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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Beelzebul controversy

Expand Messages
  • Eric Eve
    ... a ... a ... Jeffery Hodges has already offered a partial answer to this in a separate post. Perhaps I may expand on Jeffery s answer a little. At Matt
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Leonard Maluf wrote:

      > In the present post, I would simply like to note the difficulty for Markan
      > priority here in the fact of the presence of the word EXEI, which appears
      > four times in Mark's text, with no parallel in Matt or Luke (Mk 3:22b, 26,
      > 29, 30). I would argue that this phenomenon is more easily interpreted as
      a
      > sign of late Markan redaction which can be verified elsewhere in Gospel
      > parallels as well (see e.g. Mk 8:14-18, where, in the span of five verses,
      a
      > late Mark adds the verb EXEIN, in one form or another, no fewer than five
      > times to the parallel text of Matthew).

      Jeffery Hodges has already offered a partial answer to this in a separate
      post. Perhaps I may expand on Jeffery's answer a little.

      At Matt 12.24b (// Mk 3.22b) Matthew (on the basis of Markan priority) has
      pruned Mark's BEELZEBOUL EXEI KAI hOTI EN TWi ARXONTI TWN DAIMONIWN EKBALLEI
      TA DAIMONIA by removing EXEI KAI hOTI (and relocating EKBALLEI TA DAIMONIA,
      and otherwise changing the structure of the sentence). In other words, if
      Matthew is following Mark, then he has not simply dropped EXEI, he has
      rephrased the Markan original in a way that no longer required EXEI; indeed,
      if a posterior Matthew began his rewritten version with hOUTOS OUK EKBALLEI
      TA DAIMONIA EI MH (this fellow does not expel demons except...) he would be
      almost forced to drop the EXEI since it would not fit the new sentence
      structure. This could be seen as Matthew wishing to achieve a different
      rhetorical effect; the dropping of EXEI is then a by-product, not due to any
      aversion to EXEI. To have retained the EXEI would have resulted in something
      like "This fellow does not expel demons except by the ruler of demons,
      Beelzebul, whom he has" which would surely be very clumsy.

      At Mt 12.26 (// Mk 2.26) Matthew has changed Mark's statement (he cannot
      stand, but has an end) into a question (how then will his kingdom stand? PWS
      OUN STAQENHSETAI hH BASILEIA AUTOU;). Again, this may be for Matthew's idea
      of rhetorical effect - but in that case Matthew no longer requires the sense
      expressed by Mark's TELOS EXEI so he no longer requires the EXEI; again, (on
      the assumption of Markan priority) there is no need to assume Matthean
      aversion to EXEIN, but simply the consquence of Matthean recasting of what
      Mark wrote (in particular, changing a statement into a question).

      At Mt 12.32 (// Mk 2.29) Matthew has written OUK AFHQESETAI AUTWi where Mark
      has written OUK EXEI AFESIN (and then has OUTE EN TOUTWi TWi AIWNI OUTE EN
      TWi MELLONTI where Mark merely has EIS TON AIWNI). Thus, if Matthew is using
      Mark, he has chosen to rewrite him quite substantially and to use a more
      impressive and solemn sounding phrase to express the same meaning. I don't
      think Matthew uses EXEIN AFESIN anywhere, does he based on a quick search in
      Bible Windows)? Besides, Matthew's phraseology does seems more precise than
      Mark's here and seems to me to be a reasonable change for Matthew to have
      made without any aversion to EXEIN in general. To change 'he does not have
      forgiveness' into 'it will not be forgiven him' is not an unreasonable
      change for a redactor to make.

      Matthew has no parallel to Mk 3.30 so the absence from Matthew of EXEI is
      irrelevant - if he had no use for the thought expressed in Mk 3.30 he could
      hardly retain Mark's EXEI!

      So, while I am not offering any of these changes as *proof* of Markan
      priority, they all seem to me to be perfectly explicable on the basis of
      Markan priority whatever Matthew felt about EXEIN in general.


      > On the hypothesis of Markan priority,
      > Matthew and Luke have both removed this word all four times they come
      across
      > it in the text of Mark 3.

      The fact that Matthew *and* Luke have *both* removed this word all four
      times they come across it in the text of Mark on the assumption of Markan
      priority is only a problem from Markan priority if it is assumed that Luke
      and Matthew are independently redacting Mark (without the aid of another
      source). Defenders of the 2SH would argue that, for example, Matt 9.34 //
      Luke 11.15 derives from a Q 11.15 that also lacks EXEI. I would prefer to
      argue that Luke has been influenced by Matthew's rewriting of Luke at this
      point.

      Best wishes,

      Eric





      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Emmanuel Fritsch
      Eric Eve answered to Leonard, giving four good reasons to explain that EXEI has disappeared in the re-writing of Belzeebul pericope. I see two problems in his
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 30, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Eric Eve answered to Leonard, giving four good reasons to explain
        that EXEI has disappeared in the re-writing of Belzeebul pericope.

        I see two problems in his proposition

        * Eric presented as a good argument that, in Mark priority
        hypothesis, "At Mt 12.26 (// Mk 2.26) Matthew has changed Mark's
        statement [...] into a question. But my question would be : Why
        has he done that change ? I do not see any necessity for this
        change, nor for the other that Eric proposed.

        * The second problem with such an explanation is that all these
        reasons are independant. When Leonard proposed a unifying
        explanation (i.e. Mark is later than Matthew, and introduced
        his own feature in this text), Eric prefered four different
        explanations for phenomena that present a common characteristic.
        I prefer the unifying explanation.

        It his not impossible that matthean rewritings may have cleaned
        all the four "EXEI" in Mark's text. But it does not present the
        higher plausibility. (Until a common necessity may be extracted
        from the four cases, or at least from the three first ones).

        a+
        manu

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Eric Eve
        ... To ask for *necessity* here is surely to ask too much. There is surely no change made by any redactor on any source hypothesis that is strictly
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 30, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

          > Eric Eve answered to Leonard, giving four good reasons to explain
          > that EXEI has disappeared in the re-writing of Belzeebul pericope.

          > I see two problems in his proposition

          > * Eric presented as a good argument that, in Mark priority
          > hypothesis, "At Mt 12.26 (// Mk 2.26) Matthew has changed Mark's
          > statement [...] into a question. But my question would be : Why
          > has he done that change ? I do not see any necessity for this
          > change, nor for the other that Eric proposed.

          To ask for *necessity* here is surely to ask too much. There is surely no
          change made by any redactor on any source hypothesis that is strictly
          *necessary*. But Matthew may have preferred changing Markan statements into
          rhetorical questions for rhetorical effects. Note that Mt 12.26, phrased as
          a question, is followed by a further question in Mt 12.27 (which has no
          Markan parallel), "And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your
          sons cast them out?". If Matthew added Mt 12.27 he may have chosen to recast
          Mk 3.26 as a question to give two questions in succession, both starting KAI
          EI and employing EKBALLEIN; no one can ever prove this was a *necessity* but
          it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do for parallelism and
          rhetorical effect.

          > * The second problem with such an explanation is that all these
          > reasons are independant. When Leonard proposed a unifying
          > explanation (i.e. Mark is later than Matthew, and introduced
          > his own feature in this text), Eric prefered four different
          > explanations for phenomena that present a common characteristic.
          > I prefer the unifying explanation.

          I would actually dispute your claim that I introduced *four* different
          explanations since the absence of a Matthean parallel to Mk 3.30 means that
          there is nothing to explain in the putative fourth instance. Of course I
          can't prevent your preferring the 'unitary explanation' for the other three
          instances, but I see no good reason to do so. Besides, such a unitary
          explanation would need to go beyond the observation *that* Mark had three
          times recast Matthew to include the verb EXEIN to explain *why* he should
          have done so *for the same reason* on each occasion, otherwise we're just
          back at three separate reasons for Mark's redaction of Matthew, which is no
          more a unitary explanation than my three separate reasons for Matthew's
          redaction of Mark. The mere observation that Mark uses EXEIN more than
          Matthew in these passages is not in itself an explanation.

          Best wishes,

          Eric
          ----------------------------------
          Eric Eve
          Harris Manchester College, Oxford




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/30/2002 7:51:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I never denied that it is possible to describe, and even somewhat plausibly describe, what
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 30, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 9/30/2002 7:51:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eric.eve@... writes:




            At Matt 12.24b (// Mk 3.22b) Matthew (on the basis of Markan priority) has
            pruned Mark's BEELZEBOUL EXEI KAI hOTI EN TWi ARXONTI TWN DAIMONIWN EKBALLEI TA DAIMONIA by removing EXEI KAI hOTI (and relocating EKBALLEI TA DAIMONIA, and otherwise changing the structure of the sentence). In other words, if Matthew is following Mark, then he has not simply dropped EXEI, he has
            rephrased the Markan original in a way that no longer required EXEI; indeed,
            if a posterior Matthew began his rewritten version with hOUTOS OUK EKBALLEI
            TA DAIMONIA EI MH (this fellow does not expel demons except...) he would be
            almost forced to drop the EXEI since it would not fit the new sentence
            structure. This could be seen as Matthew wishing to achieve a different
            rhetorical effect; the dropping of EXEI is then a by-product, not due to any
            aversion to EXEI. To have retained the EXEI would have resulted in something
            like "This fellow does not expel demons except by the ruler of demons,
            Beelzebul, whom he has" which would surely be very clumsy.

            At Mt 12.26 (// Mk 2.26) Matthew has changed Mark's statement (he cannot
            stand, but has an end) into a question (how then will his kingdom stand? PWS
            OUN STAQENHSETAI hH BASILEIA AUTOU;). Again, this may be for Matthew's idea of rhetorical effect - but in that case Matthew no longer requires the sense
            expressed by Mark's TELOS EXEI so he no longer requires the EXEI; again, (on
            the assumption of Markan priority) there is no need to assume Matthean
            aversion to EXEIN, but simply the consequence of Matthean recasting of what
            Mark wrote (in particular, changing a statement into a question).

