        manu

        PS : hollydays for me. That was my last post on that topic.


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch replied -- ... Emmanuel, Nor is anyone else. We do not need to be qualified to think. ... The point I made above has
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 21, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian Wilson wrote --
          >
          >I think --
          >(1) KAI is non randomly distributed in Mark.
          >(2) This is no difficulty for the 2DH.
          >(3) So there is no challenge to find anything.
          > Am I right? If not, where have I gone wrong?
          >
          Emmanuel Fritsch replied --
          >
          >I am not qualified to say you are right or wrong.
          >
          Emmanuel,
          Nor is anyone else. We do not need to be qualified to think.
          >
          >But if I well understood Stephen, I would say that the scenario you
          >proposed (thread Matthew's TOTE etc.) is not plausible
          >
          The point I made above has nothing to do with TOTE and DE but solely
          with the non random distribution of KAI in Mark. Is this non random
          distribution alone a difficulty for the 2DH?

          In other words, do advocates of the 2DH such as Robinson, Kloppenborg,
          Hoffmann, Tuckett, Neirynck, and so on, need to start looking for a
          different synoptic documentary hypothesis because Fritsch has observed a
          non random ("heterogeneous") distribution of KAI in Mark?

          My view is that they do not. But I am very willing to be persuaded
          otherwise, especially as I reject the 2DH myself.

          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@...
        • Emmanuel Fritsch
          This is my conclusion on that topic : # I think -- # (1) KAI is non randomly distributed in Mark. # (2) This is no difficulty for the 2DH. # (3) So there
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 25, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            This is my conclusion on that topic :

            # >I think --
            # >(1) KAI is non randomly distributed in Mark.
            # >(2) This is no difficulty for the 2DH.
            # >(3) So there is no challenge to find anything.
            # > Am I right? If not, where have I gone wrong?
            # >
            # Emmanuel Fritsch replied --
            # >
            # >I am not qualified to say you are right or wrong.
            # >
            # Emmanuel,
            # Nor is anyone else. We do not need to be qualified to think.
            # >
            # >But if I well understood Stephen, I would say that the scenario you
            # >proposed (thread Matthew's TOTE etc.) is not plausible
            # >
            # The point I made above has nothing to do with TOTE and DE but solely
            # with the non random distribution of KAI in Mark. Is this non random
            # distribution alone a difficulty for the 2DH?

            Do you not think the distribution of KAI should be
            correlated with the distribution of DE ?

            # In other words, do advocates of the 2DH such as Robinson, Kloppenborg,
            # Hoffmann, Tuckett, Neirynck, and so on, need to start looking for a
            # different synoptic documentary hypothesis because Fritsch has observed a
            # non random ("heterogeneous") distribution of KAI in Mark?

            Boismard has observed this phenomenon. Is this phenomenon statistically
            significant is a first question. If the answer is yes, then each scholar
            is challenged to explain it, in the frame of its own theory, or to
            change his theory.

            And if Kloppenborg provides a plausible explanation in the frame
            of his theory, then this Boismardian argument against 2DH vanishes.
            I would like to know Kloppenborg's explanation for Markan heterogeneity.

            a+
            many

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Brian E. Wilson
            Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch replied -- ... Emmanuel, Your question does not answer my question, does it? By itself, is the non random
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 25, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian Wilson wrote --
              >
              >The point I made above has nothing to do with TOTE and DE but solely
              >with the non random distribution of KAI in Mark. Is this non random
              >distribution alone a difficulty for the 2DH?
              >
              Emmanuel Fritsch replied --
              >
              >Do you not think the distribution of KAI should be correlated with the
              >distribution of DE ?
              >
              Emmanuel,
              Your question does not answer my question, does it?

              By itself, is the non random distribution of KAI in Mark a difficulty
              for the 2DH? I do not think it is. You have not shown that it is. There
              is no problem to solve, therefore.

              >
              >I would like to know Kloppenborg's explanation for Markan
              >heterogeneity.
              >

              I see no reason why Kloppenborg should have to explain the non random
              distribution of KAI in Mark. It has nothing to do with whether Matthew
              and Luke used Mark, or whether Matthew and Luke independently used Q.
              You have not shown this particular heterogeneous distribution in Mark is
              a difficulty for the 2DH. It is not relevant, is it?

              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@...
            • Emmanuel Fritsch
              # I would like to know Kloppenborg s explanation for Markan # heterogeneity. # # # I see no reason why Kloppenborg should have to explain the non random #
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 25, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                # >I would like to know Kloppenborg's explanation for Markan
                # >heterogeneity.
                # >
                #
                # I see no reason why Kloppenborg should have to explain the non random
                # distribution of KAI in Mark. It has nothing to do with whether Matthew
                # and Luke used Mark, or whether Matthew and Luke independently used Q.
                # You have not shown this particular heterogeneous distribution in Mark is
                # a difficulty for the 2DH. It is not relevant, is it?

                What a theory is designed for ? To give an account of reality.
                If a phenomenon is real, well established, then the theory has
                to fit with.

