RE: Mark Matson RE: [Synoptic-L] Text transmission
- And I would argue that John's gospel (if that is the sole example of such modification) does not really have signs of re-editing. The basic gospel shows itself, I think, to be narratively very coherent, with perhaps ch. 21 being a later expansion. The more expansive ideas of John's re-editing are, I think, imagined. But then that is probably a discussion for a different list than one devoted to synoptic gospels.
Mark A. Matson
From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Schacht [r_schacht@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: Mark Matson RE: [Synoptic-L] Text transmission
At 08:37 PM 6/26/2012, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:
>Bob:I think you just answered your own question. :-)
>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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links