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

Re: [XTalk] Intertextuality

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi Mike, ... Thank you for the compliment, I think:)! First, the suggestion to read (for those who haven t) or re-read for those who have, is an invitation to
    Message 1 of 2 , May 4 4:52 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mike,

      >
      >In spite of having responded "Well said!" to Bob's suggestions that
      >one should - among other things - establish that X knew Y, you
      >haven't done that with respect to the items you think that Luke
      >knew. Specific dating aside, it would be a matter of no small import
      >if one could establish the chronological relationship between GLk
      >and GJn. Your writings, however, haven't demonstrated that Luke knew
      >John (as you believe, contrary to Crossan) - rather, they assume it
      >to be true. Frankly, this approach baffles me. You seem to be
      >saying "Look at things the way I do and you'll see that I'm right".
      >Well, yes, of course, but anyone could say that and it's not any
      >kind of a sound argument. You've continually suggested that others
      >read the texts and think about them intertextually - as if they
      >didn't already do so - and as if it were only the failure to do so
      >that prevents others from agreeing with you. I'm not sure which is
      >worse: the patronizing tone of such statements or the special
      >pleading inherent in them. Is this any more acceptable if what
      >you're doing is "brain-storming", as Mark suggests? (I really have
      >to say that I don't think a lesser member would be allowed to get
      >away with this.)

      Thank you for the compliment, I think:)! First, the suggestion to read (for
      those who haven't) or re-read for those who have, is an invitation to "look
      again" or "look for the first time" comparing texts. No partronizing meant.
      Second, I'm quite aware that this suggestion about dating and
      intertextuality goes against the majority and against much "hoary
      tradition." As such and for those so interested in seriously considering
      this alternative I have sought first to lay out a big picture (more about
      that below) and initially a list of 10 issues to look at. Again, it was not
      my thought that I could simply present such an opening and so "wow" the list
      members that those who were against such an idea would drop their jaws and
      be begging for more:)! In fact, I rather expect most listers to stick to
      their guns and this note gives me every confidence that you are going to do
      so! As I have said more than once, that is fine. If you're not interested
      then just do what I do when there are threads I'm not interested in, hit
      delete!
      >
      >You insist on looking at the "big picture" first, then working down
      >to the details. But YOUR big picture contains a number of arguable
      >assumptions, and so the question becomes "Why should we accept THAT
      >big picture?". You're asking others to accept a package deal in
      >which your own conclusions are smuggled into the package to begin
      >with. Sorry, no can do. It doesn't work that way. It won't do to
      >say, for example, that we should _assume_ that Luke knew an early
      >John as part of our "big picture" and then only later (after a very
      >great deal has been made of that assumption) look to see whether it
      >might be true or not. That's putting the cart before the horse. Nor
      >is it the case that one need only LOOK at these texts to see that
      >your assumptions are correct. Lots of folks have looked at the texts
      >and concluded that your suggested big picture is mistaken.

      Now, if you are interested, then the point of the approach in this email
      format (and I'm having to initially write longer notes than I usually like
      to write, as is) was and is to raise of a big picture in relationship to
      suggested points that go together to help establish it. As I'm not here to
      write a book or spend hours a day to cover every detail, what I hope to
      do... over time... is to hone in on some of the particulars in a way that
      open up the investigation for others. It will take time to do this. If
      this makes any dent... let us say someone moves to date Luke after John, but
      holds John to be 90 and so Luke to be 95 (just a possible conclusion)... it
      will only do so after the Big Picture is presented in relation to a number
      of issues thought about in relationship to literary, theological and
      communal issues on the basis of thinking about dating (hence also with an
      eye to what external issues the works are addressing). Those particular
      issues do need addressing in some detail and the effect, if any will be to
      consider the arguments cummulatively. You use the word "assume." What I'm
      asking is that folks try the big picture out in relationship to searching
      out the 10 particulars that I simply introduced. Your last sentence is
      right and again, I know I'm presenting a view that goes against the grain.
      Dismiss the idea and go with your favored option. If you're going to do
      that, then again, just hit delete.

      >p.s.: I did think you did a fine job in an earlier note in fleshing
      >out the historical details of the ca 115 era that MIGHT have
      >occasioned GLk. I even thought of arguments you didn't use, having
      >to do with the choice of the name 'Luke'. I think that the case
      >requires such focused "hard" argument, not the free-association
      >type stuff.

      Thanks! If you're going to continue on searching this out, I'd like to hear
      more about what you think might favor this general schema. BTW, I send
      notes like this to a friend. He pushed me to say 118 and not 125! I said
      to him... "okay, how about December 31's 118 if that was a Leap Year:)!" I
      still favor a little more into Hadrian's reign as I do think that transition
      from Trajan to Hadrian bears on the reason for Luke, but hey... at the end
      of the day, I'll accept 118 because I'm a flexible kind of a guy:)!

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
    • Mike Grondin
      Hi Gordon, ... I appreciate the offer to ignore your posts, Gordon, but I want to make clear that if I m able to do so (and believe me, I ve tried), it
      Message 2 of 2 , May 4 11:35 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Gordon,

        > What I'm asking is that folks try the big picture out in
        > relationship to searching out the 10 particulars that I simply
        > introduced. ... I know I'm presenting a view that goes against
        > the grain. Dismiss the idea and go with your favored option. If
        > you're going to do that, then again, just hit delete.

        I appreciate the offer to ignore your posts, Gordon, but I want to
        make clear that if I'm able to do so (and believe me, I've tried),
        it wouldn't be because I cling to a "favored option", nor that I'm
        uninterested in the subject (the other possibility you mentioned
        when first talking of "hitting the delete key"), but rather because
        I find this approach - and your typical method of reasoning - both
        inadequate in process and unfruitful in results.

        Is your favored big picture possible? Of course it is - but so are
        many others. And like many others (e.g., the late-Mark theory), when
        one tries it out, one sees that it'll generally work (because theory
        is underdetermined by data), but that it doesn't work significantly
        better than alternative theories - or even as well. Aside from the
        fact that a late-Luke theory runs up against "the Q constraint",
        however, when one starts working with the suggested big picture, it
        quickly becomes frustratingly obvious that statements purporting to
        show how Luke consciously treated supposedly-earlier material (such
        as GJn, notably) are either question-begging and easily reversible
        (to show, e.g., how GLk was treated by John), or are so lacking in
        specific relevance to the other text in question as to suggest that
        the perceived opposition was incidental rather than intentional.
        (The apparent assumption that every writer was at least vaguely
        familiar with everything relevant written before his own time of
        writing would be fruitful if justifiable, but it isn't.) As to
        the "10 particulars", I'm glad to see (if I infer correctly) that
        you're going to do more work on them.

        Mike Grondin
        Mt. Clemens, MI
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.