Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A synoptic idea

Expand Messages
  • gentile_dave@emc.com
    I wrote: Did you have a specific narrative example in mind? And Ron replied: The most prominent is the story of Peter s denial which presents Peter as
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:



      Did you have a specific narrative example in mind?

      And Ron replied:

      The most prominent is the story of Peter's denial which presents Peter
      as
      disloyal, but there are several other passages such as Mk 3:31-35 which
      presents Jesus' brothers as disrespectful and Mk 10:35-40 which presents
      two
      followers of Jesus as greedy.



      Dave:



      O.K. I understand what you were referring to now. We might and that the
      disciples seem rather dense.



      I had written:


      > And do you mean that you think the added material itself fits well
      > with the narrative material, or just that it fits that he would omit
      > as much as he did of Q if it were available?



      Ron then replied:


      It's the combination of what is omitted and how the remainder is
      redacted,
      that broadly matches the criticism of Jews and Judaism in a number of
      passages in the rest of Mark's gospel. In a few cases the match is quite
      specific. For instance, Mark transforms the 'Q' saying about the
      endurance
      of the Jewish law (Q 16:17) into a saying about the endurance of Jesus'
      words (Mk 13:31), which matches his proclamation that Jewish food laws
      can
      be ignored (Mk 7:14-19).



      Dave:

      And we could add things like Mark's "the Sabbath was made for man, not
      man for the Sabbath".



      So, no doubt we could call Mark "liberal" in his interpretation of
      Jewish scripture,

      and we could say that Mark's presentation of the disciples and the
      family of Jesus is unfavorable. We agree.



      But how I would explain Mk. 13:31 and Q 16:17, is that Mark 13:31 is
      Mark's original work, which by Mark 13 does not seem out of step with
      Mark's gradual revelation about the nature of Jesus. Then Q 16:17 is
      authored later, by the author of Q/Matthew, as part of a conservative
      reaction. I would speculate that this conservative reaction is driven
      in part by the emergence of Gnosticism, with a complete rejection of the
      OT and the OT God. Matthew in reaction, while not particularly favorable
      to the Jewish people, is very interested in saying that the OT is still
      scripture, (and therefore) we are still followers of the same God.



      So my hypothesis says "Matthew" has Mark in hand, and wants to write a
      new gospel from his conservative view-point (conservative in regards to
      Jewish scripture), and he forges a sayings list in the name of an
      apostle that justifies this intended gospel. Mt. 5:18/Q 16:17 would be
      an example of this. He borrows a bit of language from Mark (which will
      help lend authenticity to his new "saying-source"), but changes Mark's
      words to support his own conservative agenda. He wants to say that Mark
      was close to correct, but got some things a bit wrong.



      Of course like most synoptic phenomena, this seems to be nearly fully
      reversible, depending on assumptions.



      But there are other less reversible examples, I think.

      The salt sayings would be another less reversible example, and there are
      some other potential examples under "Matthew, Luke, and Salt" on my page

      http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/Mark.html

      I believe they show Matthew revising Mark in non-Q sections to be more
      favorable towards the OT and the old covenant.

      Could we say that Q's text looks suspiciously supportive of Matthew's
      agenda? Or maybe you would argue instead that Matthew only chose to use
      Q, *because* Q supported his agenda. In that case, at the very least, we
      could say that Matthew and Q seems to share the same view point. And,
      while it is clearly possible for two different authors to share a point
      of view, the fact that Q and Matthew do seems to agree, would at least
      constitute supporting evidence for their authorship by the same person.



      Dave Gentile

      Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician

      B.S./M.S. Physics

      M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)

      Riverside, IL

















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ron Price
      ... Dave, As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way round, it seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q 16:17. ...
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave Gentile wrote:

        > But how I would explain Mk. 13:31 and Q 16:17, is that Mark 13:31 is
        > Mark's original work, which by Mark 13 does not seem out of step with
        > Mark's gradual revelation about the nature of Jesus. Then Q 16:17 is
        > authored later, by the author of Q/Matthew, as part of a conservative
        > reaction.

        Dave,

        As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way round, it
        seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q 16:17.

        > I would speculate that this conservative reaction is driven
        > in part by the emergence of Gnosticism, with a complete rejection of the
        > OT and the OT God.

        But the synoptic gospels, within which this conservative reaction is
        supposed to have been manifested, were all penned in the first century,
        whereas my understanding is that gnosticism didn't really have much
        influence until the early second century.

        > So my hypothesis says "Matthew" has Mark in hand, and wants to write a
        > new gospel from his conservative view-point (conservative in regards to
        > Jewish scripture), and he forges a sayings list in the name of an
        > apostle that justifies this intended gospel.

        But Jesus was a Jew, and all his original followers (including all the
        original apostles) were Jews. Therefore I think it's quite reasonable,
        bearing in mind Papias' statement that Matthew assembled the logia, to
        attribute the first written form of Lk 16:17 to the apostle Matthew.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • gentile_dave@emc.com
        Ken wrote: You make a bunch of initial assumptions Dave: I m sure I make some assumptions for simplification, although at least some of these have an empirical
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Ken wrote:



          You make a bunch of initial assumptions



          Dave:



          I'm sure I make some assumptions for simplification, although at least
          some of these have an empirical base, if we probe deeper. Of course, if
          some false assumption is made, we would indeed want to uncover that. I'm
          sure you have simplifying assumptions as well, in your argument.



          Ken: and then you propose a bunch of hypothetical sources



          Dave: And you have your own hypothesis about Luke's behavior. We propose
          competing hypotheses and look for evidence to support of contradict
          them. Standard rational-empiricism.



          Ken: When your assumptions are criticized, you restate them



          Dave: You argued that "respect" might not be uniform quality, that it
          was divisible, so I changed my wording. "Estimation of a source's
          position to know" is not a something that can easily vary across a
          document by (what we assume to be) a single author.



          Ken: and hypothesize new and different hypothetical sources to do away
          with the difficulties.



          Dave: Additional hypotheses to better explain data are also part of the
          rational-empirical process.



          Ken: Perhaps you could read Jubilees and then tell me whether the author
          considered the Torah an "authoritative" text or not. Or make a list of
          biblical quotations in John and then tell me if John regarded the OT as
          an "authoritative" text. Or tell me why Plutarch assigns certain
          sayings to different charcters in his Lives.



          Dave: If we were discussing free-will and determinism, I don't think I'd
          say something like "Could you read Einstein and consider what
          implications special relativity may have for the question?" Rather, I
          think I would provide information on how it might be relevant. (Special
          relativity brings into question the whole idea of linear time, and if we
          are asking if the past fully constrains the present, understanding what
          we mean by "past" is relevant.)



          So, if you think the actions of a particular ancient author are a good
          analogy to use for your proposed actions by Luke, then I would ask that
          simply state that case. Obviously we have somewhat different background.
          If we didn't there would be no point in discussion, because working from
          the same set of facts and experiences, we'd pretty much arrive at the
          same answer I'd expect. So sharing information not available to the
          interlocutor is one of the things I would expect discussion to
          accomplish.



          Ken: Not everything can be accounted for by assuming variant source
          texts.



          Dave: I'd agree. And I'd also note that what I'm proposing is not
          exactly Boismard.



          Ken: Mark Goodacre has used the ways modern filmmakers adapt the gospels
          to film to illustrate the different ways that purpose and medium affect
          the final product. He's been criticized for using an anachronistic
          analogy. But that is much of the point--we may be committing
          anachronisms ourselves if we assume that the gospel authors went about
          their business with the same purposes and the same methods modern
          historians do.



          Dave: What if we propose that Luke might have been doing something
          analogous to say Herodotus? That is interviewing people, gathering
          sources, and generally trying to make sense of it. Now, I would not
          suggest that that is the only thing Luke is up to, he certainly has
          other purposes. But Luke does tell us



          "1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have
          been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those
          who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
          Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from
          the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for
          you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of
          the things you have been taught."



          From this we can gather he is interested in sources, and witnesses, and
          investigation, and establishing "certainty" or the facts of the matter.
          Again he can be interested in other things, but he tells us he is
          interested in these things. So again here I would ask what does Luke
          think of Matthew status as a witness or a source, what is Luke's opinion
          of Matthew's ability to know?



          In passing I would add that I don't think a historical account is what
          the author of Mark was up to at all. He was (in my opinion) trying to
          show Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, and doing something much
          closer to Midrash.



          Ken:

          If by "we" you mean contemporary systems analysts and statisticians who
          try to reduce the synoptic problem to a multivariable equation,



          Dave: I'm accused of reductionism. Scientific investigation requires
          that we be able to reduce the input data to verifiable facts, which map
          as unambiguously as possible to the terms of our language (probably
          mathematical). Certainly in NT studies there are a great many things
          that will not lend themselves to this sort of investigation. However,
          the synoptic problem can be approached this way. If your goal is not the
          scientific or rational-empirical answer to this problem, then we are
          about different tasks.



