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

6311Re: [Synoptic-L] Gerasene Demoniac

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    Jun 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      To Brian :

      # >And how do they explain that Matthew preferred to keep the non
      # >capernaum-like verses of the story?
      # >
      # This is observably untrue. Matthew kept some of the Capernaum-like
      # verses --
      # [...]
      # It is not true, therefore, that Matthew preferred to keep the non-
      # Capernaum Demoniac verses from the Gerasene Demoniac story in Mark.

      OK, you are right. He chooses to keep with a special
      care only the cry of the demoniac. This is the central
      verses of the passage. But globally, (if 2DH is true)
      then Matthew prefered to keep the non capernaum-like
      verses of the story. Why ?

      Thank you for your demonstration on vocabulary of v.7.
      But why the Lukan words ("Most high" in the v.7) we find
      in Mark has disappeared in the Matthean version ?

      # >How do they explain that Matthew changed absolutely all
      # >Lukan-like wording he found in Mark ?
      # >
      # It is totally impossible to observe that Matthew changed anything
      # whatsoever in Mark. We cannot observe redaction in any synoptic gospel.

      I just apply the 2DH, which according you offer a "convincing"
      explanation for Gerasene Demoniac process : You said that it
      is possible to build a valid theory positing that Matthew work
      from the text of Mark.

      I said that this theory is not valid, since if it is true,
      then Matthew has changed all the lukan vocabulary he found in
      Mark. And how to explain why he would have done so ?

      # So
      # there is no need to explain the hypothetical redaction you describe. We
      # should not expect Davies and Allison to explain what cannot be observed.

      If 2DH is true, i.e. if Matthew writes his gospel from Mark, then
      It can be observed that Matthew has kept preferentially the part
      of Mark story with the lukan vocabulary. But he canceled lukan
      vocabulary. Why ?

      I claimed that your count of hapaxes were not relevant, since you
      do not take into account "ONOMA MOI - ONOMA SOI". Why in your count
      do you not find this as markan hapax ?


      PS : I wish to all christian a happy feast of holy spirit

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic