- ... Right. I apologize. ... The Q theory, on that pericope : - constraints Q to be EXEIN free, without any proof for that. - constraints Matthew and Luke toMessage 1 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002View SourceEric Eve answered :
> Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:Right. I apologize.
> > 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 aThe Q theory, on that pericope :
> 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
- 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
Whatever the base of comparison, "EXEIN" as a later addition looks more
> Of course what I am attempting is the perhaps harder task ofThis is just what I wanted to say : Matthew being dependent
> arguing for Markan priority without Q here,
upon Mark is less plausible than the reverse. It is the "harder
task", even if it is not impossible.
> [...] but this does promptHey, for a Q' sceptical, you are quite surprising.
> 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.
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 bestA relatively colourless word like EIXEN is not expected necessarily
> > 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
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 partlyAbout your answer to Leonard : I acknowledge my weakness on your
> 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.
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 whenYes. The closer the writer redacts his source, the less likely he
> 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?
will introduce some strange patterns. But here, the redaction (in
the hypothesis of Mark following Matthew) is not too close.
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@...
- 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 2 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002View SourceIn 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.
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.
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.
- ... 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 editionMessage 3 of 10 , Oct 1, 2002View SourceEmmanuel Fritsch wrote:
> The Q theory, on that pericope :used
> - constraints Q to be "EXEIN" free, without any proof for that.
> - constraints Matthew and Luke to have known Mark's "EXEIN", and have not
> them.Well, I don't want to spend too much time on this, since I'm not an advocate
> Whatever the base of comparison, "EXEIN" as a later addition looks more
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 ofHere I think you have misunderstood me. By 'harder task' I meant harder than
>> 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.
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.My Q scepticism derives not from an aversion to other sources as such as to
> 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 ;-)
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 heIndeed, but that, surely, is reversible; the redaction on the hypothesis of
> will introduce some strange patterns. But here, the redaction (in
> the hypothesis of Mark following Matthew) is not too close.
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 muchAnd thanks, too, for your contributions and clarifications.
> for all yours, that were comprehensive with my poor english, intelligent,
> and productive, at least for my own.
Harris Manchester College, Oxford
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...