8622Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem
- Aug 8, 2002Emmanuel,
This discussion is getting quite difficult. I am misunderstanding some
of your attempts at English, and you are misunderstanding some of my
Here are two examples.
> ... an unknown document ...The phrase "and not its own composition" does not make sense in English.
> ... we can legitimely say that it was
> a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.
I took it to mean "and not his [i.e. Luke's] own composition".
This interpretation seemed to be confirmed when I made a comment about
an expected distinction in Lukan vocabulary, for you asked what I meant
by 'Lukan vocabulary' rather than saying that it was probably Luke who
wrote 'Luke minus Mark'.
But in a later posting you wrote:
>Since I never said that the document standing beside "Luke minus Mark"Thus it seems that I must have misunderstood your earlier comment.
>is from a different author
>> The criteria are strict in order to exclude imaginative creationsYou replied:
>> which have no basis in history.
>Where did you prove that your criteria are "strict in order" ?Thus you misunderstood the English phrase "in order to" which relates to
purpose and not to sequence.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 'Luke minus Mark' isI do not agree, for reasons already stated ( (1)-(4) ).
>the image of a text, which was something between a Lukan rough
>draft, a set of Jesus document, and a part of a whole gospel .....
>You agree that 'Luke minus Mark' is a good evidence for a document
>that belongs to one of the category given here before ?
>what is your evidence that Markan verses in Lk21:20-28Because extracting these verses would spoil the excellent match
> was included in your proto-Luke ?
between sections and pages in my model for the first edition of Luke.
Sorry, but I can't explain further until such time as I succeed in
publishing the material.
> ..... those criteria allow toPlease give examples of such documents.
> declare 'implausible' even attested documents...
>I would be glad if you may apply onI would apply the following criteria to a supposed earlier edition:
>my proposition the same criteria you use for yours.
(1) It must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
(2) It should not be very much smaller than the extant document, say no
less than 50% of its size, for new editions rarely double the size of
(3) Its structure should be *better* than the extant document, because
editions subsequent to the first are usually less well structured.
My proposed 'First Edition of Luke' passes all three criteria.
Your 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' fails (1) and (2), and arguably
>each of the operations ..... show that on Lk21:20-28, theYou are extrapolating too far on the basis of one passage.
>primary source is not Mark, but an unknown document (whatever
>it is : a whole gospel, or a rough draft, or whatever you want)
>whose "Luke minus Mark" is a better image (on Lk 21:20-28)
>than extent Luke.
I would take your claim more seriously if you were to:
(a) apply the method successfully to several passages
(b) then show that the resulting combined text makes sense as a
> "Luke minus Mark"It suggests an operation on the whole of Luke. But you have not
>looks as a quite clear denomination
carried out such an operation.
Therefore 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' would be a clearer
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 >>