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

[Synoptic-L] if confident to Papias, why not to Luke ?

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    I read the thread If Luke knew Matthew with a great ... If Papias attest TA LOGIA, or whatever other document, then perhabs should we think that Luke attest
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 31, 2001
      I read the thread "If Luke knew Matthew" with a great
      interest, and I have just a question to Ron :

      > It depends which way we look at it. As I see it, you have two
      > hypothetical documents. I have none, because I equate sQ with Papias' TA
      > LOGIA. A historically attested document is not hypothetical.

      If Papias attest TA LOGIA, or whatever other document, then
      perhabs should we think that Luke attest for at least two
      previous documents, and in fact "many" ?

      In that case, all documents alledged as source of Luke, for
      instance pt-Lk, pt-Mk, and so on, should not be counted as
      hypothetical.

      Or are we more confident with the testimony of Papias than
      with the one of Luke ?

      a+
      manu

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ron Price
      ... Emmanuel, Absolutely right. I m confident that he was attesting Mark and Matthew. ... But we can t be sure that there were any more than two. My view is
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 1, 2001
        I wrote:

        >> ..... I equate sQ with Papias' TA
        >> LOGIA. A historically attested document is not hypothetical.

        Emmanuel Fritsch replied:

        >If Papias attest TA LOGIA, or whatever other document, then
        >perhabs should we think that Luke attest for at least two
        >previous documents

        Emmanuel,
        Absolutely right. I'm confident that he was attesting Mark and
        Matthew.

        > ..... and in fact "many" ?
        >
        >In that case, all documents alledged as source of Luke, for
        >instance pt-Lk, pt-Mk, and so on, should not be counted as
        >hypothetical.

        But we can't be sure that there were any more than two. My view is that
        Luke was using a little gentle exaggerated self-criticism, i.e.
        apologizing for writing yet another gospel when there were already
        "many" (though actually only two) such documents.

        >Or are we more confident with the testimony of Papias than
        >with the one of Luke ?

        Luke's statement is less precise. Papias' statement most naturally
        refers to one document. No one knows how many accounts Luke had in mind
        in 1:1.

        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@...
      • Emmanuel Fritsch
        ... In that case, you should be more combative against Mk 1:4 as a proof of Mark knowing Luke ;-) ... Why only two ? When he says many, how may you be sure it
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 2, 2001
          Ron wrote :
          > >> ..... I equate sQ with Papias' TA
          > >> LOGIA. A historically attested document is not hypothetical.
          >
          > Emmanuel Fritsch replied:
          > >If Papias attest TA LOGIA, or whatever other document, then
          > >perhabs should we think that Luke attest for at least two
          > >previous documents
          >
          > Emmanuel,
          > Absolutely right. I'm confident that he was attesting Mark and
          > Matthew.

          In that case, you should be more combative against
          Mk 1:4 as a proof of Mark knowing Luke ;-)

          > > ..... and in fact "many" ?
          > >
          > >In that case, all documents alledged as source of Luke, for
          > >instance pt-Lk, pt-Mk, and so on, should not be counted as
          > >hypothetical.
          >
          > But we can't be sure that there were any more than two. My view is that
          > Luke was using a little gentle exaggerated self-criticism, i.e.
          > apologizing for writing yet another gospel when there were already
          > "many" (though actually only two) such documents.

          Why only two ? When he says many, how may you be sure it is not more ?

          And how do you know that what you give to Luke may not
          be given to Papias ? If Luke were a half-Liar, is it
          possible to be so confident with Papias ?

          > >Or are we more confident with the testimony of Papias than
          > >with the one of Luke ?
          >
          > Luke's statement is less precise. Papias' statement most naturally
          > refers to one document. No one knows how many accounts Luke had in mind
          > in 1:1.

          Luke's statement is less precise, but he refers to more than
          two (if many has the same sense in greek, english and french)

          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.