8620Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem
- Aug 6, 2002Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
>* Have you a better denomination than 'Luke minus Mark' ? If not, then letEmmanuel,
>us speak about 'Luke minus Mark' rather than "what I call 'Luke minus Mark'"
You are being hyper-critical here. You introduced the term 'Luke minus
>* Do you have a good evidence about this rough draft, or is it justI wrote "might have written", implying a lack of definite evidence.
>an "ad hoc" proposition designed for that special case ?
>Since you aknowledge the existence of proto-Luke, may you give a goodYour document is a mere subset of 9 verses. Mine is approx. 17000
>evidence that 'Luke minus Mark' and this proto-Luke, are two different
words. To equate these would be ridiculous.
If you are asking whether your few verses excluding the verses related
to Mark could have been part of my proto-Luke, the proper answer is
"No", because my proto-Luke (i.e. the first edition of Luke) contained
the *whole* of what we now call chapter 21.
>I would also ask you (but it is another question) if your descriptionIt's stronger, and I'm currently trying to publish the material of
>of proto-Luke is based on evidences as strong as the "Luke minus Mark"
which this is a small part.
>> The following (based on my own criticisms of the hypothetical Q):The criteria are strict in order to exclude imaginative creations
>> 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
> ..... your criteria looks over estimated, and let any
>lost documents impossible to find. In fact, those criteria allow to
>declare 'implausible' even attested documents...
which have no basis in history.
>But, perhabs, I misunderstood your criteria. If you think so, you mayMy criteria are meant to apply to hypothetical documents by a
>show where I miss, by applying your criteria on the existence of the
>proto-Luke you ackowledge.
different author. If we're looking for an earlier edition by the same
author, the criteria would be different.
>>>Considering that Luke 21:20-28 is based on an unknown documentVocabulary that is common in Luke but uncommon in Mark and Matthew.
>>>that the redactor prefered to Mark, we can legitimely say that it was
>>>a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.
>> Then there should be linguistic evidence that the parts which don't
>> overlap with Mark do not have Lukan vocabulary or style.
>What is Lukan vocabulary ?
>First operation : delete in Luke all groups of 3 words or more also presentIf these three are meant to be alternatives, how do you decide which
> in Mark, in contiguity in both Luke or Mark.
>Second operation : delete in Luke all groups of 3 contiguous words that are
> also present in Mark.
>Third operation : delete in Luke all words that appear in Mark, and is not
> by the context.
>Naturally, liaison and conjonction should not be included (kai, etc).
>Each one of this substraction gives a good "Luke minus Mark" interesting
should be used to achieve your goal?
>There are a small default in 'Luke minus Mark', when applying the secondIt might have been impressive if the resulting text had been plausible
>and the third substraction definition (not with the first). There are small
>defaults in Luke, nad Mark also. If you consider that 'Luke minus Mark'
>is not an edited text, but what it remains after its edition into our present
>Luke, the good composition of 'Luke minus Mark' is impressive.
as a stand-alone document. I make the same criticism of Q.
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 >>