            At Mt 12.32 (// Mk 2.29) Matthew has written OUK AFHQESETAI AUTWi where Mark
            has written OUK EXEI AFESIN (and then has OUTE EN TOUTWi TWi AIWNI OUTE EN
            TWi MELLONTI where Mark merely has EIS TON AIWNI). Thus, if Matthew is using
            Mark, he has chosen to rewrite him quite substantially and to use a more
            impressive and solemn sounding phrase to express the same meaning. I don't
            think Matthew uses EXEIN AFESIN anywhere, does he based on a quick search in
            Bible Windows)? Besides, Matthew's phraseology does seems more precise than
            Mark's here and seems to me to be a reasonable change for Matthew to have
            made without any aversion to EXEIN in general. To change 'he does not have
            forgiveness' into 'it will not be forgiven him' is not an unreasonable
            change for a redactor to make.

            Matthew has no parallel to Mk 3.30 so the absence from Matthew of EXEI is
            irrelevant - if he had no use for the thought expressed in Mk 3.30 he could
            hardly retain Mark's EXEI!

            So, while I am not offering any of these changes as *proof* of Markan
            priority, they all seem to me to be perfectly explicable on the basis of
            Markan priority whatever Matthew felt about EXEIN in general.



            I never denied that it is possible to describe, and even somewhat plausibly describe, what Matthew would have done as an editor of an existing Markan text here. I simply said (and nothing you say above disabuses me of this view) that the most likely explanation of the presence of the term EXEI four times in this text of Mark, with not a single parallel in either Matthew or Luke, remains the Two Gospel Hypothesis model in which the word would reflect the redactional overlay of a late Mark.

            There are more arguments, as I said before, and even more kinds of arguments that could be given in favor of the Two Gospel Hypothesis model in this set of Synoptic parallels. Let me expand on this here, in connection with the phrases in Mark that happen to contain the word EXEI. You claim that in many of these cases the Synoptic phenomena of the presence or absence of this term are not significant because the entire phrases in which the word appears are usually not reproduced by Matthew and Luke. I admit that there is some validity in this argument, taken in itself. But one should really go a step further and inquire whether these very Markan phrases have the nature of clarifying expansions which would be typical of a later author. The fact is that they have exactly that character, and this considerably strengthens the argument based on the word EXEI.

            An additional argument is that in Mk 3:24-26 one finds at least three modal propositions (remember, in Minor Logic, the difference between, say, the statement "Satan's kingdom will not stand" and "Satan's kingdom CANNOT stand": the "mode" of impossibility?), signified by the use of the verb DUNASQAI (actually four times in these Markan verses!), that are also not found in the parallels to these verses in either Matthew or Luke. Now a modal proposition is an intensification (Mark is upping the ante here), which would fit well with a later dramatic redaction of earlier material. The reverse process, and especially the reverse process repeated by two later authors in three or four places within three verses, is difficult in the extreme to fathom. This is one other example, and there are probably more, that point to a late redaction of this material by Mark.

            There may be arguments of a similar kind, or of other kinds, that could be given in favor of the Markan priority hypothesis here. But I haven't seen any good ones yet.

            Leonard Maluf
          • Emmanuel Fritsch
            ... What I called necessity was exactly what you answered here after (i.e. a kind of determinism in Matthew s behaviors, that make the change you assume
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Eric Eve a écrit :
              >
              > Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
              >
              > > Eric Eve answered to Leonard, giving four good reasons to explain
              > > that EXEI has disappeared in the re-writing of Belzeebul pericope.
              >
              > > I see two problems in his proposition
              >
              > > * Eric presented as a good argument that, in Mark priority
              > > hypothesis, "At Mt 12.26 (// Mk 2.26) Matthew has changed Mark's
              > > statement [...] into a question. But my question would be : Why
              > > has he done that change ? I do not see any necessity for this
              > > change, nor for the other that Eric proposed.
              >
              > To ask for *necessity* here is surely to ask too much. There is surely no
              > change made by any redactor on any source hypothesis that is strictly
              > *necessary*.

              What I called "necessity" was exactly what you answered here after (i.e.
              a kind of determinism in Matthew's behaviors, that make the change you
              assume better than a ad hoc construction)


              > But Matthew may have preferred changing Markan statements into
              > rhetorical questions for rhetorical effects. Note that Mt 12.26, phrased as
              > a question, is followed by a further question in Mt 12.27 (which has no
              > Markan parallel), "And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your
              > sons cast them out?". If Matthew added Mt 12.27 he may have chosen to recast
              > Mk 3.26 as a question to give two questions in succession, both starting KAI
              > EI and employing EKBALLEIN; no one can ever prove this was a *necessity* but
              > it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do for parallelism and
              > rhetorical effect.

              Granted.

              > > * The second problem with such an explanation is that all these
              > > reasons are independant. When Leonard proposed a unifying
              > > explanation (i.e. Mark is later than Matthew, and introduced
              > > his own feature in this text), Eric prefered four different
              > > explanations for phenomena that present a common characteristic.
              > > I prefer the unifying explanation.
              >
              > I would actually dispute your claim that I introduced *four* different
              > explanations since the absence of a Matthean parallel to Mk 3.30 means that
              > there is nothing to explain in the putative fourth instance.

              In the four instance, EXEIN disapeared because Matthew did the
              editorial choice to cancel the whole phrase. This is your explanation,
              of the phenomenon, and I persist to say that it is different from
              the three other.

