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

7476Re: [Synoptic-L] a new approach to the correlations

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Jan 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Wilson wrote:


      > David Inglis wrote --
      > >
      > >If 200 and 202 are alike because both have been redacted by Matthew,
      > >then according to your approach 201 and 202 are alike for exactly the
      > >same reason.
      > >
      > Dave,
      >
      > 201 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Mt having
      > redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
      > omitted by Luke (so producing 201 words) or included by Luke (so
      > producing 202 words).
      > >
      > >How then do you account for 102 and 202 being alike, when according to
      > >your approach 202 must have been redacted by Luke!
      > >
      > By exactly the same line of reasoning. "102" is simply "201" in reverse,
      > that is with Mt and Lk interchanged. Just interchange Mt and Lk
      > throughout my previous sentence above. The result is --
      >
      > 102 and 202 being a significant correlation is consistent with Lk having
      > redacted the wording of material found in the double tradition, whether
      > omitted by Matthew (so producing 102 words) or included by Matthew (so
      > producing 202 words).
      >
      > The two statements are symmetrical in Mt and Lk. Where is the problem in
      > either of them? I really do not see any difficulty.
      >
      Yes, the two statements are symmetrical, but they are mutually inconsistent.
      You have "or included by Luke (so producing 202 words)" and "or included by
      Matthew (so producing 202 words)". This is impossible! Luke and Matthew
      cannot together have created 202, and I have no clue as to why you think
      that they can. Either 202 came from a different source (e.g. the LT), in
      which case neither Luke nor Matthew redacted it, or it one created/redacted
      it and the other copied that wording. Perhaps Dave Gentile or someone else
      can point out a flaw in my reasoning, because I can't.

      Dave Inglis
      david@...
      3538 O'Connor Drive
      Lafayette, CA, USA





      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic