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
> Absolutely right. I'm confident that he was attesting Mark and
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
> 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)
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...