              You claim for four independant behavior of Matthew producing
              coincidently this strange pattern (the vanishing of "EXEIN").

              As I said : the coincidence is possible. It is not the most plausible.
              With other word : if 2DH is proved, and you want to illustrate it all
              along the gospels, your proposition is valid;
              but if no synoptic theory can emerge firmly, and if you are starting the
              fine work Leonard was asking for (i.e. to evaluate redaction hypotheses
              pericope after pericope without any a priori about them) then you should
              conclude that your reconstruction is possible, but Markan posteriority
              looks more probable.


              > Of course I
              > can't prevent your preferring the 'unitary explanation' for the other three
              > instances, but I see no good reason to do so. Besides, such a unitary
              > explanation would need to go beyond the observation *that* Mark had three
              > times recast Matthew to include the verb EXEIN to explain *why* he should
              > have done so *for the same reason* on each occasion, otherwise we're just
              > back at three separate reasons for Mark's redaction of Matthew, which is no
              > more a unitary explanation than my three separate reasons for Matthew's
              > redaction of Mark. The mere observation that Mark uses EXEIN more than
              > Matthew in these passages is not in itself an explanation.

              The repetition of a same word is common when writing. The best
              proof is that you did not claim Leonard on that point. In fact,
              the repetition may come from a wanted pattern, or from the style
              of the author. On the other hand, the deletion of the same word
              when rewriting a text is not common, and the best proof is that
              you did not claim Matthew may have wanted to delete "EIXEN".

              a+
              manu


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Eric Eve
              Leonard Maluf wrote:
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Leonard Maluf wrote:

                <-----------------------------------------------------
                I never denied that it is possible to describe, and even somewhat plausibly
                describe, what Matthew would have done as an editor of an existing Markan
                text here. I simply said (and nothing you say above disabuses me of this
                view) that the most likely explanation of the presence of the term EXEI four
                times in this text of Mark, with not a single parallel in either Matthew or
                Luke, remains the Two Gospel Hypothesis model in which the word would
                reflect the redactional overlay of a late Mark.
                --------------------------------------------------------------->

                Fair enough, but so far as I can see you have provided no explanation why a
                late Mark should add EXEI four times to the Matthean/Lukan text, and I fail
                to see why the mere presence of this word indicates the direction of
                redaction without further ado. If the point is that EXEIN is more
                characteristic of Markan than of Matthean style, then one would surely
                expect to find it used more often in Mark than in Matthew whatever the
                direction of redaction (this is surely a mere tautology). Even if Matthew
                (or Luke) had no aversion to EXEIN per se, he (or they) might prefer to
                avoid its over use, and in any case I believe I have shown that none of the
                changes a later Matthew would have made to an earlier Mark need an aversion
                to EXEIN to explain them. Why should a later Mark go to the trouble to add a
                relatively colourless word like EXEI to an earlier text?

                Well, to attempt to answer my own question, and to complete the exercise on
                an equal basis, I suppose we should examine what a later Mark would have
                done to an earlier Matthew (and/or Luke) in each of these cases.

                At Mk 3.20 Mark would have re-written Luke (probably, rather than the
                slightly less similar wording in Matthew) to add EXEI KAI hOTI EN,
                introducing the idea that Jesus 'has' Beelzebul as well as casting out
                demons by his power; presumably this would be to introduce the explicit idea
                that Jesus is spirit-possessed as a well as a spirit-controller. I grant
                that Mark could have done this in order to set up a parallel/contrast with
                the Holy Spirit that entered Jesus at his baptism (Mk 1.10 - although the
                Spirit possession Christology this implies might be curious for a late
                Mark).

                At Mk 3.26 Mark would have introduced EXEI through the expression ALLA TELOS
                EXEI not found in his sources, in the process changing the question posed in
                Matthew and Luke to a statement. As I pointed out in a reply to Emmanuel
                Fritsch the question in Mt 12.26 forms a parallel with that in Mt 12.27. A
                late Mark would have destroyed the parallel by changing Mt 12.26 into a
                statement and removing Mt 12.27 (and 12.28). Of course this is possible, but
                I find it hard to imagine why Mark should have done this, since Mt 12.27 is
                an effective rejoinder to Jesus' opponents and Mt 12.28 surely expresses a
                view that Mark would have strongly agreed with (this, you may recall, was
                part of my original argument for Markan priority here). On the other hand,
                the additions made by a later Matthew at this point would strengthen Jesus'
                rejoinder and plug a gap left by Mark (without Mt 12.27 Jesus' accusers
                could be defended on the grounds that they regarded all exorcisms as
                demonically empowered since they did not share Jesus' presupposition of the
                unity of evil forces). Thus, while of course either direction of redaction
                is *possible*, I have to say that here a later Matthew looks far more
                *probable* than a later Mark.

                At 3.29 a late Mark would have to have altered Matthew's OUK AFEQHSETAI
                AUTWi to OUK EXEI EFHSIN, although Mk 3.28 surely shows that Mark has no
                aversion to AFEQHETAI, and the change from Matthew's appropriate future to
                Mark's odd present tense, and from the clearly expressed AFEQHETAI to the
                more clumsily expressed EXEI EFHSIN would be rather perverse. Of course it
                is not possible that Mark made such changes (on any hypothesis he must have
                been content to write this way) but, to me, at this point it seems more
                plausible to suppose that Matthew was tidying up Mark than to suppose that
                Mark was untidying Matthew for no good reason.

