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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Osborne in Rethinking

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    A couple more questions from _Rethinking_. First, Osborne again on p. 147: It is said by Griesbach supporters that it is more likely that Mark collated
    Message 1 of 40 , Feb 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      A couple more questions from _Rethinking_. First, Osborne again on
      p. 147:

      "It is said by Griesbach supporters that it is more likely that Mark
      collated Matthew and Luke than that they had by chance adopted
      different aspects of the redundancy. but Mark has many such
      redundant expressions (213 in all), and it seems a feature of his
      style more than a collation of his sources."

      Should "collated" and "collation" be "conflated" and "conflation"?

      Second, from the same volume, Scot McKnight, pp. 67-8:

      "Streeter and other Synoptic-porblem scholars think that you can't
      understand a text accurately unless you know its context and its
      tradition history. The narrative critics think that the text *is*
      the context. This, I believe, is a mistake, but it surely makes
      learning scholarship easier: you don't have to read the old books,
      because they mistakenly believed that texts don't have contexts;
      rather they have textual clues, and if you read carefully (which
      means following the latest trend of narrative criticism), you will
      see all you need to see. And if we look hard enough, once again, we
      will find the *Angst*." (emphasis original).

      In the middle of the quotation: "they [viz. Streeter et al]
      mistakenly believed that texts don't have contexts". Should the
      "don't" be "do"? I can't make sense of this caricature without that,
      or am I misunderstanding McKnight?

      On the substance of this, though, I'm also puzzled. What evidence is
      there that narrative-critics are uninterested in a text's context,
      tradition history etc.? One of the first names that comes to my mind
      when I think of contemporary narrative critics is Mark Allan Powell
      and he, as much as anyone else, gives the strong impression that
      narrative criticism can function alongside historical-critical work;
      indeed his most recent publications are on the Historical Jesus. I
      think the polemic misplaced, but perhaps I misunderstand.

      Thanks again
      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
      Birmingham B15 2TT UK

      http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
      http://NTGateway.com


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • 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, 2003
      • 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.