Mike Phillips (
Tue, 24 Sep 1996 07:07:29 -0700

In context:
Gundry, Robert H., <book>Mark, a Commentary on His Apology for the
Cross</>, Eerdman's, 1993, p. 18
Under a reasonable assumption that the present text of Mark made sense
to the evangelist who authored it, we will see more particularly that
inconcinnities provide keys to understanding it and therefore need not derive
from its prehistory, i.e., from disparities between various sources and
succesive shapings (cf <snip>). On the contrary, the succesisive shaping of
Mark in Matthew and Luke and of all the gospels and the rest of the NT in the
textual tradition tend to smooth out inconcinnities (hence the text critical
rule, for example, that other things being equal we should prefer a more
difficult reading), so that inconcinnities can equally well look early and
original rather than late and derivative...
<end quote>

I am assuming this word (see subject) is a text critical technical
term, and once again, Webster's fails me. Could someone (again) help me
understand this author's point by providing a definition? I am assuming it
means places in the text under question in a diachronic analysis as resulting
from revision / redaction?

Mike Phillips

A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
it is the skin of living thought and changes from day
to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes