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

[Synoptic-L] Seven doublets in Luke

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Leonard Maluf wrote -- ... Brian Wilson answered -- ... Emmanuel Fritsch asks -- ... Emmanuel, Consider the following well-known doublet -- (1) Mt 10.39 He
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 28, 2001
      Leonard Maluf wrote --
      >
      >But I doubt the phenomenon suggests a multiplicity of sources.
      >
      Brian Wilson answered --
      >
      >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
      >transmission).
      >
      Emmanuel Fritsch asks --
      >
      >For the newbie I am, may you provide examples of redaction doublets
      >and source doublets ?
      >
      Emmanuel,
      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**
      doublet.

      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.
      >
      >Are there any methods to distinguish them ?
      >
      The way to determine whether the doublet we have considered above is a
      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.

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

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