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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.