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

8622Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Aug 8, 2002
      Emmanuel,

      This discussion is getting quite difficult. I am misunderstanding some
      of your attempts at English, and you are misunderstanding some of my
      correct English.

      Here are two examples.

      (A)

      You wrote:
      > ... an unknown document ...
      > ... we can legitimely say that it was
      > a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.

      The phrase "and not its own composition" does not make sense in English.
      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"
      >is from a different author
      Thus it seems that I must have misunderstood your earlier comment.

      (B)

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

      You replied:
      >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' is
      >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 ?

      I do not agree, for reasons already stated ( (1)-(4) ).

      >what is your evidence that Markan verses in Lk21:20-28
      > was included in your proto-Luke ?

      Because extracting these verses would spoil the excellent match
      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 to
      > declare 'implausible' even attested documents...

      Please give examples of such documents.

      >I would be glad if you may apply on
      >my proposition the same criteria you use for yours.

      I would apply the following criteria to a supposed earlier edition:

      (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
      the original.
      (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
      also (3).

      >each of the operations ..... show that on Lk21:20-28, the
      >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.

      You are extrapolating too far on the basis of one passage.
      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
      stand-alone document.

      > "Luke minus Mark"
      >looks as a quite clear denomination

      It suggests an operation on the whole of Luke. But you have not
      carried out such an operation.
      Therefore 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' would be a clearer
      designation.

      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