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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Osborne in Rethinking

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    ... I think not. the idea of redundancy is closer to collation than to conflation . Conflation would have been related to inconsistency . I go back to
    Message 1 of 40 , Feb 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Goodacre wrote :
      >
      > 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"?

      I think not.

      the idea of "redundancy" is closer to "collation" than to "conflation".
      "Conflation" would have been related to "inconsistency".

      I go back to my favorite example :
      Mk 1:4 and 1:5 are redundant. In a Griesbachian perspective,
      they have been collated, and not conflated.

      It is more likely that Mark collated Luke (Mk 1:4) and then
      Matthew (1:5) than Luke and Matthew had adopted separately
      both terms of the redundancy.

      I would be glad if someone may give me the argument
      explaining why Markan redundancy, as a feature of his
      style, may not be due to source collation.

      a+
      manu

      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 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.