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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Beelzebul controversy

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.