                As I have repeatedly point out, there is no Matthean or Lukan parallel to
                Mark 3.20; the addition of this explanatory clause is fairly characteristic
                of Markan style and could this equally well be the product of a later Markan
                redactor or an earlier Markan author, but the presence of EXEI in a verse in
                which there is no Matthean or Lukan parallel is neither here nor there. The
                fact that Mark has the word and the other two don't stands in no need of
                explanation, since neither Matthew or Luke have occasion to use the word at
                his point, any more than one has to explain why they would have chosen to
                omit hOTI, ELEGEON, PNEUMA or AKARQATON.

                In summary, only three out of the four cases are relevant (since there is no
                Matthean or Lukan parallel to the fourth). In one of those three cases
                either direction of redaction seems equally likely, but in the other two a
                later Matthew seems more plausible than a later Mark. Again, just to
                reiterate a point I made to Emmanuel, the mere presence of three (or even
                four) occurrences of EXEI in Mark that are not found in Matthew or Luke
                hardly constitutes evidence of a Markan redactional overlay unless one can
                also show why Mark would have made these changes, and why the presence of
                EXEI is evidence of Markan redaction rather than Markan composition. I
                accept that you attempted the second half of this question by pointing to
                the absence of EXEI in the parallels in Matthew/Luke, but I believe I have
                countered that argument by showing how this could have come about on the
                basis of Markan priority.

                Leonard:
                <---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                --
                There are more arguments, as I said before, and even more kinds of arguments
                that could be given in favor of the Two Gospel Hypothesis model in this set
                of Synoptic parallels. Let me expand on this here, in connection with the
                phrases in Mark that happen to contain the word EXEI. You claim that in many
                of these cases the Synoptic phenomena of the presence or absence of this
                term are not significant because the entire phrases in which the word
                appears are usually not reproduced by Matthew and Luke. I admit that there
                is some validity in this argument, taken in itself. But one should really go
                a step further and inquire whether these very Markan phrases have the nature
                of clarifying expansions which would be typical of a later author. The fact
                is that they have exactly that character, and this considerably strengthens
                the argument based on the word EXEI.
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                -->

                Eric:

                By 'very Markan' do you mean 'these very phrases found in Mark'? or 'these
                phrases, which are very Markan'? I suspect you mean the former but what your
                argument goes on to show is perhaps the latter, in that "phrases [that] have
                the nature of clarifying expansions" are typical of Mark's style as a whole;
                I'm not convinced that this particular Markan characterstic 'would be
                typical of a later author', or why it should be. If you have amassed
                evidence (or have access to evidence amassed by someone else) that redactors
                of earlier texts typically add clarifying expansions in the way Mark does,
                then you may have an important argument here; otherwise isn't it simply
                typical of Mark, whenever he wrote?

                Leonard:
                <----------------------------------------------------------------------
                An additional argument is that in Mk 3:24-26 one finds at least three modal
                propositions (remember, in Minor Logic, the difference between, say, the
                statement "Satan's kingdom will not stand" and "Satan's kingdom CANNOT
                stand": the "mode" of impossibility?), signified by the use of the verb
                DUNASQAI (actually four times in these Markan verses!), that are also not
                found in the parallels to these verses in either Matthew or Luke. Now a
                modal proposition is an intensification (Mark is upping the ante here),
                which would fit well with a later dramatic redaction of earlier material.
                The reverse process, and especially the reverse process repeated by two
                later authors in three or four places within three verses, is difficult in
                the extreme to fathom. This is one other example, and there are probably
                more, that point to a late redaction of this material by Mark.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------->

                Eric:
                Firstly, any process by two later authors (Matthew and Luke) is not so hard
                to explain if one (Luke) is following the other (Matthew) (or indeed, if
                both are following a second source, Q, at this point, but since neither of
                us support that view, I shan't press it).
                Secondly, I have already given some thoughts on Mt 12.25-28 // Mk 2.24-26
                above, which I shan't repeat here.
                Thirdly, to get to your substantive point, I wonder if the modal 'cannot' is
                so obviously an intensification on the simple 'will not'. Granted, insisting
                on impossibility is strong, but so is the confident prediction expressed by
                'will not' (Mt 12.25), and a later Matthew may had considered himself to be
                creating dramatic intensification by having Jesus fling rhetorical questions
                at his accusers in Mt 12.26-27 (in which case one might argue that the
                reverse process by Mark - removing the questions - is hard to fathom).
                I grant you that a later Mark *could* have regarded the modal 'cannot' as an
                intensification of a mere 'will not', but a later Matthew equally *could*
                have regarded the future certainty of a 'will not' as an intensifiction of
                the present/future impossibility of a 'cannot'. Would that not simply be
                down to each author's rhetorical taste and judgement?

                Best wishes,

                Eric





                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Eric Eve
                ... I wasn t in fact arguing for the 2DH (since I m fairly sceptical of Q), but if I were the disappearance of EXEIN would be very easy to explain by a unitary
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                  > You claim for four independant behavior of Matthew producing
                  > coincidently this strange pattern (the vanishing of "EXEIN").

