Subject: Re: "Interaction"
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 12:25:54 -0700
From: Bob Schacht <Robert.Schacht@NAU.EDU>
To: M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk
CC: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com

At 06:16 PM 10/1/98 +0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>On 30 Sep 98 at 19:26, Stevan Davies wrote:
>
>> I don't think I'll let you get away with this. What do you mean by
>> "interaction?" I know what "derived" and "used" mean. I do not know
>> what "interaction" means.
>
>If I say that Matthew interacted with Mark, I mean that he was influenced
>by Mark and that he also influenced, changed, re-worked the materials he
found
>there.  Likewise oral traditions -- he interacted with them in that he was
>influenced by them and he reworked them.  ... The term
>is particularly appropriate when discussing the oral tradition because it is
>clear that the Gospel writers not only changed oral traditions (influenced
>them by writing their Gospels) but also were changed by them....

But by the same token, it seems to me somewhat artificial to apply the term interaction, in this sense, to Matthew's use of Mark-- because, unlike oral trad, GMark is not influenced by Matthew. Unless, of course, Yuri is correct and that later Markan editors were influenced by Matthew, and later Matthean editors were influenced by the revised Mark, ad infinitum (I'm putting words in Yuri's mouth here). Now, THERE would be real interaction.  But I suspect you're not ready to go that route.

Bob
*******************************
Robert M. Schacht
Northern Arizona University

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
(Where charity and love are [found], God is there)
                9th century latin hymn