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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Tim Reynolds
    ... Might not these verses come from the same source as 1.5-2.52? We already know (pace Griesbach) that this source can override Mk, and both sequences run to
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 5, 2002
      on 8/5/02 1:38 AM, Emmanuel Fritsch at emmanuel.fritsch@... wrote:

      >
      > Conclusion of this discussion with Ron Price,
      >
      > The only arguments against proto-Luke is an argument of economy :
      > "why is it needed to assume an unknown document when it is not needed ?
      > Occam razor urges us to cut all unnecessary hypotheses". The argument is
      > valid, but Lk 21:20-28 shows us that perhabs an unknown document is
      > needed.
      > Ron Price proposes as an objection that Luke would have composed his
      > own gospel, and incorporated Mark material after. Where is the economy in
      > this process ? All the economy benefits of 2SH are wasted here in a single
      > hypothesis, which is not only unneeded, but also quite implausible.
      >
      > Considering that Luke 21:20-28 is based on an unknown document
      > that the redactor prefered to Mark, we can legitimely say that it was
      > a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.
      >
      > The existence of an unknown document is not an unneeded hypothesis.
      > Against the existence of proto-Luke, are there arguments any left ?
      >
      > I would be glad for any objection from other list members against my
      > arguments.
      >
      >
      > Some answers to Ron :
      >
      >>> Now, I may criticize the explanation you propose :
      >>> - it is quite circular : verses 20 and 21b-22 are a little
      >>> clumsy, because the "addition of verses 20 and 21b-22 was a
      >>> little clumsy"
      >>
      >> My statement may have been badly worded. Let me put it this way. The
      >> awkwardness in verses 20-22 can be adequately explained by Luke's
      >> editorial clumsiness. You may disagree. But it is not a circular
      >> argument.
      >
      > You are right. Exageration from mine. It is not a circular argument,
      > but a very weak one :
      > * clumsiness is a weak argument in general, since redactor clumsiness
      > may be used to rebuke the significance of any redactional phenomenon.
      > All universal argument are weak arguments. So, when I alledge the
      > clumsiness of a redactor, I am using my last ammo.
      > * in the special case of synoptic phenomenon, clumsiness is
      > particularly weak because a lot of alledged clumsinesses (for
      > instance the mine/talent pericopae) fit better with a merging
      > process. The accumulation of such alledged clumsiness in
      > merged-like context is an evidence that clumsiness is the
      > bad answer.
      >
      >
      >>> It does absolutely not explain the improvement reached
      >>> by the "Luke minus Mark" operation.
      >>> .....
      >>> "on earth"
      >>> is not a problem, because, as I said above, if you substract
      >>> "shemeia" and "esontai", you should do the same with "on earth".
      >>
      >> This suggests that we need a precise set of rules in order to define a
      >> fair 'subtraction' process.
      >
      > I proposed three different possible rules, and each one is precise.
      > They are close, one to the other, and for that reason, the
      > results are similar : "Luke minus Mark" looks as a composed
      > document, and not as rubish, as it should look if it had been
      > Luke's additions on his sources.
      >
      > Here, the primary source is the unknown document, and the rubish,
      > ie the additions, come from Mark. Quite nice, no ?
      >
      >
      >>> I agree with the lack of verb for "distress".
      >>
      >> So we agree that 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is not a
      >> *completely* logical text.
      >
      > "Luke minus Mark" IS a logical text, as logical as Mark or
      > Luke alone. If you want to see what is a not-logical text,
      > you may just isolate Markan sentences in Lk 21:20-28.
      >
      >
      >> Anyway I'm not convinced it indicates a stand-alone source. Perhaps
      >> Luke wrote out in rough what he wanted to add to Mark before composing
      >> his text.
      >
      > Ron, do you really think what you are writing here ?
      > Luke would have composed his own version of the gospel, and then,
      > he would have considered it as more authoritative than Mark ? Do
      > you really want to let us think that Luke was a crank ?
      >
      > Did you think how such arguments may be used ?
      > For instance, I may say that Luke wrote first. Then Matthew composed
      > his own gospel "in rough", and then introduced some sentences, words
      > and thema from Luke. And finally, Mark composed his own gospel, "in
      > rough" and introduced some sentences words and thema from Luke and
      > Matthew... and, hourra, the synoptic problem is solved !
      >
      > I have three questions :
      > * Do you think the existence of proto-Luke is absolutely impossible ?
      > * If you acknowledge it to be possible, why the present situation
      > is not a good evidence of its existence ?
      > * What would be a good evidence according you, for existence or inexistence ?
      >
      >
      >> Are you able to outline the whole content of your "proto-Luke"? It may
      >> be easier to assess the feasibility of the whole as a stand-alone
      >> document than to assess an isolated part of it.
      >
      > You are right. As I say in conclusion, (at the beginning of this mail),
      > we have a good proof for an unknown document, and not for a whole
      > unknown gospel. But this proof is also a rebuke of the economy argument
      > alledged against proto-Luke : in order to understand Lukan redaction,
      > unknown documents are not "unneeded" and all interpretation should deal
      > with them.
      >
      > a+
      > manu
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

      Might not these verses come from the same source as 1.5-2.52? We already
      know (pace Griesbach) that this source can override Mk, and both sequences
      run to heightened prose.

      tim



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ron Price
      ... Emmanuel, No. That is not what I meant (see below). ... Then there should be linguistic evidence that the parts which don t overlap with Mark do not have
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 5, 2002
        Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

        >The only arguments against proto-Luke is an argument of economy :
        >"why is it needed to assume an unknown document when it is not needed ?
        >Occam razor urges us to cut all unnecessary hypotheses". The argument is
        >valid, but Lk 21:20-28 shows us that perhabs an unknown document is
        >needed.
        >Ron Price proposes as an objection that Luke would have composed his
        >own gospel, and incorporated Mark material after.

        Emmanuel,

        No. That is not what I meant (see below).

        >Considering that Luke 21:20-28 is based on an unknown document
        >that the redactor prefered to Mark, we can legitimely say that it was
        >a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.

        Then there should be linguistic evidence that the parts which don't
        overlap with Mark do not have Lukan vocabulary or style.

        >* clumsiness is a weak argument in general, since redactor clumsiness
        >may be used to rebuke the significance of any redactional phenomenon.

        When we already have reason to believe that an author is redacting an
        older document, a degree of clumsiness can reasonably be attributed to
        that redaction. By Occam's razor we should be reluctant to use such
        clumsiness as evidence of yet another source.

        >>> ..... as I said above, if you substract
        >>>"shemeia" and "esontai", you should do the same with "on earth".

