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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Osborne in Rethinking

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 2/5/2003 3:48:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... I owe a serious response to this, Mark, in addition to my lol one from yesterday. Which is by
    Message 1 of 40 , Feb 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 2/5/2003 3:48:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@... writes:


      "It seems more likely that Mark would use Matthew than vice versa,
      for it is difficult to conceive why Mark would make Matthew more
      clumsy"

      Surely the first Mark and the first Matthew should be reversed.



      I owe a serious response to this, Mark, in addition to my lol one from yesterday. Which is by way of empathizing with your apparent annoyance with this kind of carelessness that so often gets through proofreaders to baffle the conscientious reader. I came across what I believe to be another stunning example of this today, which I here post to the list in the outside chance that I am totally out of my mind and am missing something obvious.

      The book I am reading is by Bruce W. Winter, with the title: Philo and Paul among the Sophists (2nd edition, 2002, original 1997). On page 245, under a subtitle: "The sophistic versus the Gnostic thesis", one finds the following paragraph:

      <<A passing reference was made to Gnosticism in our preface. The subsequent exploration of an alternative thesis has been fully justified in light of the Alexandrian evidence. If there was any relationship between Gnosticism and the Philonic corpus, it has been argued that it was in terms of the latter borrowing from the former.>>

      I like what I think the guy intends to say in the last sentence (and in the book as a whole), but does he say what he intends to say? I think he says quite the opposite. Or is my mind truly going? Help!

      Leonard Maluf
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 3/11/2003 8:27:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Cela veut dire: vous avez certainement raison! Leonard Maluf In a message dated 3/11/2003
      Message 40 of 40 , Mar 12 2:20 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 3/11/2003 8:27:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, jlupia2@... writes:


        Oui, Larry, vous ĂȘtes certainement correct.


        Cela veut dire: vous avez certainement raison!

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