          Ken:

          Can you give the reasons that it seems unlikely to you?



          Dave: Given that Luke has told us he is interested in witnesses, and
          getting things correct, and given that we accept this (and note that we
          do have cooberation in the fact that we agree he is working from
          multiple sources), it is unlikely he would use direct quotes from a
          source that he thought had no clue.



          Ken:

          Explain to me how you know that sayings source (and only sayings
          sources), have authoritative wording but not authoritative order.



          Dave: I did not say "only a saying source". That is a sort document that
          we know existed (at least by the 2nd century), and that easily can have
          authoritative wording without authoritative order. The sayings could be
          in thematic order or pneumonic order, for example. Could some other sort
          of document have this characteristic? Yes. Do you want to say this
          characterizes Matthew? That is - do you want to say that Luke thought
          Matthew was in a position to know the facts of the matter, but did not
          regard Matthew's order as representing the correct order of events? I
          think you'd have to argue something like "Luke recognizes that Matthew
          belongs to a genera of writing unconcerned with the real order of
          events." How then does Matthew's genera differ from Mark's in Luke's
          view?



          I mean obviously you think Luke rearranges Matthew, but do you think
          Luke does this while thinking that Matthew's order has little to do with
          the real order of events, or do you think Luke does this rearrangement
          thinking that Matthew' order probably is related to the real order of
          events, but Luke is simply not that concerned with the order of events?
          How would you argue that latter point? (other than pointing to the
          rearranged text, which is circular, since that is what we are trying to
          explain). You could of course point to other ancient authors who were
          not concerned with the order of events. That would be enough to raise,
          as one possibility, the idea that Luke was not interested in the order
          of events, but that is not enough show that it is *probable* that Luke
          would not care about the order of events. On the other hand we have what
          Luke told us about his intentions, and the fact that he does follow the
          order of Mark, both of which argue that he probably did care about the
          order of events.



          Ken: While you're at it explain to me why Luke departs from the Markan
          order for most of the so-called Mark/Q overlaps (everything after the
          Temptation).



          Dave: In my recent posts to Ron, I pointed out that I don't believe that
          an earlier, less corrupted version of Mark contained most of the "Mark/Q
          overlap" material. I described the idea of using text-critical methods
          to go one step further. That is currently we would use the surviving
          texts of Mark to reconstruct Mark, etc. But after we have these and a
          synoptic solution with Markian priority, we can go one step more. We can
          say that our reconstruction of canonical Mark is the conservative
          witness to the original text of Mark, but Matthew and Luke are also
          (less conservative) witnesses to the original text of Mark. We can then
          use text-critical methods to reconstruct "synoptic-prime", a less
          corrupted version of Mark. Having tried this exercise, just for myself,
          the answer I got was that most Mark/Q sections were not in the original
          Mark, and often probably not in Luke's copy of Mark.



          Ken: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.



          Dave: To use Occam's razor in its strict sense, it must be the case that
          the proposed hypothesis (say B), when compared to another hypothesis
          (say A), represents a decrease in parsimony without any increase in
          explanatory power. To say that the saying source has no additional
          explanatory power at all is a rather high burden of proof, don't you
          think? Rather, we should acknowledge that your idea is more
          parsimonious, and mine has at least some additional explanatory power
          (as almost any *real* extra hypothesis will), and recognize that both
          factors can contribute to the probable truth of a hypothesis. That is,
          all else equal, the simple hypothesis is more probable, and all else
          equal, the hypothesis with more explanatory power is more probable. When
          all else is not equal there will be cases where the most probable
          hypothesis is the most parsimonious, and there will be cases where the
          most probable hypothesis is the one with the greater explanatory power.
          Our task is to figure out which we are dealing with here.



          Ken:



          OK. I have, in fact, put these arguments to you before. When I point
          out that Luke may have rearranged Matthew's order in response to the
          conditions he faced in trying to combine Markan and Matthian material,
          your response has invariably been to try to do away with the conditions
          I describe by hypothesizing further lost sources for which those
          conditions did not exist.

          But I'll give it one more shot.



          Dave: O.K. we from here on out we have actual arguments of the matter at
          hand. I'd point out that my original intent was just to say that both
          the FH, and the 2SH have merit and that my idea preserved some of the
          merits of both. My intent was not really to do a critique of the
          arguments for either side, which is what we seem to be doing here. But,
          I'm interested in the argument anyway.