        >> This suggests that we need a precise set of rules in order to define a
        >> fair 'subtraction' process.

        >I proposed three different possible rules, and each one is precise.

        Precise enough to make a definitive decision on "shemeia" etc. ?

        >>>I agree with the lack of verb for "distress".

        >> So we agree that 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is not a
        >> *completely* logical text.

        >"Luke minus Mark" IS a logical text, as logical as Mark or
        >Luke alone.

        The anomalous absence of a verb is quite rare in Mark or Luke.
        Therefore 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is not as logical as a
        typical text of similar size from Mark or Luke.

        >> Anyway I'm not convinced it indicates a stand-alone source. Perhaps
        >> Luke wrote out in rough what he wanted to add to Mark before composing
        >> his text.

        >Ron, do you really think what you are writing here ?
        >Luke would have composed his own version of the gospel .....

        Steady on. I didn't mean that. I only meant that Luke might have
        written out a rough draft of what you call 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk
        21:20-28 before combining his input with Mark.

        >I have three questions :
        >* Do you think the existence of proto-Luke is absolutely impossible ?

        No. Indeed if "proto-Luke" means an earlier edition of Luke, then I'm
        quite sure there *was* a proto-Luke! (The first edition was very roughly
        our present text minus the birth narratives.) But you appear to mean 'a
        written source' rather than an earlier edition of Luke, for a subset of
        Lk 21:20-28 cannot be described as an earlier edition of Luke.

        >* If you acknowledge it to be possible, why the present situation
        > is not a good evidence of its existence ?

        See below.

        >* What would be a good evidence according you, for existence or inexistence ?

        The following (based on my own criticisms of the hypothetical Q):
        Any hypothetical source must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
        Therefore
        (1) it must look complete, be internally consistent and well structured
        (2) there must be a plausible motivation for its composition
        (3) there should be a plausible Sitz im Leben for its production
        (4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
        theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
        document.

        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
        I wrote and Ron Price answered : (discussions on details are rejected in PS) ... * Have you a better denomination than Luke minus Mark ? If not, then let us
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 6, 2002
          I wrote and Ron Price answered :
          (discussions on details are rejected in PS)

          > >> Anyway I'm not convinced it indicates a stand-alone source. Perhaps
          > >> Luke wrote out in rough what he wanted to add to Mark before composing
          > >> his text.
          >
          > >Ron, do you really think what you are writing here ?
          > >Luke would have composed his own version of the gospel .....
          >
          > Steady on. I didn't mean that. I only meant that Luke might have
          > written out a rough draft of what you call 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk
          > 21:20-28 before combining his input with Mark.

          * Have you a better denomination than 'Luke minus Mark' ? If not, then let
          us speak about 'Luke minus Mark' rather than "what I call 'Luke minus Mark'".

          * Do you have a good evidence about this rough draft, or is it just
          an "ad hoc" proposition designed for that special case ?


          > >I have three questions :
          > >* Do you think the existence of proto-Luke is absolutely impossible ?
          >
          > No. Indeed if "proto-Luke" means an earlier edition of Luke, then I'm
          > quite sure there *was* a proto-Luke! (The first edition was very roughly
          > our present text minus the birth narratives.) But you appear to mean 'a
          > written source' rather than an earlier edition of Luke, for a subset of
          > Lk 21:20-28 cannot be described as an earlier edition of Luke.

          Since you aknowledge the existence of proto-Luke, may you give a good
          evidence that 'Luke minus Mark' and this proto-Luke, are two different
          documents ?

          If you have no good evidences of two different documents, then Occam's
          razor should constraint you to accept that 'Luke minus Mark' and proto-Luke
          are the same and unique document.

          I would also ask you (but it is another question) if your description
          of proto-Luke is based on evidences as strong as the "Luke minus Mark"
          argument.


          > >* What would be a good evidence according you, for existence or inexistence ?
          >
          > The following (based on my own criticisms of the hypothetical Q):
          > Any hypothetical source must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
          > Therefore
          > (1) it must look complete, be internally consistent and well structured
          > (2) there must be a plausible motivation for its composition
          > (3) there should be a plausible Sitz im Leben for its production
          > (4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
          > theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
          > document.

          (1) if a document is partially lost, it looks not complete. This document,
          even if it exists, is implausible according your criteria.
          (2) there are many attested documents whose redation motivation is not clear.
          Whatever the case, for gospels, the motivation is clear : teach the lord
          Jesus Christ, and remember him.
          (3) there are many documents whose Sitz im Leben is an open problem
          (4) If the author of the last document is just an editor, who merged some
          sources, his own style is not distinguishable.

          For all this reason, your criteria looks over estimated, and let any
          lost documents impossible to find. In fact, those criteria allow to
          declare 'implausible' even attested documents...

          But, perhabs, I misunderstood your criteria. If you think so, you may
          show where I miss, by applying your criteria on the existence of the
          proto-Luke you ackowledge. By that mean, I may perhabs show that
          my description fits your criteria better, or I will ackowledge you
          are right.

          a+
          manu


          PS : some discussions on details detail

          > >Considering that Luke 21:20-28 is based on an unknown document
          > >that the redactor prefered to Mark, we can legitimely say that it was
          > >a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.
          >
          > Then there should be linguistic evidence that the parts which don't
          > overlap with Mark do not have Lukan vocabulary or style.

          What is Lukan vocabulary ?


          > >* clumsiness is a weak argument in general, since redactor clumsiness
          > >may be used to rebuke the significance of any redactional phenomenon.
          >
          > When we already have reason to believe that an author is redacting an
          > older document, a degree of clumsiness can reasonably be attributed to
          > that redaction. By Occam's razor we should be reluctant to use such
          > clumsiness as evidence of yet another source.

          We have a phenomenon that may be explained by a single explanations
          ('Luke minus Mark' is a previous redaction) or by many invocation to a
          universal argument (clumsiness). The Occam razor stresses us to chose the
          unifying explanation.

          Clumsiness is even possible. But it should remain the last argument,
          when all other possibilities have been considered.

          > >>> ..... as I said above, if you substract
          > >>>"shemeia" and "esontai", you should do the same with "on earth".
          >
          > >> This suggests that we need a precise set of rules in order to define a
          > >> fair 'subtraction' process.
          >
          > >I proposed three different possible rules, and each one is precise.
          >
          > Precise enough to make a definitive decision on "shemeia" etc. ?

          Yes.
          First operation : delete in Luke all groups of 3 words or more also present
          in Mark, in contiguity in both Luke or Mark.
          Second operation : delete in Luke all groups of 3 contiguous words that are
          also present in Mark.
          Third operation : delete in Luke all words that appear in Mark, and is not
          needed
          by the context.
          Naturally, liaison and conjonction should not be included (kai, etc).

          Each one of this substraction gives a good "Luke minus Mark" interesting result.


          > >>>I agree with the lack of verb for "distress".
          >
          > >> So we agree that 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is not a
          > >> *completely* logical text.
          >
          > >"Luke minus Mark" IS a logical text, as logical as Mark or
          > >Luke alone.
          >
          > The anomalous absence of a verb is quite rare in Mark or Luke.

          Luke and Mark are not the alpha and omega of greek grammar.

          > Therefore 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is not as logical as a
          > typical text of similar size from Mark or Luke.

          There are a small default in 'Luke minus Mark', when applying the second
          and the third substraction definition (not with the first). There are small
          defaults in Luke, nad Mark also. If you consider that 'Luke minus Mark'
          is not an edited text, but what it remains after its edition into our present
          Luke, the good composition of 'Luke minus Mark' is impressive.

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Ron Price
          ... Emmanuel, You are being hyper-critical here. You introduced the term Luke minus Mark . ... I wrote might have written , implying a lack of definite
          Message 4 of 18 , Aug 6, 2002
            Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

            >* Have you a better denomination than 'Luke minus Mark' ? If not, then let
            >us speak about 'Luke minus Mark' rather than "what I call 'Luke minus Mark'"

            Emmanuel,

            You are being hyper-critical here. You introduced the term 'Luke minus
            Mark'.

            >* Do you have a good evidence about this rough draft, or is it just
            >an "ad hoc" proposition designed for that special case ?

            I wrote "might have written", implying a lack of definite evidence.

            >Since you aknowledge the existence of proto-Luke, may you give a good
            >evidence that 'Luke minus Mark' and this proto-Luke, are two different
            >documents ?

            Your document is a mere subset of 9 verses. Mine is approx. 17000
            words. To equate these would be ridiculous.
            If you are asking whether your few verses excluding the verses related
            to Mark could have been part of my proto-Luke, the proper answer is
            "No", because my proto-Luke (i.e. the first edition of Luke) contained
            the *whole* of what we now call chapter 21.

            >I would also ask you (but it is another question) if your description
            >of proto-Luke is based on evidences as strong as the "Luke minus Mark"
            >argument.

            It's stronger, and I'm currently trying to publish the material of
            which this is a small part.

            >> The following (based on my own criticisms of the hypothetical Q):
            >> Any hypothetical source must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
            >> Therefore
            >> (1) it must look complete, be internally consistent and well structured
            >> (2) there must be a plausible motivation for its composition
            >> (3) there should be a plausible Sitz im Leben for its production
            >> (4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
            >> theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
            >> document.

            > ..... your criteria looks over estimated, and let any
            >lost documents impossible to find. In fact, those criteria allow to
            >declare 'implausible' even attested documents...

            The criteria are strict in order to exclude imaginative creations
            which have no basis in history.

            >But, perhabs, I misunderstood your criteria. If you think so, you may
            >show where I miss, by applying your criteria on the existence of the
            >proto-Luke you ackowledge.

            My criteria are meant to apply to hypothetical documents by a
            different author. If we're looking for an earlier edition by the same
            author, the criteria would be different.

            >>>Considering that Luke 21:20-28 is based on an unknown document
            >>>that the redactor prefered to Mark, we can legitimely say that it was
            >>>a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.

            >> Then there should be linguistic evidence that the parts which don't
            >> overlap with Mark do not have Lukan vocabulary or style.

            >What is Lukan vocabulary ?

            Vocabulary that is common in Luke but uncommon in Mark and Matthew.

            >First operation : delete in Luke all groups of 3 words or more also present
            > in Mark, in contiguity in both Luke or Mark.
            >Second operation : delete in Luke all groups of 3 contiguous words that are
            > also present in Mark.
            >Third operation : delete in Luke all words that appear in Mark, and is not
            >needed
            > by the context.
            >Naturally, liaison and conjonction should not be included (kai, etc).
            >
            >Each one of this substraction gives a good "Luke minus Mark" interesting
            >result.

            If these three are meant to be alternatives, how do you decide which
            should be used to achieve your goal?

            >There are a small default in 'Luke minus Mark', when applying the second
            >and the third substraction definition (not with the first). There are small
            >defaults in Luke, nad Mark also. If you consider that 'Luke minus Mark'
            >is not an edited text, but what it remains after its edition into our present
            >Luke, the good composition of 'Luke minus Mark' is impressive.

            It might have been impressive if the resulting text had been plausible
            as a stand-alone document. I make the same criticism of Q.

            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
            Ron, ... I am not sure I understand your views : Luke minus Mark is the image of a text, which was something between a Lukan rough draft, a set of Jesus
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 7, 2002
              Ron,

              > >* Do you have a good evidence about this rough draft, or is it just
              > >an "ad hoc" proposition designed for that special case ?
              >
              > I wrote "might have written", implying a lack of definite evidence.

              I am not sure I understand your views : 'Luke minus Mark' is
              the image of a text, which was something between a Lukan rough
              draft, a set of Jesus document, and a part of a whole gospel. Is
              it what you say ?

              You agree that 'Luke minus Mark' is a good evidence for a document
              that belongs to one of the category given here before ?


              > >Since you aknowledge the existence of proto-Luke, may you give a good
              > >evidence that 'Luke minus Mark' and this proto-Luke, are two different
              > >documents ?
              >
              > Your document is a mere subset of 9 verses. Mine is approx. 17000
              > words. To equate these would be ridiculous.
              > If you are asking whether your few verses excluding the verses related
              > to Mark could have been part of my proto-Luke, the proper answer is
              > "No", because my proto-Luke (i.e. the first edition of Luke) contained
              > the *whole* of what we now call chapter 21.

              I am asking this, in fact, and I ask again : what is your
              evidence that Markan verses in Lk21:20-28 was included in
              your proto-Luke ?


              > >> The following (based on my own criticisms of the hypothetical Q):
              > >> Any hypothetical source must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
              > >> Therefore
              > >> (1) it must look complete, be internally consistent and well structured
              > >> (2) there must be a plausible motivation for its composition
              > >> (3) there should be a plausible Sitz im Leben for its production
              > >> (4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
              > >> theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
              > >> document.
              >
              > > ..... your criteria looks over estimated, and let any
              > >lost documents impossible to find. In fact, those criteria allow to
              > >declare 'implausible' even attested documents...
              >
              > The criteria are strict in order to exclude imaginative creations
              > which have no basis in history.

