[Synoptic-L] Re: [Excavating-Q] Ken Olson on the order of Q
- In a message dated 11/2/2000 7:41:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<< 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?
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...