Another ping-pong answer to Brian - the last one for me on that
thread. I ask some question on Papias in another thread.
> >But the main great trouble in your theory relies in the original
> >documents : your Greek Notes, and the aramaic logia, look as some
> >monstruous features, a kind of objects that nobody has ever seen.
> I think if you were to take seriously the tradition of the Elder
> preserved by Papias and preserved by Eusebius, you would see that in
> that tradition the Aramaic Logia and their Greek translation existed.
Once again, a little misunderstanding : the monstruous feature is
not the existence of Aramaic Logia and Greek Notes, but the detailed
description you give for them, with this strange double genealogy.
> >I do not want to come back on the validity of Boismard. I just observe
> >that whatever you claim, we observe at least a lack of confirming data
> >for your theory.
> In other words, you do not see that my hypothesis can be logically
> deduced from the observed data. My Logia Translation Hypothesis "goes
> beyond the observed data". I agree totally and absolutely with this.
> [...] A hypothesis is precisely an idea that is put forward to be
> tested against the observable data. [...]
I probably smoothed my though a little bit : "at least
a lack of confirming data for your theory", I meant that
some aspects of your hypothesis looks hard to fit the fact.
> >Where are the data that allow to imagine seriously a double genealogy
> >in a single document (this thread) ?
> Such a rhetorical question reveals a lack of understanding of what the
> synoptic problem is.
Absolutely not. Before developping all the consequencies of a theory
and checking them with facts, the plausibility a-priori of the
hypothesis may be evaluated.
If your hypothesis posits a feature that looks hard to accept,
as a double genealogy (for my eyes) then I may ask you for similar
> >For each strange characteristic you posit to your greek notes, it would
> >be great if we had an example of attested old document, either
> >christian, jewish or pagan, presenting that characteristic.
> Such old documents are not only attested but are extant. Do you not know
> of books based on notes from the first century, or books of the TENACH
> containing contradictions (like the two contradicting creation
> accounts), or books of the NT that are a concatenation of short
> pericopes, and so on?
Yes and no. Yes, I know about contradiction in genesis, and so on.
But (and perhabs I am alone in that case) the double genealogy you
posited in your greek notes hurt me much more than all the
contradictions found in NT and OT.
And here come another idea : if you alledge the first chapters of
Genesis as a model for your posited greek notes, I will remember
the documentary study on Genesis. Existing Genesis is a later merge
of previous independent documents. If you claim for the Genesis
parallel, you should add, for a sake of coherence, at least two
unknown earlier documents to LTH.
But what appears to me as a lack of coherence in your positions
may probably appear to you as bad rhetoric from mine. List readers
> >Or let us think your greek notes are kinds of triceratops eggs
> >landing on first century Roman Empire.
> I would suggest that most people reading this List (and many do) would
> find this last comment such painfully cracked rhetoric that they would
> rather not "think" any such thing. :)
I apologize if the triceratops eggs hurt you : due to my bad level
in english, I have sometimes trouble to find the technical good word,
and use rather an image.
PS - some deriving questions :
> It seems to me that you are trying continually to find a deductive proof
> of what must have happened when the synoptic gospels were written.
Yes and not.
Not "continually" : not in this thread, dedicated to your theory.
But yes, the main problem for me is an historical one.
I would like to understand what have happened when the
synoptic gospels were written. And deduction seems a
good tool for that task.
> Such an approach is literally absurd, and has nothing to do
> with solving the synoptic problem.
Sure for you the synoptic problem is not a historical problem.
> My hypothesis is confirmed by showing that it fits well the
> observable data.
Not all observable data.
But this is the thread on story duality.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...