RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Beelzebul controversy
- Emmanuel 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@...