Kata Markon

[Hudson Barton <hhbv AT highwinds.com>]

> In the article at
>
> http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Wicked_Tenant_Parables.htm
>
> I present evidence that suggests an unflawed parable left Luke, acquired two
> errors on its way to Matthew, and eventually arrived at Mark with one more
> error.


Stumbling stones?  I don't think so.  Your use of the words "error" 
and "flaw" is this context makes me wonder whether you are stirring 
things up for the sake of notoriety. It is in the nature of 
storytelling that inconsistencies arise after a few repetitions. 
What's notable in this case is:

a.  The differences between the three gospel versions are small and 
inconsequential as regards interpretation.

b.  The inconsistencies illustrate that the gospel writers made no 
concerted effort to make their stories jibe with each other.   They 
show how little care was taken to conform the Jesus stories with 
literary models from the Old Testament (or other). While I'm sure 
they recognized parallels with other texts, as we do, there doesn't 
seem to be any of the embellishment that might be expected from a 
polished myth-maker whose overriding purpose is to draw us to 
something other than the event itself.

So there remains a reasonable conclusion that one and all of the 
gospel versions are representing an actual historical event.  The 
same goes for the "naked young man" discussion, and other recent 
topics on this list.  Most notably, there was a short time ago a 
preposterous conclusion that Jesus's historicity must even be called 
into question.  As Steve Black suggested, perhaps such things are 
being stated just to be provocative (!).

As for the virus just reported, if everyone would just stick with 
plain text rather than html, this would never happen.  In your email 
preferences, you will undoubtedly find the switch to make this happen.

H.