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

Re: [Synoptic-L] A new problem with the Farrer Theory?

Expand Messages
  • ekyucel
    Dear Ron, For what it s worth, I find Couchoud s reconstruction (L evangile de Marc a ete ecrit en Latin) based on surviving Latin and Greek manuscripts (for
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 8, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Ron,

      For what it's worth, I find Couchoud's reconstruction (L'evangile de Marc a ete ecrit en Latin) based on surviving Latin and Greek manuscripts (for this purpose one does not need to be convinced by his argument that the original text was in Latin) that there was no mention of salt in verse 50 in the original text.

      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
      >
      > I had written:
      >
      > >> Examples of Matthew's greater originality are
      > >> the following:
      > >> Mk 9:50 // Mt 5:13 : In Matthew the salt "is thrown out".
      >
      > Steve Runge replied,
      >
      > > I have been looking at such changes in the double and triple tradition for
      > > some time, and truthfully would have argued the opposite in this case.
      > > .....
      > > What I find more striking is that Mark leaves the reading without an answer to
      > > the rhetorical question, to puzzle it out on their own. I cannot imagine him
      > > removing the answer found in Mt and Lk; thus I would (subjectively, yes I
      > > grant you) construe Mk's version as the more primitive.
      >
      > Steve,
      >
      > I think that in part of the text Mark was more original here, and in part
      > Matthew/Luke were more original. Both Mark and Matt/Luke follow up from the
      > rhetorical question, but Mark's follow-up is much more positive (9:50c). I
      > find it easy to see Mark as replacing the rejection sentence, because he
      > elsewhere tends to take a more positive line, e.g. in claiming "many" will
      > be saved (10:45) in contrast to the "few" of the 'two gates' saying, and in
      > altering the default in Mk 9:40. Admittedly these assertions ought perhaps
      > to be backed up by yet more reasoning, and this would probably become too
      > complicated for a short email ...
      >
      > > Taking a step back and reanalyzing discrepancies from scratch in the
      > > traditions could prove to be a useful way forward. I think determining
      > > primitivity is a lot more complicated than it sounds.
      >
      > ... which is another way of saying that I agree with your assessment here!
      >
      > Ron Price
      >
      > Derbyshire, UK
      >
      > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.