                  > As I said : the coincidence is possible. It is not the most plausible.
                  > With other word : if 2DH is proved, and you want to illustrate it all
                  > along the gospels, your proposition is valid;
                  > but if no synoptic theory can emerge firmly, and if you are starting the
                  > fine work Leonard was asking for (i.e. to evaluate redaction hypotheses
                  > pericope after pericope without any a priori about them) then you should
                  > conclude that your reconstruction is possible, but Markan posteriority
                  > looks more probable.

                  I wasn't in fact arguing for the 2DH (since I'm fairly sceptical of Q), but
                  if I were the disappearance of EXEIN would be very easy to explain by a
                  unitary hypothesis here: namely that Matthew and Luke were both following Q
                  rather than Mark here and that Q lacked the occurrences of EXEIN in
                  question. Of course what I am attempting is the perhaps harder task of
                  arguing for Markan priority without Q here, so that Matthew's changes to
                  Mark have to be explained as Matthean redaction, but this does prompt
                  another reflection: even if one does not wish to invoke Q, the reasons that
                  have led scholars who support Q to see a Mark-Q overlap here may suggest
                  that Matthew was using another source alongside Mark (e.g. a source that
                  contained Mt 12.27-28) and it may be that this source - oral or written - is
                  also responsible for some of the changes Matthew made. I don't want to lean
                  too hard on this hypothesis, but it is at least worth bearing mind that
                  there may be other sources involved than the canonical gospels in whatever
                  redactional procedure we are trying to reconstruct.

                  > The repetition of a same word is common when writing. The best
                  > proof is that you did not claim Leonard on that point. In fact,
                  > the repetition may come from a wanted pattern, or from the style
                  > of the author. On the other hand, the deletion of the same word
                  > when rewriting a text is not common, and the best proof is that
                  > you did not claim Matthew may have wanted to delete "EIXEN".

                  Thank you for clarifying the nature of the argument here. On the thesis of
                  Markan priority, Mt 12.22-30 is a fairly free rewriting of Mk 3.22-27 (and
                  vice versa on the theory of Markan posteriority). For example, each
                  evangelist has a different context for the pericope and so each provides it
                  with a very different introduction and the Matthean version included
                  material not found in Mark (e.g. Mt 12.17-28). One wonders whether a
                  relatively colourless word like EIXEN should really be expected necessarily
                  to survive such a substantial process of rewriting - I suppose that partly
                  depends on how one envisages a late Matthew as working at this point (e.g.
                  with Mark open in front of him, making conscious changes, or composing his
                  own version on the basis of his memory of Mark?). But of course the argument
                  needs to be taken in conjunction with my discussion of what a late Mark
                  would have had to have done to introduce each EIXEN, which you'll find in my
                  latest reply to Leonard.
                  One more point - you say that "The repetition of a same word is common when
                  writing... In fact, the repetition may come from a wanted pattern, or from
                  the style of the author." But isn't this more likely to occur in a writer
                  composing freely than a writer closely redacting a source?

                  Best wishes

                  Eric
                  ----------------------------------
                  Eric Eve
                  Harris Manchester College, Oxford







                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Emmanuel Fritsch
                  ... Right. I apologize. ... The Q theory, on that pericope : - constraints Q to be EXEIN free, without any proof for that. - constraints Matthew and Luke to
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Eric Eve answered :

                    > Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
                    >
                    > > You claim for four independant behavior of Matthew producing
                    > > coincidently this strange pattern (the vanishing of "EXEIN").
                    >
                    > > As I said : the coincidence is possible. It is not the most plausible.
                    > > With other word : if 2DH is proved, and you want to illustrate it all
                    > > along the gospels, your proposition is valid;
                    > > but if no synoptic theory can emerge firmly, and if you are starting the
                    > > fine work Leonard was asking for (i.e. to evaluate redaction hypotheses
                    > > pericope after pericope without any a priori about them) then you should
                    > > conclude that your reconstruction is possible, but Markan posteriority
                    > > looks more probable.
                    >
                    > I wasn't in fact arguing for the 2DH (since I'm fairly sceptical of Q), but

                    Right. I apologize.

                    > if I were the disappearance of EXEIN would be very easy to explain by a
                    > unitary hypothesis here: namely that Matthew and Luke were both following Q
                    > rather than Mark here and that Q lacked the occurrences of EXEIN in
                    > question.

                    The Q theory, on that pericope :
                    - constraints Q to be "EXEIN" free, without any proof for that.
                    - constraints Matthew and Luke to have known Mark's "EXEIN", and have not used
                    them.

                    Whatever the base of comparison, "EXEIN" as a later addition looks more
                    plausible.


                    > Of course what I am attempting is the perhaps harder task of
                    > arguing for Markan priority without Q here,

                    This is just what I wanted to say : Matthew being dependent
                    upon Mark is less plausible than the reverse. It is the "harder
                    task", even if it is not impossible.


