RE: Mark Matson RE: [Synoptic-L] Mt vs. Lk - Genealogy
Thanks for this. I wonder, though, if there isn't a difference between textual modifications or insertions (which, granted, some can be somewhat long ... e.g., pericopae adulterae in John) and a more significant editing or re-editing.
While with oral tradition one can easily imagine such variations taking place on a regular basis, it is not as easy to see it with written texts. Perhaps I have been too influenced by Werner Kelber's "Oral and Written Gospel" which saw the act of writing a text as "fixing" it on a more solid basis.
More importantly, can we point to ancient examples of such "re-editing" of substantial elements in other texts? or in biblical texts?
On a side note, this basic scenario is one of the big problems I have had with Ray Brown's (and J. Louis Martyn) approach to John, in which the core story is expanded and adjusted at various points.
Mark A. Matson
Bob Schacht wrote:
>What do you mean that "Matthew evolved over severalyes
>generations"? Do you mean it was edited and re-edited a number of times?
>Or are you simply addressing textual issues?I am thinking here as a flollklorist. (see Crossan's summary in BOC).
>If the former, is there any evidence of various stages of composition?
In general, the longer the period of time a text has been
transmitted, the more likely that one or more of those transmitters
has modified the text . Of course, at some point the text becomes
standardized, and is considered sacrosanct. Look, for example, at the
text of Shakespeare's plays in the early years.