Re: [Synoptic-L] More on Matt 19:16ff [was: Did Mark reject...]
- At 10:38 AM 6/17/02 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
>In a message dated 6/17/2002 5:43:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,I think it is obscure because it is difficult for me to understand.
>I think this really makes good sense now, and I even wonder why Stephen
>Carlson thinks the text is obscure (other than by complications resulting
>precisely from comparing the text with Mark's and Luke's version). Perhaps
>he will elaborate his reasons.
How does one explain such a brute fact? ;-)
More seriously, the plausible Cope interpretation of good=Torah
requires the acceptance of a certain amount of background knowledge
that is not apparent from the text, though consistent with it.
On the Griesbach hypothesis, looking at Luke and Mark's assumed
use of the Matthean version show that the Torah background/
understanding was lost on these first century interpreters and
they struggled to render the pericope more comprehensible. In
the transmission of the text, the Byzantine scribes also struggled
with the passage and substituted Luke and Mark's clearer version.
The lack of clarity is apparent even in modern translations,
who feel compelled to visit the Lukan and Markan parallels for
I think there's plenty of evidence supporting the obvious fact
that the text is difficult to understand. As a supporter of
Matthean priority, Leonard, you should relish the obscurity of
the Matthean version, because it should be considered a classic
instance of a lectio difficilior: it is a text that is prima
facie difficult to understand and would invite clarification,
but on deeper reflection is fundamentally coherent after all.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...