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

8626Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    Aug 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

      >You have not answered the question : if this phenomenon is not
      >a track of an earlier redaction for Lk 21:20-28 (proto-gospel
      >or rough draft), then where does it come from ?

      Emmanuel,

      I answered this question several days ago as follows:

      >> ..... Luke might have
      >> written out a rough draft of what you call 'Luke minus Mark' for
      >> Lk 21:20-28 before combining his input with Mark.

      In other words he thought it up himself (in order to make the text a
      better match with the events which occurred at the Fall of Jerusalem).
      In my opinion this is far more likely than your hypothetical source
      document.

      >> You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.
      >> ..... There is a world of difference between your vague
      >> suggestion and my precise hypothesis.

      >My suggestion is really precise : I take your work, and I replace ...

      Your original suggestion that 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 was
      probably part of a larger document was imprecise insofar as you couldn't
      say what was in the rest of the document.
      But here you propose mixing your hypothesis with mine, and I've told
      you already that it wouldn't work. Just because two hypotheses are each
      plausible by themselves doesn't mean that you can necessarily put them
      together and get a plausible hypothesis from the combination.

      >> I was assuming .... what is almost always true, namely that the source
      >> had been written by someone other than the author of the extant
      >> document.

      >Hey, do you forget your method ? If the difference of author is
      >"almost always true", then "earlier edition" by the same author is
      >very very rare. In that case, according your own method, you should
      >add a new criteria that exclude any "earlier edition".

      Not at all. As I see it (and this is partly a question of terminology)
      there are four possibilities for a 'base document': a separate source by
      the same or a different author, and an earlier edition by the same or a
      different author. For simplicity I was considering only what I think are
      the most common cases, i.e. a separate source by a different author and
      an earlier edition by the same author.

      >This was your method for size and structure of earlier editions (I quote :
      >"for new editions rarely double the size of the original" and : "because
      >editions subsequent to the first are usually less well structured"). Is that
      >not a bias in the application of your method ?

      Not bias, just the use of ordinary observation of the world in order
      to assess the likelihood of past events.

      >We may allways assert that any "hypothetical source" has a good
      >structure,

      If you don't know the content of your hypothetical source, then of
      course you can't know its structure, and any assertion that it has a
      good structure would be without foundation. If you *do* know its content
      then it would be nonsense to say "This source is structured" without
      being able to demonstrate it.

      > ..... how will you check it if you can not check the structure
      >even for known gospels ?

      But I can. I've made a detailed study of the structures of the NT
      books.

      >In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
      >it looks as a fragment. We do not know exactly of what, but it
      >looks as a gospel (the closest texts to that fragment are whole
      >gospels). And as for a scrap, the text is corrupted, so that we may
      >not warrant that the reading we find is exactly the original document:
      >the 'Luke minus Mark' operation gives just a track, an image, of a
      >previous document.

      You seem to be missing my point. Your 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk
      21:20-28 is nothing like a scrap of papyrus. You can examine a scrap of
      papyrus and *know* its wording must have been part of a larger document.
      Your scrap could be, and in my opinion probably is, a hypothetical
      construct which did not exist until Luke thought of it.

      >where are your model which show us that a double edition was a common
      >praxis in early christianity ?

      Given time I could demonstrate that two of the four canonical gospels
      ran into multiple editions. The detailed arguments for John can already
      be found on my Web site.

      >(I do not disagree with early edition at all, but I disagree with
      >the idea that early edition is a more probable document that generic
      >unknown sources, allowing you to choose less strict criteria)

      As it happens, the criteria I have used to derive the original
      editions of Luke and John are very much stricter than those mentioned
      earlier in this thread - see the constraints I put on the first edition
      of John.

      >The Sitz im Leben of all hypothetical document would be the same as the
      >Sitz im Leben of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John : Early christianity.
      >Where is the problem with that Sitz im Leben ?

      It's not sufficiently precise. Please note that I have myself made a
      detailed reconstruction of a proposed gospel source document. It's
      called 'sQ' and it has a very clear Sitz im Leben. You can check it out
      on my Web site under 'synoptic gospel sources'.

      Anyway there is a crucial difference which is often forgotten.
      The period prior to the gospels, when Q was supposedly being written,
      is covered by Acts. There is no such early historical record for the
      period when the canonical gospels were being written, i.e. between
      around 70 CE and 110 CE. Therefore we should reasonably expect to be
      able to provide more precise Sitz information for any supposed early
      Christian gospel source than for the gospel itself.

      >If we have no problem to find a Sitz im Leben for canonical gospels,
      >why would we have any problem with the Sitz im Leben of any
      >"hypothetical source" ?

      You shouldn't have. But you do have. For I suggest you are quite
      unable to give a detailed description of the the Sitz im Leben for 'Luke
      minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28.

      >What is "probable" has to be decided in regards with facts.

      Yes indeed.

      >Your criteria looks as universal remedy. They do not fit with facts.
      >They look based upon a vague idea of problems of previous generation
      >theories, and a deep need to kill fast and wide all "hypothetical sources",
      >in order to avoid some headache.

      No. I only try to discredit hypothetical sources for which there is
      insufficient evidence.

      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