8616Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem
- Aug 5, 2002Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
>The only arguments against proto-Luke is an argument of economy :Emmanuel,
>"why is it needed to assume an unknown document when it is not needed ?
>Occam razor urges us to cut all unnecessary hypotheses". The argument is
>valid, but Lk 21:20-28 shows us that perhabs an unknown document is
>Ron Price proposes as an objection that Luke would have composed his
>own gospel, and incorporated Mark material after.
No. That is not what I meant (see below).
>Considering that Luke 21:20-28 is based on an unknown documentThen there should be linguistic evidence that the parts which don't
>that the redactor prefered to Mark, we can legitimely say that it was
>a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.
overlap with Mark do not have Lukan vocabulary or style.
>* clumsiness is a weak argument in general, since redactor clumsinessWhen we already have reason to believe that an author is redacting an
>may be used to rebuke the significance of any redactional phenomenon.
older document, a degree of clumsiness can reasonably be attributed to
that redaction. By Occam's razor we should be reluctant to use such
clumsiness as evidence of yet another source.
>>> ..... as I said above, if you substractPrecise enough to make a definitive decision on "shemeia" etc. ?
>>>"shemeia" and "esontai", you should do the same with "on earth".
>> This suggests that we need a precise set of rules in order to define a
>> fair 'subtraction' process.
>I proposed three different possible rules, and each one is precise.
>>>I agree with the lack of verb for "distress".The anomalous absence of a verb is quite rare in Mark or Luke.
>> So we agree that 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is not a
>> *completely* logical text.
>"Luke minus Mark" IS a logical text, as logical as Mark or
Therefore 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is not as logical as a
typical text of similar size from Mark or Luke.
>> Anyway I'm not convinced it indicates a stand-alone source. PerhapsSteady on. I didn't mean that. I only meant that Luke might have
>> Luke wrote out in rough what he wanted to add to Mark before composing
>> his text.
>Ron, do you really think what you are writing here ?
>Luke would have composed his own version of the gospel .....
written out a rough draft of what you call 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk
21:20-28 before combining his input with Mark.
>I have three questions :No. Indeed if "proto-Luke" means an earlier edition of Luke, then I'm
>* Do you think the existence of proto-Luke is absolutely impossible ?
quite sure there *was* a proto-Luke! (The first edition was very roughly
our present text minus the birth narratives.) But you appear to mean 'a
written source' rather than an earlier edition of Luke, for a subset of
Lk 21:20-28 cannot be described as an earlier edition of Luke.
>* If you acknowledge it to be possible, why the present situationSee below.
> is not a good evidence of its existence ?
>* What would be a good evidence according you, for existence or inexistence ?The following (based on my own criticisms of the hypothetical Q):
Any hypothetical source must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
(1) it must look complete, be internally consistent and well structured
(2) there must be a plausible motivation for its composition
(3) there should be a plausible Sitz im Leben for its production
(4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>