          Ken: Luke has two main written sources, Mark and Matthew. He and the
          Christian community he knows have had Mark for a while before Matthew
          comes along.



          Dave: Mostly I agree (except with the number and/or name of sources).
          Mark has been around, Matthew is new.



          Ken: Luke knows Mark well and can tell where Matthew has changed it by
          adding, omitting, or recasting material.



          Dave: O.K.



          Ken: Some of the additional material he likes a great deal, particularly
          some of Jesus' ethical teachings (which Mark does not have a lot of),
          other material is less pleasing, and some of it is awful. Where Matthew
          has recast Mark, he generally, but not always, prefers the original that
          he and his church have used for a long time. But he recognizes the
          potential of what Matthew has done in rewriting and "updating" Mark and
          making it fit the needs of his target audience better.

          He decides to do the same thing.



          Dave: Sounds good.



          Ken: Luke decides he's going to follow Mark, the older and usually
          fuller [in the overlapping material] source for as far as Mark goes,
          taking over its basic narrative and keeping it in its Markan order. He
          will use Matthew's additional material primarily to supplement Mark.



          Dave: Yep.



          Ken: The question is: how will he go about adding the supplementary
          material to his Markan framework?

          There are two considerations that must be made before addressing this
          question.



          First, close conflation of two different written sources at the level of
          wording is a difficult procedure. The consensus among classicists is
          that that most ancient authors did not attempt close conflation but
          wrote with one source in front of them at one time.



          Dave: Is this an appeal to authority? (which can have merit) In support
          of a point that may be rather critical to your argument? And what do we
          mean by close conflation? I mean no one here is suggesting anything like
          what the GH folks claim Mark did in conflating Matthew and Luke. The
          question is more whether Luke could/would have kept Matthew in the same
          order at a basically a pericope level. Certainly that could constitute
          "chucks" of material, although smaller than your proposed chunks. Also,
          most ancient authors were not dealing with two versions of the same
          story. So, an analogy here may have little warrant.



          Ken: In The Four Gospels, Streeter notes that Luke follows Mark and his
          other source (which Streeter took to be Proto-Luke, a combination of Q
          and L) in fairly large alternating blocks for a few chapters at a time.
          He also noted that Luke's sources overlapped (the so-called Mark-Q
          overlaps) and that when this happened, Luke followed one or the other
          and didn't try to conflate them. Streeter noted that in the case of the
          Mark-Q overlaps Luke chose to follow the version in his non-Markan
          source instead of that of Mark. He admitted that he could not tell
          where the reverse might have happened (i.e., if Luke was following
          Mark's version, how would we tell if there were also a version in his
          non-Markan source?).

          So if Luke's sources are Mark and Matthew we might reasonably expect
          that he would use them in alternate blocks and not try to conflate them
          closely.



          Dave: Why exactly from the above? You've pointed out that Luke seems to
          have in fact done this, but that does nothing for establishing our prior
          expectation that he would have done this. We want to ask if our prior
          expectations, based on our hypothesis match with the facts, in order to
          support or disconfirm the hypothesis. We can't use the facts to form the
          prior expectation on our hypothesis, in this case.



          Ken: Second, one of the most widely acknowledged characteristics of Luke
          is his dislike of doublets. He does indeed have about ten doublets, all
          sayings and none more than two verses in length. Whether he did not
          care enough to take the the time to edit them out, or he especially
          liked these sayings enough to use them twice I don't know. But in
          general, he does not like doublets. We do not have two Temptations, two
          Beelzebul pericopes, two Parables of the Mustard Seed, or two Feeding
          Miracles in Luke, despite te fact that he would have had more than one
          version of each in his sources.

          So we might reasonably expect a Luke who knew Mark and Matthew generally
          not to reuse the same material in both its Matthean and Markan forms.



          Dave: Hmmm...this is rather circular. Your first sentence maintains that
          Luke had a dislike of doublets. One would imagine that this is widely
          acknowledged, *because* Luke in fact does not have many doublets. But
          then we can't use Luke's dislike of doublets to form a prior expectation
          that he would not form doublets. The fact of the doublets can't be part
          of any prior expectation about doublets. And we care about the prior
          expectation of doublets, because you want to argue that the reason for
          the observed text is that Luke would consider elimination of doublets as
          more important than keeping an (authoritative?) order. That would
          require providing reasons to believe Luke would dislike doublets, other
          that the fact that he avoided them. We need to know what might motivate
          his distaste for doublets. I might suggest that maybe he didn't like
          doublets, because he was concerned about actual events, and actual
          events don't happen twice. Alternately, we might say he didn't want to
          waste space, or something like that, but I thought I'd throw the
          possible concern about actual events in there.



