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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Beelzebul controversy

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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@...
    • 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 2 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.