                    > [...] but this does prompt
                    > another reflection: even if one does not wish to invoke Q, the reasons that
                    > have led scholars who support Q to see a Mark-Q overlap here may suggest
                    > that Matthew was using another source alongside Mark (e.g. a source that
                    > contained Mt 12.27-28) and it may be that this source - oral or written - is
                    > also responsible for some of the changes Matthew made. I don't want to lean
                    > too hard on this hypothesis, but it is at least worth bearing mind that
                    > there may be other sources involved than the canonical gospels in whatever
                    > redactional procedure we are trying to reconstruct.

                    Hey, for a Q' sceptical, you are quite surprising.

                    This is right that Markan posteriority does not mean Matthean or
                    Lukan priority. As a boismardian, I defend this for a long. But
                    it is not a popular point of view on this list ;-)


                    > > The repetition of a same word is common when writing. The best
                    > > proof is that you did not claim Leonard on that point. In fact,
                    > > the repetition may come from a wanted pattern, or from the style
                    > > of the author. On the other hand, the deletion of the same word
                    > > when rewriting a text is not common, and the best proof is that
                    > > you did not claim Matthew may have wanted to delete "EIXEN".
                    >
                    > Thank you for clarifying the nature of the argument here. On the thesis of
                    > Markan priority, Mt 12.22-30 is a fairly free rewriting of Mk 3.22-27 (and
                    > vice versa on the theory of Markan posteriority). For example, each
                    > evangelist has a different context for the pericope and so each provides it
                    > with a very different introduction and the Matthean version included
                    > material not found in Mark (e.g. Mt 12.17-28). One wonders whether a
                    > relatively colourless word like EIXEN should really be expected necessarily
                    > to survive such a substantial process of rewriting

                    A relatively colourless word like EIXEN is not expected necessarily
                    to survive on each of its occurences, but precisely because he is
                    colourless, it looks strange to imagine it has been coincidentaly
                    removed four times, for various and independant reasons.


                    > - I suppose that partly
                    > depends on how one envisages a late Matthew as working at this point (e.g.
                    > with Mark open in front of him, making conscious changes, or composing his
                    > own version on the basis of his memory of Mark?). But of course the argument
                    > needs to be taken in conjunction with my discussion of what a late Mark
                    > would have had to have done to introduce each EIXEN, which you'll find in my
                    > latest reply to Leonard.

                    About your answer to Leonard : I acknowledge my weakness on your
                    argument. You are arguing on the sense of each phrase. You may be
                    wrong or right, I let it to other members of the list. Due to my
                    difficulties to get the exact sense in greek, I prefer considerations
                    about objective patterns : the presence/absence of four "EXEIN" in few
                    verses is such an objective pattern that synoptic theories should be
                    urged to account.


                    > One more point - you say that "The repetition of a same word is common when
                    > writing... In fact, the repetition may come from a wanted pattern, or from
                    > the style of the author." But isn't this more likely to occur in a writer
                    > composing freely than a writer closely redacting a source?

                    Yes. The closer the writer redacts his source, the less likely he
                    will introduce some strange patterns. But here, the redaction (in
                    the hypothesis of Mark following Matthew) is not too close.

                    a+
                    manu

                    PS : I think this is my last answer on this thread - thank you very much
                    for all yours, that were comprehensive with my poor english, intelligent,
                    and productive, at least for my own.


                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 10/1/2002 2:20:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... [H]e (or they) might prefer to avoid its over use . My point here is that both Evangelists,
                    Message 9 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 10/1/2002 2:20:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, eric.eve@... writes:


                      Fair enough, but so far as I can see you have provided no explanation why a
                      late Mark should add EXEI four times to the Matthean/Lukan text, and I fail
                      to see why the mere presence of this word indicates the direction of
                      redaction without further ado. If the point is that EXEIN is more
                      characteristic of Markan than of Matthean style, then one would surely
                      expect to find it used more often in Mark than in Matthew whatever the
                      direction of redaction (this is surely a mere tautology). Even if Matthew
                      (or Luke) had no aversion to EXEIN per se, he (or they) might prefer to
                      avoid its over use, and in any case I believe I have shown that none of the
                      changes a later Matthew would have made to an earlier Mark need an aversion
                      to EXEIN to explain them. Why should a later Mark go to the trouble to add a
                      relatively colourless word like EXEI to an earlier text?



                      "[H]e (or they) might prefer to avoid its over use". My point here is that both Evangelists, on the hypothesis of Markan priority, not only avoid the over use of EXEI but avoid its use entirely when it occurs four times in their source. Not impossible, as you have well shown, but improbable. And Mark does not go to any trouble to add the word EXEI. It simply comes to him instinctively, (after the first time, Mark probably just uses the word three other times because he tends to repeat a word once used) as a byproduct of his late expansions on the text.

                      [....]


                      By 'very Markan' do you mean 'these very phrases found in Mark'? or 'these
                      phrases, which are very Markan'? I suspect you mean the former but what your
                      argument goes on to show is perhaps the latter, in that "phrases [that] have
                      the nature of clarifying expansions" are typical of Mark's style as a whole;
                      I'm not convinced that this particular Markan characteristic 'would be
                      typical of a later author', or why it should be. If you have amassed
                      evidence (or have access to evidence amassed by someone else) that redactors
                      of earlier texts typically add clarifying expansions in the way Mark does,
                      then you may have an important argument here; otherwise isn't it simply
                      typical of Mark, whenever he wrote?


