8626Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem
- Aug 13, 2002Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
>You have not answered the question : if this phenomenon is notEmmanuel,
>a track of an earlier redaction for Lk 21:20-28 (proto-gospel
>or rough draft), then where does it come from ?
I answered this question several days ago as follows:
>> ..... Luke might haveIn other words he thought it up himself (in order to make the text a
>> written out a rough draft of what you call 'Luke minus Mark' for
>> Lk 21:20-28 before combining his input with Mark.
better match with the events which occurred at the Fall of Jerusalem).
In my opinion this is far more likely than your hypothetical source
>> You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.Your original suggestion that 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 was
>> ..... 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 ...
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 sourceNot at all. As I see it (and this is partly a question of terminology)
>> had been written by someone other than the author of the extant
>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".
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 :Not bias, just the use of ordinary observation of the world in order
>"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 ?
to assess the likelihood of past events.
>We may allways assert that any "hypothetical source" has a goodIf 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 structureBut I can. I've made a detailed study of the structures of the NT
>even for known gospels ?
>In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :You seem to be missing my point. Your 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk
>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
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 commonGiven time I could demonstrate that two of the four canonical gospels
>praxis in early christianity ?
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 withAs it happens, the criteria I have used to derive the original
>the idea that early edition is a more probable document that generic
>unknown sources, allowing you to choose less strict criteria)
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
>The Sitz im Leben of all hypothetical document would be the same as theIt's not sufficiently precise. Please note that I have myself made a
>Sitz im Leben of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John : Early christianity.
>Where is the problem with that Sitz im Leben ?
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,You shouldn't have. But you do have. For I suggest you are quite
>why would we have any problem with the Sitz im Leben of any
>"hypothetical source" ?
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.No. I only try to discredit hypothetical sources for which there is
>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.
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 >>