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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Analysis of A-O results

Expand Messages
  • David Gentile
    Hello, Dave, Yes, your thinking on this is very much parallel to mine. The diagram I uploaded is a very good picture of this, and the clustering summarizes it
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
      Hello, Dave,

      Yes, your thinking on this is very much parallel to mine. The diagram I
      uploaded is a very good picture of this, and the clustering summarizes it
      well.

      I have just two notes on the interpretations.

      212 - We probably can't do much with this one at all. We really can't check
      marco-categories, like we can in some cases. There is no way to try to see
      what effect is causing what we see. Add the small amount of text here, and
      questions about how HBB categorized things here, and I'm not sure we can say
      very much at all about this one.

      122 - This is also consistent with a common early source for Mark/Luke. By
      suggesting that 211-221 reflects some late use of Matthew by Mark, then 122
      becomes a clear look at original Mark , or proto-Mark.


      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois
      M.S. Physics
      Ph.D. Management Science candidate


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David Inglis
      Ken Olson wrote: What I question here is the assumption that Matthew s editing of Mark ought to correlate with Matthew s own composition if both are the
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
        Ken Olson wrote:

        What I question here is the assumption that Matthew's editing of Mark
        ought to correlate with Matthew's own composition if both are the
        products of Matthew's distinctive style. To a great extent, Matthew's
        style governs both, but I don't think the alterations Matthew makes to
        Mark are a representative sample of Matthew's own writing (which, I
        think, the method implies). They tell us what Matthew thinks Mark did
        badly, but not what Mark did well. The criticism I'm making here is
        similar to that which composition and literary critics made of the
        earlier redaction criticism. What Matthew preserves from Mark is as,
        or very nearly as, significant for him as what he alters.

        ********

        Ken, this is a perfectly valid point, and thank you for pointing it out. As you say, Matthew's changes to someone else's text don't have to look like Matthew's own text, and therefore (20X) could be Mt, rather than another source such as P-Mt or Q. However, I would point out that (X12) = (002), i.e. Luke's own text does look like Luke's version of passages found in Mark. This is not proof, of course, does does help my argument.

        Happy New Year to all,

        Dave Inglis
        david@...
        3538 O'Connor Drive
        Lafayette, CA, USA
        (still in England)


        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.