8630Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem
- Aug 23, 2002Since Ron want to reserve his arguments for publication,
this discussion is soon arrived to its end.
I said, and Ron answered :
> [...] OK : rough draft or proto-gospel, do you agreeIf you do not think that "Luke might have written a
> >that something has been written, once, looking as 'Luke
> >minus Mark on Lk 20-28' ?
> When I write: "Luke might have written a rough draft"
> I am contending that this action is plausible. This is not the
> same as saying that it is *probable*.
rough draft" is highly probable, then you should be
able to propose at least an alternative. This is the
goal of my insistance from the beginning.
Rough draft or anything else, do you agree that
something has been written, once, looking as 'Luke
minus Mark on Lk 20-28' ?
If not, you are waited to provide an alternative explanation.
> In any case I can't see the relevance of your division of theYES.
> possibilities. You seem to think the crucial question is whether
> something was written or not.
This is the first step.
If the existence of this "something" is accepted, we
may then decide what this "something" was in fact.
Is its existence accepted ?
> To me the crucial question is whetherAbsolutely not. If I want to argue for (a) or (b), I may say
> (a) the text is derived from some foreign (non-Lukan) source or
> (b) it formed part of an edition of the gospel produced by Luke
> before he produced the extant edition or
> (c) he made it up (with or without the use of a rough draft).
> If you wish to argue for (a) or (b), then you should either
> find other texts which belong to the supposed source/earlier
> edition, or demonstrate that the text is viable by itself.
that (c) is really improbable. And I would prefer this way,
rather than yours, since it is easier to argue: did you ever
heard about the rough draft of any old greek document ?
whithout further argument, the onus of proof is on the defender
of this rough draft.
There is nothing in (a) and (b) as problematic as this stange feature.
I would like to know how many members of this list would
agree with your rough draft...
> > ..... I provided severalOK. then, for a sake of economy, and until you publish your
> >arguments to show that we can locally improve your
> >hypothesis with this mix. You did not answer with
> >precise objections .....
> Sorry, but I can't give precise objections here as to why 'Luke minus
> Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is inconsistent with my 'First Edition of Luke'.
> The detailed case for the latter is complex and I'm currently trying to
> get it published.
arguments, we will consider that any hypothetical early edition
of Luke is expected to presented a text close to 'Luke minus Mark'
for Lk 21:20-28.
We are waiting for your challenging views.
> >What is the difference between source and early edition ?And not an early edition ?
> A source is generally produced by a different author in a different
> Sitz im Leben for a different purpose and a different audience.
Hey, since you prefer example found in modern times, I give you the
example of a french book, translated in english:
"An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism" by Leon
Vaganay & Christian-Bernard Amphoux. Cambridge University
The early french edition of this 'Initiation a la critique du Nouveau
Testament' has been published in 1933. The present one is dated 1988.
The first one is due to Vaganay, the second one to Amphoux. For the
differences of purposes and audience, just have a look on respective
Amphoux's and Vaganay's introductions. (if both have been translated).
My example is a bad one ? For those who think that modern edition is
not relevant when we are speaking about antiquity, OK, I will quote
the only example of double edition I ever heard in antiquity: Plinius
The tenth book was not included in the first edition. It contains pieces
from another hand (Trajan). It has not been published by Plinius, and not
for a litterary purpose (as the first edition), but added to the first
one with political views (according to my french edition).
> A source is generally produced by a different author in a differentYou said : "A source is generally...". This "generally" shows that
> Sitz im Leben for a different purpose and a different audience.
your distinction is highly fuzzy. This would not be too hard if it had
been just a semantic precision, but since the discrimination between
sources and editions commanded the criteria you use, you charge it
with a weight it can not carry on.
More over, your definition does not explain how you recognize a
source from an early edition, in an old-greek text. And if you can
not recognize with security a hypothetical source from an hypothetical
early edition, you may not be allowed to use different criteria for
hypothetical sources and hypothetical early editions, since a hypothetical
early edition may perhabs be a source, and a hypothetical source may
perhabs hide an early edition...
> >You choose the terminology for your convenience,I do not say that your distinction is not based on
> > but this is disconnected from facts.
> Many English books have been published in more than one edition.
> This is a fact.
> Many of these also quote from sources which they acknowledge.
> This is a fact.
> How then can you say that my distinction is not based on facts?
facts, I said "it is disconnected". And I may say
now that the gap of disconnexion is more than ten
I apologize, but I would prefer example found in antiquity.
> Is itSure you may attempt. But there is no warrant that you will succeed.
> not the same with French books? If you distinguish between an earlier
> edition and a source in a modern French book, why not attempt to do the
> same in ancient Greek books?
And in fact, since there is no prima facie evidence to decide if a
given text is an earlier edition or another kind of source, it looks
difficult to ground your criteria on this distinction.
- the way-to-do to distinguish between sources and editions has not been defined
- but you are yet building some criteria on this distinguishing operation.
Is it not building on sand ?
> >Where is the rule that require a precise Sitz im Leben to be known toSure. And when at least one single evidence has been provided,
> >allow a document to have existed ?
> Perhaps we differ in regard to what we call the 'onus of proof'. I
> contend that the onus here should be on the person asserting the
> existence of a hypothetical document/earlier edition to provide
> sufficient evidence of its existence.
the onus of proof is on the person asserting the inexistence, to provide
a better account of facts that base the alledged evidences.
For my part, I do not yet assert the existence of a hypothetical document
nor an earlier edition. I just ask for explanation of 'Luke minus Mark'
phenomenon. If nobody provides any good explanation for the phenomenon,
I will get bad ideas about synoptic problem...
> >I beg you pardon. I still not undersand how the end of ActsAnd so ? We have some precision about 30-60. Less precision about
> >around 60 make the Sitz im Leben of 70-100 less problematic
> >than for the previous.
> For Christian documents dated ca. 70-110 CE it is more difficult to
> establish a Sitz im Leben because no contemporary Christian wrote a
> history of the period.
70-110. How do you deduce that the lack of knowledge about a deduced
source dated perhabs from 30-60, perhabs 60-80, is an evidence that this
source is a fake ?
The link between both questions (date and Sitz im Leben, vs probability
of existence) is far away from my understanding.
> > [the Sitz im Leben for 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is]May be. Or may be not.
> > the same as [for] Luke.
> So presumably it was written at about the same time as Luke.
Since the date of gospel according Luke and its Sitz im Leben are not precise,
and subject to many discussion, all considerations of source date, and source
Sitz im Leben are useless and lost time.
> If so, have you observed anything which would allow you to distinguish** For history of christianity :
> between a rough draft and a formal document in this case? If not, and if
> your argument about 'Luke
> minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 proved to be correct, what would be its
> significance for the history of the synoptics outside Lk 21:20-28 or for
> the history of Christianity?
A synoptic theory should not be first evaluated by its productivity
in our knowledge of early christianity, but in our understanding of
A theory should fit first the synoptic phenomenon. When the good
theory is found, historians will examine what we will learn about
early christianity. A synoptic theory should never be evaluated
through the nice new information it provides about early christianity,
unless this nice information would appear in fact as imagination, and
the theory built on sands.
And if the best synoptic theory does not provide any information
about early christianity, we should accept it, and are not allowed
to consider this lack of knowledge as a bad point for the theory.
** For history of synoptics :
Any theory that does not account the 'Luke minus Mark' phenomenon
should be considered as doubtful: we should allways prefer reallity
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>