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