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

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

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    ... No, my question was probably not clear. According you, story dualities are due to an early redactor that re-used stories, merging them with others. Why did
    Message 1 of 33 , Oct 15, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Another mail, with some new questions to Brian :

      > >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?

      No, my question was probably not clear. According you, story dualities
      are due to an early redactor that re-used stories, merging them with
      others. Why did he not operate such an harmonisation on the genealogy ?

      I agree that your vision of Matthew, Mark and Luke independently
      editing the greek notes is logic (when admiting that heavy deleting
      edition was possible, many objections remaining possible at this step)

      But the main great trouble in your theory relies in the original
      documents : your Greek Notes, and the aramaic logia, look as some
      monstruous features, a kind of objects that nobody has ever seen.

      Thus it is my main question : do we have an example of such
      incoherent and fuzzy set of notes in antiquity ? For instance :
      if we have no document with such two contradicting genealogies
      for a single guy, do we have just evidence about their existence ?


      > >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.

      You alledged the testimony of Papias. Explain how it fits better
      your theory than any other theories, particularly when considering
      the trouble of the double genealogy. If you do not, then your
      invocation to Papias is useless, and could be criticized as
      deceptive.


      > >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.

      * There is a problem of logic with the previous paragraph : even if
      the theory of Boismard is "way beyond being checked against the data"
      (and in fact I think it is not) and even if "step by step redaction
      process" would be a Boismardian exclusive line (obviously it is not)
      your defense looks weak : you may not alledge the impossibility to
      check Boismardian theory in details as an argument against global
      ideas that inconsistencies have been accumulated little by little
      in gospel material, and that they are due to harmonisation trends
      between different contradicting traditions.

      * "step by step redaction process" is definitly not a Boismardian
      invention : lost of synoptic theorists try to define a sequence of
      redaction, using concept as harmonisation, progress, marginal
      interpolation, enhancement of a basic story, and so on. It may
      be wrong, but for my humble eyes, it looks as the most
      well-established basis in scholarship.

      * I do not want to come back on the validity of Boismard. I just
      observe that whatever you claim, we observe at least a lack of
      confirming data for your theory. Where are the data that allow to
      imagine seriously a double genealogy in a single document (this
      thread) ? Where did you face the compatibility of your greek note
      hypothesis with the distribution, in triple tradition, of your own
      story dualities (the story duality thread) ?


      > >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.

      For each strange characteristic you posit to your greek notes,
      it would be great if we had an example of attested old document,
      either christian, jewish or pagan, presenting that characteristic.
      Or let us think your greek notes are kinds of triceratops eggs
      landing on first century Roman Empire.

      a+
      manu

      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
      • 0 Attachment
        > 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.