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

[Synoptic-L] Re: No "Transfiguration" in Luke

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    ... Steven, Could this not be seen as 1) Luke just wanting to use a term more easily understood by Gentiles, and 2) Mark using what Peter reported in oral form
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      R. Steven Notley wrote:
      >
      > Your
      response to John Lupia reminded me of something I have wanted to comment
      >
      on.  Recently there has been mention several times on this List to the
      > "transfiguration" in Luke.  I just want to remind folks that
      Luke has no
      > "transfiguration."  The heavily weighted Greek term
      METAMORFOW which appears in
      > Mark and Matthew is missing in Luke. 
      Instead, according to Luke, "the
      > appearance of his countenance was
      changed."  BTW, Luke likewise does not have
      > Mark's inflated
      description (an indication of his secondary editorial hand)
      > that reads
      like a soap commercial, "intensely white, as no fuller on earth
      > could
      bleach them."
      >
      Steven,
       
      Could this not be seen as 1) Luke just wanting to use a term more easily understood by Gentiles, and 2) Mark using what Peter reported in oral form ("as no fuller on earth could bleach them" reads to me like an oral gloss), and Luke simply wanting to remove that gloss? As a result, I do not think that this can be used as an "indication of his [Mark's] secondary editorial hand."
       
      Dave Inglis
      3538 O'Connor Drive
      Lafayette, CA, USA

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.