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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Beelzebul controversy

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.