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

Re: [Synoptic-L] double genealogy in posited greek notes ?

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    Another ping-pong answer to Brian - the last one for me on that thread. I ask some question on Papias in another thread. ... Once again, a little
    Message 1 of 33 , Oct 17, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Another ping-pong answer to Brian - the last one for me on that
      thread. I ask some question on Papias in another thread.

      > >But the main great trouble in your theory relies in the original
      > >documents : your Greek Notes, and the aramaic logia, look as some
      > >monstruous features, a kind of objects that nobody has ever seen.
      > >
      > I think if you were to take seriously the tradition of the Elder
      > preserved by Papias and preserved by Eusebius, you would see that in
      > that tradition the Aramaic Logia and their Greek translation existed.

      Once again, a little misunderstanding : the monstruous feature is
      not the existence of Aramaic Logia and Greek Notes, but the detailed
      description you give for them, with this strange double genealogy.


      > >I do not want to come back on the validity of Boismard. I just observe
      > >that whatever you claim, we observe at least a lack of confirming data
      > >for your theory.
      > >
      > In other words, you do not see that my hypothesis can be logically
      > deduced from the observed data. My Logia Translation Hypothesis "goes
      > beyond the observed data". I agree totally and absolutely with this.
      > [...] A hypothesis is precisely an idea that is put forward to be
      > tested against the observable data. [...]

      I probably smoothed my though a little bit : "at least
      a lack of confirming data for your theory", I meant that
      some aspects of your hypothesis looks hard to fit the fact.


      > >Where are the data that allow to imagine seriously a double genealogy
      > >in a single document (this thread) ?
      >
      > Such a rhetorical question reveals a lack of understanding of what the
      > synoptic problem is.

      Absolutely not. Before developping all the consequencies of a theory
      and checking them with facts, the plausibility a-priori of the
      hypothesis may be evaluated.

      If your hypothesis posits a feature that looks hard to accept,
      as a double genealogy (for my eyes) then I may ask you for similar
      features.

      > >For each strange characteristic you posit to your greek notes, it would
      > >be great if we had an example of attested old document, either
      > >christian, jewish or pagan, presenting that characteristic.
      >
      > Such old documents are not only attested but are extant. Do you not know
      > of books based on notes from the first century, or books of the TENACH
      > containing contradictions (like the two contradicting creation
      > accounts), or books of the NT that are a concatenation of short
      > pericopes, and so on?

      Yes and no. Yes, I know about contradiction in genesis, and so on.
      But (and perhabs I am alone in that case) the double genealogy you
      posited in your greek notes hurt me much more than all the
      contradictions found in NT and OT.

      And here come another idea : if you alledge the first chapters of
      Genesis as a model for your posited greek notes, I will remember
      the documentary study on Genesis. Existing Genesis is a later merge
      of previous independent documents. If you claim for the Genesis
      parallel, you should add, for a sake of coherence, at least two
      unknown earlier documents to LTH.

      But what appears to me as a lack of coherence in your positions
      may probably appear to you as bad rhetoric from mine. List readers
      will judge.


      > >Or let us think your greek notes are kinds of triceratops eggs
      > >landing on first century Roman Empire.
      > >
      > I would suggest that most people reading this List (and many do) would
      > find this last comment such painfully cracked rhetoric that they would
      > rather not "think" any such thing. :)

      I apologize if the triceratops eggs hurt you : due to my bad level
      in english, I have sometimes trouble to find the technical good word,
      and use rather an image.

      a+
      manu

      PS - some deriving questions :
      > It seems to me that you are trying continually to find a deductive proof
      > of what must have happened when the synoptic gospels were written.

      Yes and not.

      Not "continually" : not in this thread, dedicated to your theory.

      But yes, the main problem for me is an historical one.
      I would like to understand what have happened when the
      synoptic gospels were written. And deduction seems a
      good tool for that task.

      > Such an approach is literally absurd, and has nothing to do
      > with solving the synoptic problem.

      Sure for you the synoptic problem is not a historical problem.

      > My hypothesis is confirmed by showing that it fits well the
      > observable data.

      Not all observable data.
      But this is the thread on story duality.

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Emmanuel Fritsch
      ... OK, your compute looks good. I will analyse it. There is just a little question we have still to solve, when you wrote : If the expected numbers are
      Message 33 of 33 , Nov 12, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > For the calculated
        > probabilities above can also be used to estimate the number of dua-
        > stories, simple and composite, that would be expected to occur in each
        > synoptic gospel, and these expectations can be checked against the
        > observed numbers. If the expected numbers are wildly different from the
        > observed, then this would throw doubt on the LTH. If they are reasonably
        > close, this would support the LTH. We should expect --

        OK, your compute looks good. I will analyse it.
        There is just a little question we have still to solve,
        when you wrote : "If the expected numbers are wildly
        different from the observed, then this would throw
        doubt on the LTH", we have to decide how significant
        should be that difference.

        But in fact, given the low number of story duality,
        I think it will be hard to compute the significance
        of the results, and I will retract my assertion on
        composite story lack in triple tradition

        More precision later.

        a+
        manu

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.