          Ken: Now if Luke follows these two principles (as major scholars who
          accept the 2DH argue he does) it will be almost impossible to follow
          Matthew's order, and undesirable to try.



          Dave: So your argument then is that Luke rearranged an (authoritative?)
          source, because it would have been too difficult to keep in the correct
          order and avoid doublets? That would not work for me, since we've agreed
          Luke has a good working knowledge of Mark. He should be able to avoid
          doublets (if this was his goal), with any order he chooses that at least
          roughly follows Mark.



          Or if keeping the order of Matthew was not too difficult the argument
          would then be that Luke wants to avoid pericope-level conflation for
          some reason, even though he could do it, if he chose to? Well, that
          would be one side of an argument then. On the other side I would say
          that given that Luke has two sources with the same basic story, and
          given that he has expressed an interest in witnesses, sources, and
          actual events, he probably would attempt such a pericope level
          conflation if he viewed Matthew's order as historical. (All else being
          equal)



          Alternately if Luke did not think Matthew had a better knowledge of
          actual events than Luke himself, then his decision to use Matthew at
          all, and particularly to use verbatim quotes from Matthew that
          contradict Mark, does not fit with Luke's own statement of his
          intentions. In fact we stipulated above that Luke regards Matthew's
          gospel as new on the scene, if we then hypothesis that Luke used Matthew
          extensively then this contradicts Luke's statement of his intent to go
          back to the beginning.



          I suppose the other piece to testing these hypotheses would be to look
          at the actions on Matthew's part. Given that Mark is well established,
          and if we suppose Matthew does not himself have first hand knowledge,
          then does Matthew have reasonable expectation that his gospel will be
          accepted and read if he just writes it, without claiming any earlier
          sources? (Luke, his contemporary, seems to think he needs a preface with
          this claim), and renaming Levi to Matthew may be part of Matthew claim
          to being based on first hand accounts) Is it reasonable for Matthew (if
          this is a late work and not the work of a disciple) to expect people to
          use his gospel instead of Mark? That would depend how the community of
          Christians looked at the gospel of Mark at the time Matthew was written.
          From Paul we might infer that they already had an idea of Christian
          Scripture by the time Matthew writes. Maybe I'm wrong, but while people
          generally accept commentary on scripture, or new insight, they generally
          don't like fully contemporary re-writes to scripture. In any case, the
          claim of a source (perhaps claimed to be translated from Hebrew of
          Aramaic) could not help but increase the popularity of Matthew's gospel,
          if people believed the claim.



          So where are we in summary?



          If say Matthew is fully contemporary to Luke we might expect some
          problem with its acceptance, given that there is already a concept of
          scripture, and that Luke needed to use a preface to say he used old
          sources, and that Matthew's rename of Levi may be a claim of being based
          on a first hand witness. Also contradicting this idea are Luke's
          verbatim quotes from Matthew, after telling us he is interested in
          original witnesses and events.



          If we say Matthew is in fact in position to know first hand, then we
          might wonder why it is written so late. We might also appeal to
          authority and say most modern scholars do not hold this to be the case.
          It also seems quite possible for Luke to keep Matthew's order of events
          at a pericope level (this is not particularly close conflation), while
          avoiding doublets. But Luke does not do this. And I would argue that
          based on Luke's statement about his intentions, and given that Luke
          regards Matthew as an authentic witness, all else being equal, we would
          expect him to try to preserve Matthew's order where it was reasonably
          achievable, but the facts contradict this expectation.



          However, if Matthew is a contemporary of Luke, given the barrier that
          might be present to the publication of a second more contemporary
          version of the gospel, Matthew has motive to forge a saying source
          (which could have quotes in no historical order, but say in thematic
          order). Luke's behavior then is fully consistent with his stated
          intentions of going to original sources and witnesses, and his
          acceptance of the saying source as original, and his recognition of
          Matthew as contemporary.



          Dave Gentile

          Riverside IL









          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dave Gentile
          ... round, it ... 16:17. ... That s reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 12, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Ron wrote:

            >
            > As Christianity was born out of Judaism, and not the other way
            round, it
            > seems to me more natural to see Mk 13:31 as a development of Q
            16:17.
            >

            That's reasonable. And, all else being equal, probably our first
            guess. But Christianity was also a fairly radical break from
            tradition.
            Maybe we shouldn't expect much in the way of *conservative* Jewish
            attitudes from the first followers. Paul didn't like them much in
            his early conservative stage.


