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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Why Luke?

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi Ernie, ... Thank you very much. I think its helpful to search the various patterns of thought and connection out. I m glad you re willing to think through
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 30, 2004
      Hi Ernie,

      >I admire your tenacious crusading spirit, Gordon, and welcome the
      >provocation of your thoughts.

      Thank you very much. I think its helpful to search the various patterns of
      thought and connection out. I'm glad you're willing to think through some of
      these issues from this vantage point.

      I guess our spectacles were made to slightly
      >different prescriptions. On the historical validity of the Gospels you ask
      >for independent records to confirm it happened.

      Yes, I do. And I've said many times I'm not a historical minimalist out of
      some orniness or out of some huge theoretical position. I simply don't
      think the theological/ethical writings we have provide much historical data,
      per se. I'm not at all a minimalist when it comes to theology, ethics and
      the value for character and communal formation this literature offers!

      On the morass of
      >source-criticism, I ask for the missing 90% of the puzzle before I'm ready
      >to accept working conclusions.

      Well, til we dig up some more stuff you aren't going to get very far:)!
      Seriously, compared to actual historical detail proposing and tracing out
      literary layers, theological expressions and developments and social
      formation developments is easier than ascertaining historical details. Of
      course we can only work from theoretical models. Of course we're always
      going to live with various ones. All the better actually, because such
      offers different vantage points of reflection and analysis. Except for
      those who absolutely insist "my way or the highway" there can even be
      complimentary findings in different models. So, hey... move that up a
      bit... say to 40% and you'll have some more fun:)!

      >>smart birds, those loons... they know how to dive and finds things under
      >water that folks who just keep glancing at the surface will never see:)!)<
      >Why else would the loon be chosen as the national bird of Canada (speaking
      >as an imported Briton)?

      Glad you enjoyed the play:)!

      >The comparative study of ancient texts is - or course - a legitimate
      >discipline. I just question the seat of honour some of the resulting
      >hypotheses have been granted in HJ research.

      Well you can always go with Bultmann:)!

      thanks again for the note!
      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
    • Bob Schacht
      ... This, especially the last sentences, do not constitute an adequate line of reasoning, and amount to little more than an Amen post (giving the Amen to
      Message 2 of 25 , May 1, 2004
        At 03:00 PM 4/30/2004 -0700, I wrote impatiently:
        >At 01:09 PM 4/30/2004 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:
        >>...Okay, let's stop here:)! What is the absolute minimal basis for
        >>positing Q
        >>on the 2DH theory? Simply this: Luke didn't copy Matthew, but copied Q.
        >WRONG. This is not the absolute minimal basis for positing Q. ...
        >>Bottom line that is it. ...
        >Bottom line is that the logic of the lawyer (Stephen) and the trained
        >logician (Mike) have exposed the fallacies in your argument. You can dance
        >around all you like, but your dance has become more amusing than
        >convincing, IMHO.

        This, especially the last sentences, do not constitute an adequate line of
        reasoning, and amount to little more than an "Amen" post (giving the "Amen"
        to Stephen and Mike without adding anything of substance.) Consequently, I
        want to withdraw my hasty comments. Let me rephrase my response in this way:

        Insofar as Gordon's argument depends on both a late date for Luke (relative
        to Matthew) AND at the same time depends on Q, I find his argument weak.
        However, as he has tried to claim, this may be a red herring; I definitely
        support his interest in intertextuality, and would prefer to deal directly
        with those matters. It was easy to focus on Q because that's where the
        specifics were most clear, but in the process of doing so, the discussion
        may have veered off track.

        I would like to request clarification from Gordon, asking that he focus his
        discussion of intertextuality on the relationship between two texts,
        including specific examples of verses from one showing an intertextual
        relationship with verses of the other, because it is my understanding that
        this is what intertextuality is about. If my understanding in this matter
        is not correct, I will be pleased to be corrected. Intertextuality on
        theological matters is fine with me. However, claims of intertextuality
        among many texts involving broad generalities is not something that I am
        capable of engaging with, in any productive way.

        Just by way of reviewing some aspects of my understanding of
        intertextuality, here are a few particulars:
        * It must be established that the author of Text A is familiar with
        Text B. This can be established in a different part of the text than the
        part where intertextuality is claimed.
        * It must have a particular focus: an idea, or a concept, or something
        someone said, or didn't say, etc.
        * Strict dependence is not necessary, but there must be enough
        specificity to show that Author A is responding in some way to Text B.
        Is that about right? Are there other important particulars?


        Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
        Northern Arizona University
        Flagstaff, AZ

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.