Re: [Synoptic-L] more on Downing (was: Response to Downing)
- Ken Olson wrote :
> >>More over : Eusebius, Josephus and modern filmmakers all change
> the order for a sake of conveniance : they translate a story
> from a litterary gender to another one, which present its own
> convention and its own convenience (i.e: its own properties, its
> own rhetoric, its own constraints).<<
> I was addressing primarily the mechanical aspects of composition and trying
> to show that ancient authors had techniques that allowed them to
> systematically rearrange their sources, even if those sources were fairly
> long. Both Eusebius and Josephus apparently knew how to rearrange the order
> of material taken from long written sources. It's possible that genre
> conventions would have prevented someone from using a known technique of
> rearrangement, but that wouldn't change the fact that such a technique was
> known (and used). That is what I am disputing with Downing.
You have addressed in your mail two arguments : the mechanical aspects,
and the aesthetical consideration. My answer addressed this two aspects.
** about aesthetical consideration, I point out the facts that order
changes were needed by literary genre translation. That does not apply
to synoptic problem.
** about mechanical aspects, you are right to answer that Eusebius and
Josephus rearranging their source are a good answer to those who argue
an impossibility for Luke to rearrange Matthew.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...