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

[Synoptic-L] Re: [Excavating-Q] Ken Olson on the order of Q

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/2/2000 7:41:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, kloppen@chass.utoronto.ca writes:
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 11/2/2000 7:41:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      kloppen@... writes:

      << Micro-conflation--where the author must be assumed to have visual contact
      with two sources and where the sources are interleafed, whic is what the 2GH
      must posit on the part of Mark--is in fact technically impossible and rarely
      if ever attested in ancient composition,>>

      I wonder if someone could expand on this comment. I find it difficult to
      comprehend. And even if it were correct (of which I am by no means persuaded)
      it is certainly not necessary to do the technically impossible to
      successfully conflate two texts. At least one of them could be well known (by
      memory, e.g.), and the other standing before one for immediate reference, etc.

      << and Derrenbacker argues that even
      Matthew is not really a good example of micro-conflation. Luke is even less
      suspect of micro-conflation, >>

      Doesn't Luke very frequently micro-conflate in his use of OT texts, such as
      in 1:25 where the vocabulary from no fewer than three thematically related
      LXX texts seem to be employed, as Goulder has noted?

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.