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

8620Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Aug 6, 2002
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

      >* Have you a better denomination than 'Luke minus Mark' ? If not, then let
      >us speak about 'Luke minus Mark' rather than "what I call 'Luke minus Mark'"

      Emmanuel,

      You are being hyper-critical here. You introduced the term 'Luke minus
      Mark'.

      >* Do you have a good evidence about this rough draft, or is it just
      >an "ad hoc" proposition designed for that special case ?

      I wrote "might have written", implying a lack of definite evidence.

      >Since you aknowledge the existence of proto-Luke, may you give a good
      >evidence that 'Luke minus Mark' and this proto-Luke, are two different
      >documents ?

      Your document is a mere subset of 9 verses. Mine is approx. 17000
      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 description
      >of proto-Luke is based on evidences as strong as the "Luke minus Mark"
      >argument.

      It's stronger, and I'm currently trying to publish the material of
      which this is a small part.

      >> The following (based on my own criticisms of the hypothetical Q):
      >> Any hypothetical source must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
      >> Therefore
      >> (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
      >> document.

      > ..... your criteria looks over estimated, and let any
      >lost documents impossible to find. In fact, those criteria allow to
      >declare 'implausible' even attested documents...

      The criteria are strict in order to exclude imaginative creations
      which have no basis in history.

      >But, perhabs, I misunderstood your criteria. If you think so, you may
      >show where I miss, by applying your criteria on the existence of the
      >proto-Luke you ackowledge.

      My criteria are meant to apply to hypothetical documents by a
      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 document
      >>>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 ?

      Vocabulary that is common in Luke but uncommon in Mark and Matthew.

      >First operation : delete in Luke all groups of 3 words or more also present
      > 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
      >needed
      > 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
      >result.

      If these three are meant to be alternatives, how do you decide which
      should be used to achieve your goal?

      >There are a small default in 'Luke minus Mark', when applying the second
      >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.

      It might have been impressive if the resulting text had been plausible
      as a stand-alone document. I make the same criticism of Q.

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      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@...
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic