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

[Synoptic-L] double genealogy in posited greek notes ?

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote -- ... Emmanuel, I understand your question here to be that if the Greek Logia contained both the Genealogy of Luke 3 and the Table of
    Message 1 of 33 , Oct 12, 2001
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote --
      >
      >Why did he not harmonize it?
      >
      Emmanuel,
      I understand your question here to be that if the Greek Logia
      contained both the Genealogy of Luke 3 and the Table of Descent of
      Matthew 1, and if Matthew might have thought that these two could have
      been harmonized, then why did he not in fact harmonize them? My answer
      is that I see no reason at all why Matthew should have done so. Matthew
      was entirely free in any way he chose to edit the material he selected
      from the Greek Logia. If he preferred the table of descent found in
      Matthew 1 to the proper genealogy found in Luke 3, then that was
      entirely his choice as an author of the book he was producing.
      >
      >(since he would have produced, according you, some harmonisation
      >through story duality, why did he not do it here?)
      >
      According to the Logia Translation Hypothesis, no synoptist originated a
      story duality. Matthew did not "produce some harmonization through story
      duality". According to the LTH, every instance of a story duality
      originally stood in the Greek Logia. Story dualities are the creation of
      the mind of only one person, the writer of the Greek Logia. Matthew did
      not, for instance, harmonize the Parable of the Wicked Tenants with
      another story to produce the Parable of the Wedding Feast. Both parables
      stood in the Greek Logia. Matthew reproduced each of them with only
      relatively light editing of the wording, so that the story duality that
      was in the Greek Logia is seen to occur in Matthew.
      >
      >Please. There is no reason to imagine that what was described by Papias
      >was the strange feature you posit in your hypothesis.
      >
      Please, no-one asked you to imagine any reason. Your comment seems to me
      to be rhetoric without logic.
      >
      >And I do not see any justification in Papias testimony that would give
      >to elder tradition a special status compared to all other tradition
      >transmission around the world.
      >
      But scholars do see the tradition of the Elder as very special. The
      tradition is very early and extraordinary. The Logia Translation
      Hypothesis makes very good sense of this tradition, I would suggest.

      I think that much of what follows in your posting is strong on rhetoric
      but weak on logic. I will not go through all the various points. I would
      comment, however, on two points you make at the end --
      >
      >If I well understand text critics, there is a global explanation for
      >discrepancies found in gospels : they are the result of step by step
      >redaction process, when at a given step the redactor wanted to
      >harmonise the different tradition which were all considered as
      >respectable, and he had no witnesses anymore to check the better
      >tradition, so that he kept the whole, through harmonisation.
      >
      I think the idea that the synoptic problem can be solved by positing
      such "step by step redaction process, when at a given step the redactor
      wanted to harmonise the different tradition" is basically the line of
      thinking advocated by Boismard. The result is a set of documentary
      hypotheses that are so complicated that they are way beyond being
      checked against the data. In my view, the synoptic problem is to put
      forward a hypothesis of the documentary relationship between the
      synoptic gospels that can be checked against the observed data.
      >
      >Your hypothesis looks hard to believe since :
      >for you all the discrepancies appeared at the begining of the redaction
      >process (and not later)
      >
      On the contrary, the Logia Translation Hypothesis extremely clearly and
      explicitly states that each synoptist ***edited*** the wording of the
      material he took independently from the Greek Logia. Each synoptist
      therefore redacted the material he selected. This is the part of the LTH
      you seem to overlook all the time. Please remember that Matthew redacted
      the material he selected from the Greek Logia, and that Mark redacted
      the material he selected from the Greek Logia, and that Luke redacted
      the material he selected from the Greek Logia. Each synoptist was a
      redactor. And the redaction by each synoptist was not at the beginning,
      but at the very end of the process of forming the synoptic gospels.
      >
      >the discrepancies in your greek notes would have been worse than
      >all what we know today in the canonical. (for instance : double
      >genealogy).
      >
      In fact the point you make here is *support* for the LTH. The LTH
      explicitly states that the Greek Logia were **not** one continuous book
      (as was each synoptic gospel) but were a collection of dozens of short
      reports each of which was self-contained. They were not intended to be a
      consistent continuous book, but a set of teaching notes in which each
      pericope could be used individually for teaching Jesus tradition to
      Greek-speaking Christians. According to the LTH, there were indeed
      "worse discrepancies" (that is, more inconsistencies) than the
      inconsistencies found in each synoptic gospel. No doubt each synoptist
      to some extent omitted some Greek Logia material in order to reduce some
      of the inconsistencies more obvious to him in the Greek Logia, for each
      synoptist was trying to turn a set of many individual self-contained
      short reports into a continuous book of Jesus tradition that could be
      read in assemblies of Christians.

      Again, thanks for taking time and trouble to look at my homepage, and to
      criticize my ideas. I would much rather my ideas were criticized than
      ignored.

      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@...
    • Emmanuel Fritsch
      ... OK, your compute looks good. I will analyse it. There is just a little question we have still to solve, when you wrote : If the expected numbers are
      Message 33 of 33 , Nov 12, 2001
        > For the calculated
        > probabilities above can also be used to estimate the number of dua-
        > stories, simple and composite, that would be expected to occur in each
        > synoptic gospel, and these expectations can be checked against the
        > observed numbers. If the expected numbers are wildly different from the
        > observed, then this would throw doubt on the LTH. If they are reasonably
        > close, this would support the LTH. We should expect --

        OK, your compute looks good. I will analyse it.
        There is just a little question we have still to solve,
        when you wrote : "If the expected numbers are wildly
        different from the observed, then this would throw
        doubt on the LTH", we have to decide how significant
        should be that difference.

        But in fact, given the low number of story duality,
        I think it will be hard to compute the significance
        of the results, and I will retract my assertion on
        composite story lack in triple tradition

        More precision later.

        a+
        manu

        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.