            > But the synoptic gospels, within which this conservative reaction
            is
            > supposed to have been manifested, were all penned in the first
            century,
            > whereas my understanding is that Gnosticism didn't really have much
            > influence until the early second century.

            O.K. proto-Gnostic then. But for that matter, I doubt the author of
            Matthew would have though much of the gospel of John (or the ideas
            that led to it) either. Identifying Jesus as God may have been a
            step to far for him. In any case, we agree the author of Matthew
            represents a conservative turn from Mark, at least when it comes to
            his attitude towards Hebrew scripture.

            So we have this time line -

            1) Early Jewish followers (probably rather radical)
            2) Mark – with a liberal take on Hebrew scripture
            3) Mathew, with a conservative view of Hebrew scripture.

            So, if we have another document with a conservative attitude, where
            does it fit in that time line? Well, anywhere really.

            <snip>

            >I think it's quite reasonable,
            > bearing in mind Papias' statement that Matthew assembled the
            logia, to
            > attribute the first written form of Lk 16:17 to the apostle
            Matthew.

            Reasonable, yes. But a successfully forged early saying source, and
            a real early saying source will probably have much in common,
            including Papias' testimony about them, so that can't be used to
            separate the ideas.

            Dave Gentile
            Riverside, IL
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic In Response To: Dave Gentile On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise From: Bruce Among much else of interest in his latest contribution, Dave had
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 13, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic
              In Response To: Dave Gentile
              On: Sayings Sources, Real and Otherwise
              From: Bruce

              Among much else of interest in his latest contribution, Dave had remarked,
              "But a successfully forged early saying source and a real early saying
              source will probably have much in common, including Papias' testimony about
              them, so that can't be used to separate the ideas."

              I merely want to say that I think this is a very important principle. Too
              many things could correspond to certain bits of medium early external
              testimony for complete certainty, and in any case, our ability to detect
              forgeries at this distance is necessarily somewhat impaired. Any hypothesis
              compatible with the words of Papias (wherever the boundary between them and
              Eusebius's comments may lie, and whatever exactly they mean, and ignoring
              the Johannine bias of Papias, and assuming that Papias in this remark has a
              probity which is conspicuously missing from what we know of his own
              writings) is probably the better for it, other things being equal. But it is
              still worthwhile to be reminded that the category of hypotheses which could
              be judged compatible with the words of Papias is a somewhat wide one.

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst

              [The name "Papias" reminds me that in the early China field, we have a
              conspicuous case of a major court historian, a man of learning or anyway of
              wide acquaintance in the world of texts, who showed incredible naivete in
              evaluating recent forgeries as genuine productions of antiquity, and whose
              own editing of earlier texts for inclusion in his book ranged from
              amateurish to downright clumsy. He had an accepting mind and a trembling
              hand].
            • Emmanuel Fritsch
              Hello, Arguing about technical details in Luke on a french forum, we deeply disagree about keramon in Luke 5:19. It has been said that tiles were not
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 11, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello,

                Arguing about technical details in Luke on a french forum, we deeply
                disagree about "keramon" in Luke 5:19. It has been said that "tiles"
                were not present in Syria at the beginning of Ist century, so that it
                constitutes an error of Luke.

                Since I was not convinced, I said it, and I have been sharply accused
                for being a defender of inerrancy.
                Hence I would like to look around the question.

                Even if "tiles" for "keramon" is the mainstream translation, in french,
                english, german, we have other translation for this "keramon". Segond
                translate "par une ouverture du toit".

                Bailly, the standard greek-french dictionnary, proposes "clay".
                Greek online bible (http://www.greekbible.com) proposes :
                > 1) clay, potter's earth
                > 2) anything made of clay, earthen ware
                > 3) a roofing tile
                > 3a) the roof itself
                > 3b) the phrase "through the roof", means through the door in the
                > roof to which a ladder or stairway led up from the street
                > (according to the Rabbis distinguish two ways of entering
                > a house, "the way through the door" and "the way through
                > the roof". For Synonyms see entry 5858

                I would like to know :
                - what is the source for this definition ? (and for the whole lexicon of
                greek online bible)
                - are there any other stuff about the translation of "keramon" I should
                have looked at ?
                - are there any other stuff about "keramon" in Luke ?

                Thanks in advance,

                a+
                manu
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.