[Synoptic-L] Seven doublets in Luke
- Leonard Maluf wrote --
>Brian Wilson answered --
>But I doubt the phenomenon suggests a multiplicity of sources.
>Emmanuel Fritsch asks --
>I entirely agree. Doublets do not necessarily entail multiple sources.
>We should not overlook the distinction between redaction doublets
>(deliberate repetition created by one writer in the same book) and
>source doublets (two-fold repetition resulting from originally one
>piece of material being obtained twice -- via two lines of documentary
>For the newbie I am, may you provide examples of redaction doublets
>and source doublets ?
Consider the following well-known doublet --
(1) Mt 10.39 "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his
life for my sake will find it."
(2) Mt 16.25 "For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever
loses his life for my sake will find it."
How did this doublet come into existence?
According to advocates of the Farrer Hypothesis, Matthew liked the
saying he found in his source (Mk 8.35 // Mt 16.25) so much that he
deliberately made use of it **twice** - not only in Mt 16.25 but also in
Mt 10.39. So the writer of the gospel of Matthew, on this view, produced
the doublet by his own redaction, by deliberately producing the
repetition. Here then, we may suppose, is an instance of a **redaction**
According to advocates of the Two Document Hypothesis, however, the
version of the saying in Mt 10.39 occurred in Q (see Lk 14.27), and Q
"overlapped" Mark. That is to say, before both Q and Mark there was a
more original version of this saying which has been reproduced in two
different documents, Q and Mark, so that the writer of the gospel of
Matthew, when he used both Q and Mark, produced this repetition as a
result of using similarly-worded related documentary sources. On this
view, the doublet in Matthew is a **source** doublet. The writer of the
gospel of Matthew did not create this repetition himself. Indeed, he may
not even have noticed that it was present in the book he produced.
>The way to determine whether the doublet we have considered above is a
>Are there any methods to distinguish them ?
redaction doublet, or whether it is rather a source doublet, is to solve
the synoptic problem. If we can show that the Farrer Hypothesis is not a
solution to the synoptic problem, whereas the Two Document Hypothesis
is, then the doublet concerned is a source doublet. Alternatively, if we
can show that the 2DH is not a solution but the FH is, then the doublet
is a redaction doublet. A further possibility, of course, is that
neither the FH nor the 2DH solves the synoptic problem in which case the
question of whether the doublet is redaction or source remains
unanswered unless another solution to the synoptic problem is obtained.
I do not think it is possible to determine that a doublet is a source
doublet (rather than a redaction doublet) simply from the wording of its
components. Even if the components are identically-worded, they could
still be a redaction doublet, and even if they are only partly similar
in wording, they could still be a source doublet. I see no grounds for
accepting the argument that source doublets are more likely to display
closer similarity of wording than redaction doublets.
>HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://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@...