                If the purpose of the theorician is to give an account of the
                reality, then he is challenged, in the frame of his own theory,
                to give an explanation of each phenomenon related to his own theory.

                Would the heterogeneity of Mark be a synoptic phenomenon ? If yes,
                then each theorician is challenged to show how it fits with his
                own theory of the redaction process.

                Are there any mistake anywhere ?

                a+
                manu


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch replied -- ... Emmanuel, It seems you are skilled at avoiding answering a question by posing another question. Let
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 25, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Brian Wilson wrote --
                  >
                  >I see no reason why Kloppenborg should have to explain the non random
                  >distribution of KAI in Mark. It has nothing to do with whether Matthew
                  >and Luke used Mark, or whether Matthew and Luke independently used Q.
                  >You have not shown this particular heterogeneous distribution in Mark
                  >is a difficulty for the 2DH. It is not relevant, is it?
                  >
                  Emmanuel Fritsch replied --
                  >
                  >What a theory is designed for ? To give an account of reality.
                  >If a phenomenon is real, well established, then the theory has to fit
                  >with. If the purpose of the theoretician is to give an account of the
                  >reality, then he is challenged, in the frame of his own theory, to give
                  >an explanation of each phenomenon related to his own theory. Would the
                  >heterogeneity of Mark be a synoptic phenomenon ? If yes,
                  >then each theoretician is challenged to show how it fits with his own
                  >theory of the redaction process. Are there any mistake anywhere ?
                  >
                  Emmanuel,
                  It seems you are skilled at avoiding answering a question by
                  posing another question. Let me state the question I am asking yet
                  again.

                  I agree that KAI is not randomly distributed in Mark (so forming a
                  "heterogeneity" in Mark), but I think no-one should ask an advocate of
                  the 2DH to account for this heterogeneity in Mark without first showing
                  him clearly that this is a difficulty for the 2DH. I do not think it is
                  a difficulty for the 2DH. You have not shown it is a difficulty for the
                  2DH. So there is simply no challenge to the 2DH here.

                  If KAI being not randomly distributed in Mark is a difficulty for the
                  2DH, then I wish you would show this to us. I would be pleased if you
                  did, since I actually reject the 2DH myself.

                  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
                  Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Emmanuel, If this is all you can say, I am sorry but it is very weak indeed. The first rule of studying the synoptic gospels is
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jun 26, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
                    >
                    >All what I can say against 2DH is : according Boismard, the
                    >heterogeneity of Mark is the proof that Mark is the result of
                    >a multi stage process.
                    >
                    Emmanuel,
                    If this is all you can say, I am sorry but it is very weak
                    indeed. The first rule of studying the synoptic gospels is never to take
                    the findings of a scholar as true, but to check them out for yourself.
                    >
                    >This is a strong argument
                    >
                    On the contrary. To quote the conclusions Boismard is supposed to have
                    reached without even outlining his argument, is no argument at all.
                    >
                    >if you disagree with Boismard
                    >
                    I neither disagree nor agree. There is nothing to consider. You have
                    given us no argument to evaluate.
                    >
                    >you are challenged to present another explanation for the
                    >heterogeneity, in the frame of your own theory.
                    >
                    I do not think so.

                    I am disappointed that you have given no argument to show that the non
                    random distribution of KAI in Mark is a difficulty for the 2DH. You say
                    there is proof, even. I would suggest you might like to give us at least
                    the outline of this proof. The outline cannot be that difficult, surely?

                    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@...
                  • Emmanuel Fritsch
                    # All what I can say against 2DH is : according Boismard, the # heterogeneity of Mark is the proof that Mark is the result of # a multi stage process. # #
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jun 26, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      # >All what I can say against 2DH is : according Boismard, the
                      # >heterogeneity of Mark is the proof that Mark is the result of
                      # >a multi stage process.
                      # >
                      # Emmanuel,
                      # If this is all you can say, I am sorry but it is very weak
                      # indeed. The first rule of studying the synoptic gospels is never to take
                      # the findings of a scholar as true, but to check them out for yourself.

                      If this is the case, then biblical study follow a strange way in
                      epistemology. Usually, theoricians propose theories to give an
                      account of reality. They are challenged to check the adequation
                      of their theory with reality.

                      If you were right, then reality and theory would follow independant
                      pathes. Theories would result into funny games, but absolutely not
                      science.


                      # >This is a strong argument
                      # >
                      # On the contrary. To quote the conclusions Boismard is supposed to have
                      # reached without even outlining his argument, is no argument at all.

                      This is not a conclusion, but an argument : a heterogeneity
                      in a text is a good evidence for a double hand redaction.

                      I repeat from the beginning that I am not a scholar.
                      I may evaluate some arguments. The arguments presented
                      by Boismard looks brilliant and relevant, as good in fact
                      as the better I have ever seen on synoptic problem.

                      About heterogeneity of Mark, if nobody presents an
                      alternative explanation to Boismard, how can I follow
                      anything else than Boismard ?

                      In that case, the validation of argument is so easy.


                      # >if you disagree with Boismard
                      # >
                      # I neither disagree nor agree. There is nothing to consider. You have
                      # given us no argument to evaluate.

                      Boismard gives arguments. Where are yours ?


                      # >you are challenged to present another explanation for the
                      # >heterogeneity, in the frame of your own theory.
                      # >
                      # I do not think so.
                      #
                      # I am disappointed that you have given no argument to show that the non
                      # random distribution of KAI in Mark is a difficulty for the 2DH. You say
                      # there is proof, even. I would suggest you might like to give us at least
                      # the outline of this proof. The outline cannot be that difficult, surely?

                      1- As I said before, I am not challenged to argue against 2DH, but
                      you are challenged to match heterogeneity of Mark with 2DH,
                      according your claim (and I was not alone to think your try
                      of explanation as unplausible).
                      2- Nevertheless, I gave an argument : an heterogeneity of style
                      is a good evidence for double redaction process. There is no
                      double redaction process for Mark in 2DH.

                      Your disapointment is deception.


                      You allways consider that theory have an independant life,
                      without any relation to reality.

                      This is not only in this discussion, but either in your own theory,
                      if I well understood it (but possible I miss). In fact, my impression
                      is that your theory does not explain any difficulty resulting from
                      gospel comparison, all what we call the synoptic problem.

                      For you, all doublets, repetitions, "wiederaufnahme", heterogeneity
                      of style and theology, irrelevance, grammar faults, inconsistencies
                      and in fact most elements that ground the synoptic problem, and that
                      scholars trend to explain, remain unexplained in your system. You
                      assume that they all come from greek-notes.

                      You just replaced the synoptic problem with a "greek-note" problem.

                      a+
                      manu

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                      I apologize Brian, the moderator and all of yours for my previous post, widely out of topic. In fact, I posted yesterday a private answer to Brian, I replied
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jun 26, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I apologize Brian, the moderator and all of yours for my previous
                        post, widely out of topic. In fact, I posted yesterday a private
                        answer to Brian, I replied at noon to the list, and I did not
                        check the path of return this afternoon.

                        Please, Brian, when I write "private mail", do not answer
                        to the whole list, or signal the change of destinator at
                        the head of your mail.

                        Many apologizes for this mistake.

                        a+
                        manu

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Emmanuel, All the messages from you that I have answered on Synoptic-L have come via Synoptic-L. For instance, your message
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jun 26, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
                          >
                          >In fact, I posted yesterday a private answer to Brian, I replied at
                          >noon to the list, and I did not check the path of return this
                          >afternoon.
                          >
                          >Please, Brian, when I write "private mail", do not answer to the whole
                          >list, or signal the change of destinator at the head of your mail.
                          >
                          Emmanuel,
                          All the messages from you that I have answered on Synoptic-L
                          have come via Synoptic-L.

                          For instance, your message timed 8.45 Tuesday 26 June 2001, began with
                          the words "private mail" but had the subject heading

                          >[Synoptic-L] Markan wording methodology

                          showing that it had come via Synoptic-L. Since, therefore, it was
                          already available to everyone on the List, I saw nothing wrong in
                          answering it on the List. In fact I thought "private mail" was an oddity
                          of idiom caused by English not being your first language.

                          I must say I have seen nothing that has upset me in any way in any of
                          your postings. I thrive on criticism, and usually try and turn what I
                          consider unfair comments back on my critics.

                          I also consider that our exchange of views has been really very
                          productive. It is not a word game as far as I am concerned, but a step
                          by step inquiry into some of the ideas and methods of Boismard.

                          Thank you for taking my thoughts sufficiently seriously to bother to
                          criticize them.

                          Incidentally, there does seem to be something of a time-lag for some
                          Synoptic-L postings arriving at my machine. On occasions I receive
                          answers to postings which I have not seen but which arrive later. I
                          think some contributors send "courtesy copies" to the person to whom
                          they are responding, and these arrive before the Synoptic-L "original"
                          has been circulated to the List. I personally do not send courtesy
                          copies because I think they can cause problems and in practice are not
                          courteous to the other contributors to the List.

                          A thought concerning the gospel of Mark. It seems so me that the great
                          majority of narratives in Mark show Jesus or John the Baptist as the
                          dominant figure. Let us suppose that it was the deliberate policy of the
                          writer of the gospel of Mark to include in his book narratives showing
                          Jesus or John the Baptist as the dominant figure.

                          If so, then I would suggest that this might throw light on what is
                          considered by some scholars to be the most significant minor agreement
                          of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the triple tradition -- the words
                          "who is it that struck you" in Mt 26.68b // Lk 22.64b, not present in
                          the parallel material in Mark. For these words show Jesus as
                          embarrassingly **not** the dominant figure. If Mark's major concern was
                          to depict Jesus as the dominant figure, the strong son of God, then he
                          may very well have omitted "Who is it that struck you?" because far from
                          showing Jesus as the dominant figure, they present him as being
                          overwhelmingly dominated by those guarding him.

                          I am not suggesting that this argument should be used as the basis of
                          any documentary hypothesis, but rather as an idea that might go some way
                          to account for what has been a puzzle to many.

                          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@...
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.