Re: [XTalk] Re: Why Luke?
- Hi Ernie,
>I admire your tenacious crusading spirit, Gordon, and welcome theThank you very much. I think its helpful to search the various patterns of
>provocation of your thoughts.
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 askYes, I do. And I've said many times I'm not a historical minimalist out of
>for independent records to confirm it happened.
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 readyWell, til we dig up some more stuff you aren't going to get very far:)!
>to accept working conclusions.
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:)!
>[Gordon]Glad you enjoyed the play:)!
>>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)?
>Well you can always go with Bultmann:)!
>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.
thanks again for the note!
- At 03:00 PM 4/30/2004 -0700, I wrote impatiently:
>At 01:09 PM 4/30/2004 -0400, Gordon Raynal wrote:This, especially the last sentences, do not constitute an adequate line of
>>...Okay, let's stop here:)! What is the absolute minimal basis for
>>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
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]