Re: [Synoptic-L] Osborne in Rethinking
- Mark Goodacre wrote :
>I think not.
> 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"?
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.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- In a message dated 3/11/2003 8:27:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, jlupia2@... writes:
Oui, Larry, vous êtes certainement correct.
Cela veut dire: vous avez certainement raison!