              Where did you prove that your criteria are "strict in order" ?

              I provided a detailed critics of those criteria, which you
              have cut and not answered. Particularly the (1) may perfectly
              be applied to existing documents. So that existing documents
              may appear to be implausible.

              On that point, hyper-criticism comes from you.


              > >But, perhabs, I misunderstood your criteria. If you think so, you may
              > >show where I miss, by applying your criteria on the existence of the
              > >proto-Luke you ackowledge.
              >
              > My criteria are meant to apply to hypothetical documents by a
              > different author. If we're looking for an earlier edition by the same
              > author, the criteria would be different.

              Since I never said that the document standing beside "Luke minus Mark"
              is from a different author, since in fact, "my" proto-Luke may come
              from the same hand than "yours", I would be glad if you may apply on
              my proposition the same criteria you use for yours.


              > >>>Considering that Luke 21:20-28 is based on an unknown document
              > >>>that the redactor prefered to Mark, we can legitimely say that it was
              > >>>a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.
              >
              > >> Then there should be linguistic evidence that the parts which don't
              > >> overlap with Mark do not have Lukan vocabulary or style.
              >
              > >What is Lukan vocabulary ?
              >
              > Vocabulary that is common in Luke but uncommon in Mark and Matthew.

              If Luke is the result of a late merging of Mark and other sources,
              how may you assess that what you call "Lukan vocabulary" does not
              belong to other guys ?


              > >Each one of these [three] substractions gives a good
              > >"Luke minus Mark" interesting result.
              >
              > If these three are meant to be alternatives, how do you decide which
              > should be used to achieve your goal?

              In order to show that 2SH and Farrer-Goulder do not fit the fact,
              each of the operations is sufficient : each one produces a logical
              text that all no-proto-Luke theories may not explain whithout some
              unconvincing contorsions.

              You are not allowed to say that these operations weaken each
              other : they are close in their definitions, so that their
              results are similar. They all show that on Lk21:20-28, the
              primary source is not Mark, but an unknown document (whatever
              it is : a whole gospel, or a rough draft, or whatever you want)
              whose "Luke minus Mark" is a better image (on Lk 21:20-28)
              than extent Luke.

              > >There are a small default in 'Luke minus Mark', when applying the second
              > >and the third substraction definition (not with the first). There are small
              > >defaults in Luke, nad Mark also. If you consider that 'Luke minus Mark'
              > >is not an edited text, but what it remains after its edition into our present
              > >Luke, the good composition of 'Luke minus Mark' is impressive.
              >
              > It might have been impressive if the resulting text had been plausible
              > as a stand-alone document. I make the same criticism of Q.

              Why is it not possible to make the same criticism to your own proto-Luke ?

              a+
              manu


              PS : just a little precision on the use of 'Luke minus Mark' :

              > Emmanuel,
              >
              > You are being hyper-critical here. You introduced the term 'Luke minus
              > Mark'.

              Yes. And you never used it, but used rather some periphrastic
              denomination ("what you call 'Luke minus Mark'" or "your few
              verses excluding the verses related to Mark"). "Luke minus Mark"
              looks as a quite clear denomination, whose use would not imply
              that you accept all my views. 'Luke minus Mark' is a clear name
              for the result of a substraction, and I never equate it, tale quale,
              whith the proto-Luke.

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Ron Price
              Emmanuel, This discussion is getting quite difficult. I am misunderstanding some of your attempts at English, and you are misunderstanding some of my correct
              Message 6 of 18 , Aug 8, 2002
                Emmanuel,

                This discussion is getting quite difficult. I am misunderstanding some
                of your attempts at English, and you are misunderstanding some of my
                correct English.

                Here are two examples.

                (A)

                You wrote:
                > ... an unknown document ...
                > ... we can legitimely say that it was
                > a very authoritative source, and not its own composition.

                The phrase "and not its own composition" does not make sense in English.
                I took it to mean "and not his [i.e. Luke's] own composition".

                This interpretation seemed to be confirmed when I made a comment about
                an expected distinction in Lukan vocabulary, for you asked what I meant
                by 'Lukan vocabulary' rather than saying that it was probably Luke who
                wrote 'Luke minus Mark'.

                But in a later posting you wrote:
                >Since I never said that the document standing beside "Luke minus Mark"
                >is from a different author
                Thus it seems that I must have misunderstood your earlier comment.

                (B)

                I wrote:
                >> The criteria are strict in order to exclude imaginative creations
                >> which have no basis in history.

                You replied:
                >Where did you prove that your criteria are "strict in order" ?

                Thus you misunderstood the English phrase "in order to" which relates to
                purpose and not to sequence.

                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                > 'Luke minus Mark' is
                >the image of a text, which was something between a Lukan rough
                >draft, a set of Jesus document, and a part of a whole gospel .....
                >
                >You agree that 'Luke minus Mark' is a good evidence for a document
                >that belongs to one of the category given here before ?

                I do not agree, for reasons already stated ( (1)-(4) ).

                >what is your evidence that Markan verses in Lk21:20-28
                > was included in your proto-Luke ?

                Because extracting these verses would spoil the excellent match
                between sections and pages in my model for the first edition of Luke.
                Sorry, but I can't explain further until such time as I succeed in
                publishing the material.

                > ..... those criteria allow to
                > declare 'implausible' even attested documents...

                Please give examples of such documents.

                >I would be glad if you may apply on
                >my proposition the same criteria you use for yours.

                I would apply the following criteria to a supposed earlier edition:

                (1) It must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
                (2) It should not be very much smaller than the extant document, say no
                less than 50% of its size, for new editions rarely double the size of
                the original.
                (3) Its structure should be *better* than the extant document, because
                editions subsequent to the first are usually less well structured.

                My proposed 'First Edition of Luke' passes all three criteria.
                Your 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' fails (1) and (2), and arguably
                also (3).

                >each of the operations ..... show that on Lk21:20-28, the
                >primary source is not Mark, but an unknown document (whatever
                >it is : a whole gospel, or a rough draft, or whatever you want)
                >whose "Luke minus Mark" is a better image (on Lk 21:20-28)
                >than extent Luke.

                You are extrapolating too far on the basis of one passage.
                I would take your claim more seriously if you were to:
                (a) apply the method successfully to several passages
                (b) then show that the resulting combined text makes sense as a
                stand-alone document.

                > "Luke minus Mark"
                >looks as a quite clear denomination

                It suggests an operation on the whole of Luke. But you have not
                carried out such an operation.
                Therefore 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' would be a clearer
                designation.