                      Your guess at the beginning of this paragraph was right. I do think the argument based on clarifying expansions is strong, but I have not personally done a lot of foot work in building up the case. There are, of course, two distinct steps to this argument: the first is to show that many Markan phrases in fact have this character, and the second to demonstrate that this feature is typical of a later redactor, and that it would be highly untypical of later writers to remove the resulting clarification altogether. I have previously referred to this as an ontological argument for Markan posteriority: where the Markan material is by its very nature late in character (because more developed, more conceptually mature). But more work needs to be done here.


                      Leonard:
                      <----------------------------------------------------------------------
                      An additional argument is that in Mk 3:24-26 one finds at least three modal
                      propositions (remember, in Minor Logic, the difference between, say, the
                      statement "Satan's kingdom will not stand" and "Satan's kingdom CANNOT
                      stand": the "mode" of impossibility?), signified by the use of the verb
                      DUNASQAI (actually four times in these Markan verses!), that are also not
                      found in the parallels to these verses in either Matthew or Luke. Now a
                      modal proposition is an intensification (Mark is upping the ante here),
                      which would fit well with a later dramatic redaction of earlier material.
                      The reverse process, and especially the reverse process repeated by two
                      later authors in three or four places within three verses, is difficult in
                      the extreme to fathom. This is one other example, and there are probably
                      more, that point to a late redaction of this material by Mark.
                      --------------------------------------------------------------------->

                      Eric:
                      [...]
                      Thirdly, to get to your substantive point, I wonder if the modal 'cannot' is
                      so obviously an intensification on the simple 'will not'.


                      One ought not imagine Tony Blair speaking the Queen's English here. In English the future tense can become emphatic (or "intense") by an emphasis placed on the "helping verb":WILL, as in "Saddam Hussein's aggression WILL not stand". The Greek future does not have this compound feature. Of course Matthew's text already implies that Satan's kingdom cannot stand (if Satan is in fact the principle of Jesus' driving out of Satan). The point is that Mark is bringing the implicit in this text to the explicit level, which is a naturally late mental progression, with difficulty imagined moving in the other direction, especially four times in three verses, and by two distinct authors.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Eric Eve
                      ... used ... Well, I don t want to spend too much time on this, since I m not an advocate for Q, but those who are might point you to the IQP critical edition
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                        > The Q theory, on that pericope :
                        > - constraints Q to be "EXEIN" free, without any proof for that.
                        > - constraints Matthew and Luke to have known Mark's "EXEIN", and have not
                        used
                        > them.

                        > Whatever the base of comparison, "EXEIN" as a later addition looks more
                        > plausible.

                        Well, I don't want to spend too much time on this, since I'm not an advocate
                        for Q, but those who are might point you to the IQP critical edition of Q
                        for an EXEIN-free Q here; and I don't see why the fact that Matthew and Luke
                        both knew Mark's EXEIN but failed to use it is a problem for the theory that
                        Matthew and Luke both chose to follow Q more than Mark (that is, if one were
                        to accept the 2DH as a basis, which neither of us is doing!).


                        >> Of course what I am attempting is the perhaps harder task of
                        >> arguing for Markan priority without Q here,

                        > This is just what I wanted to say : Matthew being dependent
                        > upon Mark is less plausible than the reverse. It is the "harder
                        > task", even if it is not impossible.

                        Here I think you have misunderstood me. By 'harder task' I meant harder than
                        arguing for Markan priority on the 2DH, not harder than arguing for
                        Matthew's dependence on Mark. My point was simply that the 2DH would allow
                        an appeal to an EXEIN-free Q which one can hard;y make if one wishes to
                        dispense with Q!

                        > Hey, for a Q' sceptical, you are quite surprising.

                        > This is right that Markan posteriority does not mean Matthean or
                        > Lukan priority. As a boismardian, I defend this for a long. But
                        > it is not a popular point of view on this list ;-)

                        My Q scepticism derives not from an aversion to other sources as such as to
                        doubts about Luke's independence from Matthew. If Luke know Matthew and
                        derived some of his double tradition material from Matthew, then it makes
                        little sense to reconstruct Q as it is reconstructed, and hence somewhat
                        misleading to use the name 'Q' for any other sources (written or oral) that
                        the Evangelists may also have used.

                        > Yes. The closer the writer redacts his source, the less likely he
                        > will introduce some strange patterns. But here, the redaction (in
                        > the hypothesis of Mark following Matthew) is not too close.

                        Indeed, but that, surely, is reversible; the redaction on the hypothesis of
                        Matthew following Mark is not too close either, which may equally allow
                        Mark's EXEINs to drop out if they don't suit Matthean style (not so much
                        because Matthew makes a conscious decision to excise them, but because in a
                        free re-writing of Mark he has no particular reason to employ them if they
                        are not part of his own style).


                        > PS : I think this is my last answer on this thread - thank you very much
                        > for all yours, that were comprehensive with my poor english, intelligent,
                        > and productive, at least for my own.

                        And thanks, too, for your contributions and clarifications.

                        Best wishes,

                        Eric
                        ----------------------------------
                        Eric Eve
                        Harris Manchester College, Oxford




                        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.