tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6770721861136587543..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Who got what from whom?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19482805155791146262017-10-11T17:42:29.487-04:002017-10-11T17:42:29.487-04:00One thing that I don't think gets sufficient a...One thing that I don't think gets sufficient attention in the minds of redaction criticism is the probability that Matthew and Luke probably *did not have* Mark's scroll open in front of their very eyes when they were writing their own scrolls. This is because they would have had to crawl around on the floor to do so. Tables were not used for writing and scholarship. This is incredibly important, since redaction critics frequently assume the opposite, so that every small wording difference must be a conscious redaction. But even aside from the (admittedly, far more important) point that they are leaving out the possibility that Matthew *remembered the incident* (due to their prejudice against or diffidence in bringing up the possibility of actual Matthean authorship), there is the simple fact that Matthew and Luke may well have "used" Mark in many places only from notes and from memory *of Mark* rather than from an attempt to copy verbatim. Hence, a great many changes may be a result of following Mark only in a far more general sense than the redaction critic admits, with no heavy pondering or conscious decision about every departure from Mark's wording. This would be similar to what you suggest here concerning Blomberg and Carson.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.com