                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
                Ron, I apologize for my bad level in english. I apologize also for the mix of different problems, that produces in this thread interferences in the discussion.
                Message 7 of 18 , Aug 9, 2002
                  Ron,

                  I apologize for my bad level in english. I apologize also for
                  the mix of different problems, that produces in this thread
                  interferences in the discussion.
                  I reorganise it in three parts : 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28'
                  is the first part. Discussion on proto-Luke is the second. Discussion
                  about your criteria will be the third, much longer.

                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                  A] Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28

                  'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' is a strange phenomenon.
                  Where does it come from? You said that it might be the track
                  of a rough draft. When I tried to go further, you closed the
                  discussion saying : "it might be". So it is not sure.
                  But if it is not a rough draft, what is it ?
                  My statement is that at a moment, someone wrote a text
                  that looked close to 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28'.

                  If you disagree with that, you should give an alternative
                  solution. An invocation to your own criteria (1)-(4), while
                  you did not answer my first critics towards this criteria,
                  is not just unfair, but inadequate, since their is nothing
                  in your criteria that explain where 'Luke minus Mark for
                  Lk 21:20-28' comes from.


                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                  B] "Proto-Luke" vs "First-edition"

                  'Proto-Luke' or 'first edition' ? The difference is yours.
                  Since in my discussion I never introduced any restriction
                  on authors, and I gave no restriction on the form of the
                  document, you may not say :

                  > My proposed 'First Edition of Luke' passes all three criteria.
                  > Your 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' fails (1) and (2),
                  > and arguably also (3).

                  Just imagine that my 'First Edition of Luke' would be
                  the same of yours, with just a little modification on
                  Lk21:20-28, where my will follow the Luke minus Mark
                  pattern.

                  Then my 'First Edition of Luke' would passe (1) and (2)
                  as easy as yours, and would passe (3) better, since some
                  difficulties on Lk 21:20-28 have been canceled.

                  So your claim that your own reconstruction is better vanishes :
                  according your criteria, our reconstruction (ie your reconstruction
                  + my improvement) is better than yours alone.

                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                  C] Your criteria

                  I criticized briefly your criteria, and you have not
                  answered. I would like to go deeper in this way.

                  In order to make the discussion clearer, I will call "aa" your
                  criteria for a hypothetical document, and "bb" the criteria for
                  a supposed earlier edition. Your both sets of criteria are :

                  > The following (based on my own criticisms of the hypothetical Q):
                  > Any hypothetical source must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
                  > Therefore
                  > (aa1) it must look complete, be internally consistent and well structured
                  > (aa2) there must be a plausible motivation for its composition
                  > (aa3) there should be a plausible Sitz im Leben for its production
                  > (aa4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
                  > theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
                  > document.
                  (posted mon, 05 Aug 2002)

                  > I would apply the following criteria to a supposed earlier edition:
                  > (bb1) It must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
                  > (bb2) It should not be very much smaller than the extant document, say
                  > no less than 50% of its size, for new editions rarely double the size
                  > of the original.
                  > (bb3) Its structure should be *better* than the extant document, because
                  > editions subsequent to the first are usually less well structured.
                  (posted thu, 08 Aug 2002)


                  On both these sets of criteria, I will try to answer some questions.
                  -On what ground lies each criterion ?
                  -And what are the epistemological principles for a difference
                  between "hypothetical source" and " supposed earlier edition" ?


                  C1] a "supposed earlier edition" is a "hypothtical source".

                  My first observation on your criteria is that you present
                  (aa1)-(aa4) as deriving from a meta-rule : "Any hypothetical
                  source must be plausible as a stand-alone document.
                  Therefore [(aa1)-(aa4)]".
                  We may observe that this meta rule, is in fact exactly the same as (bb1).

                  If we want to be logical, then the criteria (bb1) on "supposed
                  earlier edition" induces in fact the whole set of criteria you
                  consider for "hypothetical source". It looks normal, in fact,
                  since a "supposed earlier edition" is belongs to a subset of
                  "hypothetical sources". When we have a "supposed earlier edition",
                  it is a "hypothetical source", so that criteria applied on
                  hypothetical sources should apply also on this "supposed
                  earlier edition". This is pure logic. I understood something
                  quite different in your previous mails, but obviously, it is
                  due to my bad level in english.

                  Naturally, when you check one by one the (aa1)-(aa3) criteria,
                  it looks absurd to require each one for a "hypothetical source"
                  and not for a "supposed earlier edition". For instance, if you
                  require "a plausible motivation for [the] composition" of a
                  "hypothetical source", why this motivation may be absent for
                  a "supposed earlier edition" ?


                  C2] The argument of style and theology

                  For the criteria (aa4), there is an obvious trouble with
                  "supposed earlier edition" :
                  > (aa4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
                  > theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
                  > document.

                  It is obvious that for a "supposed earlier edition", the theology
                  and the style of both editions will be quite close, and so perhabs
                  not distinguishable. But also with merging process, the style
                  may be hard to be distinguishable : if X wrote a "hypothetical
                  source", and Y merged it with Mark, then the style of Y is not
                  present in the text, and X style is not distinguishable from that
                  of the author (in fact: editor) of the extant document.

                  So here, the trouble is not in the difference between "supposed
                  earlier edition" and "hypothetical source", but comes directly
                  from the criteria which looks not well adapted to all situations.
                  In fact, (aa4) does not work for all possible "hypothetical source",
                  but only for those :
                  -whose wording has been kept, and
                  -which have been improved with massive later additions.
                  This is a very little subset of possible "hypothetical sources".

                  In fact, the argument of style and theology may apply only in
                  a step by step study, by checking the phenomenon with each
                  redaction scenario, and it looks hard to include it in a global criteria.


                  C3] Unknown sources and extent gospels

                  > (aa1) it must look complete, be internally consistent and
                  > well structured

                  ** lost documents may not ever be reconstructed in their whole text.
                  As a fragment of papyrus allows to imagine a whole complete gospel,
                  as Doura Europos fragment allows to imagine a whole gospel harmony,
                  or in another domain, a little piece of bone allows to describe a
                  whole dynosaurus, the firm reconstruction of a pericopae allows to
                  warrant the existence of an unknown document.

                  So even if what we may reconstruct from an "unknown source" is only
                  a few fragments, they may ever belong to a complete hypothetical
                  gospel, that was internally consistent and well structured, although
                  the structure is not evident today.

                  ** But more over, we have many example of defaults in structure in
                  old documents. What is the structure of Gospel Thomas ? Even for the
                  canonical, the structure acknowledged by scholars are not allways the
                  same. So the argument from structure looks particularly weak.


                  > (aa2) there must be a plausible motivation for its composition

                  There was many plausible motivations for the composition of
                  the cannonical gospels. There is no exclusivity for the canonical
                  upon these motivation : any unknown gospel may have been
                  written with exactly the same motivation as known gospels.


                  > (aa3) there should be a plausible Sitz im Leben for its production

                  We may say here the same critics as for (aa2) : the roman empire
                  was great enough to insure many different places where different
                  gospels may have appeared, in the same social Sitz im Leben than
                  the other gospels, but in other locations.
                  The Sitz im Leben of common "hypothetical source"
                  of gospels presents no problem of plausibility, and your
                  criteria does not filter anything.


                  In fact, for (aa1)-(aa3), it looks as if you want "hypothetical
                  source" to fullfil a characteristic that even canonical gospels
                  do not respect.


                  C4] When majority is tyranny

                  > (bb2) It should not be very much smaller than the extant document, say
                  > no less than 50% of its size, for new editions rarely double the size
                  > of the original.
                  > (bb3) Its structure should be *better* than the extant document, because
                  > editions subsequent to the first are usually less well structured.

                  You gave a justification for both of these criteria, but your arguments
                  are doubtfull. I do not want to challenge the fact that new editions
                  keep the same size as the first one even I have some counter-examples
                  in mind (Child Harold), but I want to point out that bases of your
                  claims are not universal facts. And you acknowledge it, since you
                  tempered it with adverbs ("rarely" and "usually").

                  It is then absolutely not possible to say that if, in majority, a new
                  edition does not double the size, then all possible multi-edition of
                  gospels should respect that rule. This is what I call the tyranny of
                  majority. The majority (if validated) may apply on the plausibility
                  of the reconstructed source, which has to be compared with the
                  plausibility of alternative theories. The majority may never be
                  an absolute criteria.



                  In conclusion, your criteria look as your own heuristic formulae
                  in your researches, with charge to you to prove they produce a
                  valid result. They are perhabs good rules to find something,
                  they are not rules to check what you find is valid.

                  Moreover, they may not be considered as universal tools for
                  rebuking or criticizing any other unknown document reconstruction.

                  a+
                  manu

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Ron Price
                  ... Emmanuel, I already did, as you noted above. Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28 is interesting, but we can t be sure that it has any significance at all.
                  Message 8 of 18 , Aug 10, 2002
                    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                    >'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' is a strange phenomenon.
                    >Where does it come from? You said that it might be the track
                    >of a rough draft. When I tried to go further, you closed the
                    >discussion saying : "it might be". So it is not sure.
                    >But if it is not a rough draft, what is it ?
                    >My statement is that at a moment, someone wrote a text
                    >that looked close to 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28'.
                    >
                    >If you disagree with that, you should give an alternative
                    >solution.

                    Emmanuel,

                    I already did, as you noted above.
                    'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' is interesting, but we can't be sure
                    that it has any significance at all.

                    >Just imagine that my 'First Edition of Luke' would be
                    >the same of yours, with just a little modification on
                    >Lk21:20-28, where my will follow the Luke minus Mark
                    >pattern.
                    >
                    >Then my 'First Edition of Luke' would passe (1) and (2)
                    >as easy as yours, and would passe (3) better, since some
                    >difficulties on Lk 21:20-28 have been canceled.

                    You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.
                    For my proposed First Edition of Luke I know exactly which pericopae it
                    contained, and I know fairly accurately (based mainly on the NA27 text)
                    how many words it contained, and even fairly accurately how many letters
                    it contained. There is a world of difference between your vague
                    suggestion and my precise hypothesis.

                    >C] Your criteria

                    >> Any hypothetical source ...
                    >> (aa4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
                    >> theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
                    >> document.

                    I was assuming here what is almost always true, namely that the source
                    had been written by someone other than the author of the extant
                    document.

                    > What is the structure of Gospel Thomas ?

                    True, the Gospel of Thomas appears to be unstructured.

                    > Even for the canonical [gospels], the structure[s] acknowledged by scholars
                    > are not always the same.

                    Yes, but most commentators judge them to be structured.
                    Actually, most of the NT books are well structured. I am not
                    suggesting that every document must *necessarily* have been well
                    structured. There are exceptions like Thomas and James. What I am saying
                    is that most documents of this type (first century Christian apologetic
                    documents) were well structured and therefore any similar hypothetical
                    document would *probably* have been well structured. If it is not, then
                    it is probably (though not necessarily) imaginative.
                    When Tuckett quotes with approval the criterion for Sondergut
                    passages: "they [should] belong to texts otherwise ascribed to Q" ( _Q
                    and the History of Early Christianity_, p.95), he is not saying that it
                    is impossible that passages outside these texts might have been in Q. In
                    effect he is saying that he would rather overlook a candidate Q passage
                    than risk including one incorrectly. I am being similarly cautious,
                    though applying my caution to the whole document rather than a mere part
                    of it.

                    >As a fragment of papyrus allows to imagine a whole complete gospel,
                    >as Doura Europos fragment allows to imagine a whole gospel harmony,
                    >or in another domain, a little piece of bone allows to describe a
                    >whole dynosaurus, the firm reconstruction of a pericopae allows to
                    >warrant the existence of an unknown document.

                    When someone finds a scrap of papyrus containing writing which is
                    incomplete at the beginning or end or both, then it is obvious that it
                    is a fragment of something bigger.
                    When someone analyses an extant text and says that parts of it
                    belonged to a source, we are in the realm of subjective judgement. We
                    have only to look at the work of Bultmann on John (source of 'Revelatory
                    Discourses'; source for the passion story) to see how even a renowned
                    scholar can often make huge misjudgements in this area.
                    This is why I have proposed such strict criteria.

                    > ..... if you
                    >require "a plausible motivation for [the] composition" of a
                    >"hypothetical source", why this motivation may be absent for
                    >a "supposed earlier edition" ?

                    There is little point in specifying this as a requirement for an
                    earlier edition because the motivation is likely to be very similar to
                    that of the extant edition.

                    > ..... the roman empire
                    >was great enough to insure many different places where different
                    >gospels may have appeared, in the same social Sitz im Leben than
                    >the other gospels, but in other locations.
                    >The Sitz im Leben of common "hypothetical source"
                    >of gospels presents no problem of plausibility, and your
                    >criteria does not filter anything.

                    I disagree. Sitz im Leben is not just geography. Kloppenborg has
                    written a 546 page book on "Excavating Q". In spite of all the
                    information on primitive Christianity available to us in Acts, he cannot
                    name a single person who may have belonged to the supposed Q community.
                    In a 30 column 'Index of Ancient texts' he has a mere 5 references to
                    Acts. I know Acts is not entirely trustworthy. But some of its key
                    affirmations can be confirmed from Paul's letters, so it is far from
                    being complete fiction.

                    >It is then absolutely not possible to say that if, in majority, a new
                    >edition does not double the size, then all possible multi-edition of
                    >gospels should respect that rule. This is what I call the tyranny of
                    >majority. The majority (if validated) may apply on the plausibility
                    >of the reconstructed source, which has to be compared with the
                    >plausibility of alternative theories. The majority may never be
                    >an absolute criteria.

                    Many years ago I also used to argue about what is *possible*. But what
                    really matters is what is *probable*. It is possible that life on earth
                    may be destroyed next month by an asteroid impact.
                    Fortunately it is not probable, and that's what matters.

                    > ..... your criteria ..... may not be considered as universal tools for
                    >rebuking or criticizing any other unknown document reconstruction.

                    Last century, NT scholars were far too eager to proclaim the existence
                    of lost sources. Amongst these were M, L, proto-Luke (as a sort of Luke
                    minus Mark for Luke1-24), a Johannine Signs Source and Q. The first
                    three have been almost universally abandoned, the fourth is in decline,
                    and the last is under heavy and persistent criticism from Goulder,
                    Goodacre et al..
                    Hence strict criteria are highly appropriate and long overdue.

                    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
                    Ron, A] Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28 ... We may say also: The similarity between Luke, Mark and Matthew is interesting, but we can t be sure that it has
                    Message 9 of 18 , Aug 12, 2002
                      Ron,

                      A] Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28

                      > I already did, as you noted above.
                      > 'Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28' is interesting, but we can't be sure
                      > that it has any significance at all.

                      We may say also: "The similarity between Luke, Mark and Matthew
                      is interesting, but we can't be sure that it has any significance
                      at all". Sure, we may allways find good reason to refuse to take
                      phenomenon into account.

                      You have not answered the question : if this phenomenon is not
                      a track of an earlier redaction for Lk 21:20-28 (proto-gospel
                      or rough draft), then where does it come from ?


                      B] proto-Luke vs early edition

                      > >Just imagine that my 'First Edition of Luke' would be
                      > >the same of yours, with just a little modification on
                      > >Lk21:20-28, where my will follow the Luke minus Mark
                      > >pattern.
                      > >
                      > >Then my 'First Edition of Luke' would passe (1) and (2)
                      > >as easy as yours, and would passe (3) better, since some
                      > >difficulties on Lk 21:20-28 have been canceled.
                      >
                      > You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.
                      > For my proposed First Edition of Luke I know exactly which pericopae it
                      > contained, and I know fairly accurately (based mainly on the NA27 text)
                      > how many words it contained, and even fairly accurately how many letters
                      > it contained. 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
                      your proposition for Lk 21:20-28 by the result of 'Luke minus Mark'
                      operation on this verses. If your reconstruction is precise, then
                      mine will be too. If your reconstruction is good, mine is better
                      (just accord. your criteria, cf. the demonstration in my previous mail).


                      > >C] Your criteria
                      >
                      > >> Any hypothetical source ...
                      > >> (aa4) if it is incorporated in an extant document, then its style and
                      > >> theology should be distinguishable from that of the author of the extant
                      > >> document.
                      >
                      > I was assuming here what is almost always true, namely that the source
                      > had been written by someone other than the author of the extant
                      > document.

                      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".

                      This was your method for size and structure of earlier editions (I quote :
                      "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 ?


                      > > Even for the canonical [gospels], the structure[s] acknowledged by scholars
                      > > are not always the same.
                      >
                      > Yes, but most commentators judge them to be structured.

                      ** Until they agree on the structure, their consensus is not usefull.
                      We may allways assert that any "hypothetical source" has a good
                      structure, how will you check it if you can not check the structure
                      even for known gospels ?

                      ** If a "hypothetical structure" is reconstructed only by pieces, then
                      its structure may have disappeared, without the confidence for the
                      existence of the source being canceled (for instance : the diary of
                      Alexander's aula, which is known only through excerpts).


                      > >As a fragment of papyrus allows to imagine a whole complete gospel,
                      > >as Doura Europos fragment allows to imagine a whole gospel harmony,
                      > >or in another domain, a little piece of bone allows to describe a
                      > >whole dynosaurus, the firm reconstruction of a pericopae allows to
                      > >warrant the existence of an unknown document.
                      >
                      > When someone finds a scrap of papyrus containing writing which is
                      > incomplete at the beginning or end or both, then it is obvious that it
                      > is a fragment of something bigger.

                      "it is obvious it is a fragment of something bigger". Yes, but
                      how much bigger ? It may also be an amulet, whith just some
                      words missing, or an abstract, or a comment on gospels, rather
                      than a gospel or a gospel harmony. Just take the example of
                      Doura-Europos : there is no global rule that say the fragment
                      comes from a whole gospel harmony.

                      In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
                      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
                      previous document.

                      Even if the methods are quite far from scraps of papyrus, the problem
                      is quite the same : what was the original document ?


                      > > ..... if you
                      > >require "a plausible motivation for [the] composition" of a
                      > >"hypothetical source", why this motivation may be absent for
                      > >a "supposed earlier edition" ?
                      >
                      > There is little point in specifying this as a requirement for an
                      > earlier edition because the motivation is likely to be very similar to
                      > that of the extant edition.

                      Your argument is easily controvertible : many many christians may have
                      wanted to write the story of Jesus, but only few may have wanted to write
                      it twice.

                      If we find four early christians that had motivation to write gospels, why
                      not a fifth, a sixth, a seventh, and many others ? And on the other hand,
                      where are your model which show us that a double edition was a common
                      praxis in early christianity ?

                      (I do not disagree with early edition at all, but I disagree with
                      the idea that early edition is a more probable document that generic
                      unknown sources, allowing you to choose less strict criteria)


                      > > ..... the roman empire
                      > >was great enough to insure many different places where different
                      > >gospels may have appeared, in the same social Sitz im Leben than
                      > >the other gospels, but in other locations.
                      > >The Sitz im Leben of common "hypothetical source"
                      > >of gospels presents no problem of plausibility, and your
                      > >criteria does not filter anything.
                      >
                      > I disagree. Sitz im Leben is not just geography. Kloppenborg has
                      > written a 546 page book on "Excavating Q". In spite of all the
                      > information on primitive Christianity available to us in Acts, he cannot
                      > name a single person who may have belonged to the supposed Q community.
                      > In a 30 column 'Index of Ancient texts' he has a mere 5 references to
                      > Acts. I know Acts is not entirely trustworthy. But some of its key
                      > affirmations can be confirmed from Paul's letters, so it is far from
                      > being complete fiction.

                      The Sitz im Leben of all hypothetical document would be the same as the
                      Sitz im Leben of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John : Early christianity.
                      Where is the problem with that Sitz im Leben ? Had the four first
                      gospel redactors a kind of exclusivity ? Is their Sitz im Leben problematic ?

                      If we have no problem to find a Sitz im Leben for canonical gospels,
                      why would we have any problem with the Sitz im Leben of any
                      "hypothetical source" ?


                      > >It is then absolutely not possible to say that if, in majority, a new
                      > >edition does not double the size, then all possible multi-edition of
                      > >gospels should respect that rule. This is what I call the tyranny of
                      > >majority. The majority (if validated) may apply on the plausibility
                      > >of the reconstructed source, which has to be compared with the
                      > >plausibility of alternative theories. The majority may never be
                      > >an absolute criteria.
                      >
                      > Many years ago I also used to argue about what is *possible*. But what
                      > really matters is what is *probable*. It is possible that life on earth
                      > may be destroyed next month by an asteroid impact.
                      > Fortunately it is not probable, and that's what matters.

                      The probability that life on earth may be destroyed next month
                      by an asteroid impact is near zero. But if astronoms find
                      tomorrow an earth-cruiser that will cross the trajectory of
                      earth during the next month, then the probability is modified.

                      What is "probable" has to be decided in regards with facts.


                      > > ..... your criteria ..... may not be considered as universal tools for
                      > >rebuking or criticizing any other unknown document reconstruction.
                      >
                      > Last century, NT scholars were far too eager to proclaim the existence
                      > of lost sources. Amongst these were M, L, proto-Luke (as a sort of Luke
                      > minus Mark for Luke1-24), a Johannine Signs Source and Q. The first
                      > three have been almost universally abandoned, the fourth is in decline,
                      > and the last is under heavy and persistent criticism from Goulder,
                      > Goodacre et al..
                      > Hence strict criteria are highly appropriate and long overdue.

                      Good drugs are "highly appropriate and long overdue" against aids
                      and many other diseases. But I will not mix in my backyard a pound
                      of sugar and a gallon of oil, and sell it as universal remedy.

                      Your criteria looks as universal remedy. They do not fit with facts.
                      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.

                      a+
                      manu

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Ron Price
                      ... Emmanuel, ... In other words he thought it up himself (in order to make the text a better match with the events which occurred at the Fall of Jerusalem).
                      Message 10 of 18 , Aug 13, 2002
                        Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                        >You have not answered the question : if this phenomenon is not
                        >a track of an earlier redaction for Lk 21:20-28 (proto-gospel
                        >or rough draft), then where does it come from ?

                        Emmanuel,

                        I answered this question several days ago as follows:

                        >> ..... Luke might have
                        >> written out a rough draft of what you call 'Luke minus Mark' for
                        >> Lk 21:20-28 before combining his input with Mark.

                        In other words he thought it up himself (in order to make the text a
                        better match with the events which occurred at the Fall of Jerusalem).
                        In my opinion this is far more likely than your hypothetical source
                        document.

                        >> You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.
                        >> ..... 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 ...

                        Your original suggestion that 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 was
                        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 source
                        >> had been written by someone other than the author of the extant
                        >> document.

                        >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".

                        Not at all. As I see it (and this is partly a question of terminology)
                        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 :
                        >"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 ?

                        Not bias, just the use of ordinary observation of the world in order
                        to assess the likelihood of past events.

                        >We may allways assert that any "hypothetical source" has a good
                        >structure,

                        If 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 structure
                        >even for known gospels ?

                        But I can. I've made a detailed study of the structures of the NT
                        books.

                        >In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
                        >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
                        >previous document.

                        You seem to be missing my point. Your 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk
                        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 common
                        >praxis in early christianity ?

                        Given time I could demonstrate that two of the four canonical gospels
                        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 with
                        >the idea that early edition is a more probable document that generic
                        >unknown sources, allowing you to choose less strict criteria)

                        As it happens, the criteria I have used to derive the original
                        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
                        of John.

                        >The Sitz im Leben of all hypothetical document would be the same as the
                        >Sitz im Leben of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John : Early christianity.
                        >Where is the problem with that Sitz im Leben ?

                        It's not sufficiently precise. Please note that I have myself made a
                        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,
                        >why would we have any problem with the Sitz im Leben of any
                        >"hypothetical source" ?

                        You shouldn't have. But you do have. For I suggest you are quite
                        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.
                        >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.

                        No. I only try to discredit hypothetical sources for which there is
                        insufficient evidence.

                        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@...
                      • Karel Hanhart
                        The thesis Mark radically revised a pre-70 gospel is relevant to the exchange between Ron and Manu cited below re Lk 21,20-28. I based the thesis on a lengthy
                        Message 11 of 18 , Aug 13, 2002
                          The thesis Mark radically revised a pre-70 gospel is relevant to the exchange
                          between Ron and Manu cited below re Lk 21,20-28. I based the thesis on a lengthy
                          exegesis of Mark's ending, read as a midrash on LXX Isa 22,15; 33,16 and Gn 29,2.3.
                          In a following post I hope to make clear why the thesis throws new light on the
                          vexing synoptic problem. Here I wish to clarify my motivation.
                          Without Jesus' resurrection christianity would loose its foundation. Mark
                          certainly was convinced Jesus was raised from the dead. The exegete ought to
                          approach his open tomb story, therefore, with prudence and circumspection. Fools
                          rush in where angels fear to tread.
                          The exegete should also and at all times take account of historical and literary
                          facts. One of those is the impact of the temple's total destruction. Psalm 74
                          offers an impression of the religious feelings of indignation the violation of the
                          temple aroused. "Your foes have roared within your holy place...set up their
                          emblems there...hacked the wooden trellis with axes and hammers..all the carved
                          work...set your sanctuary on fire, desecrated the dwelling place of your name,
                          bringing it to the ground" (4ff.). While the psalm probably describes the
                          devastation wrought by the Babylonians, the destruction in 70 CE was even more
                          severe and initiated a far longer exile.
                          The second literary fact is that Mark - as some rightly stress - quoted :LXX
                          Isa 22,16, a text in which "a tomb hewn from the rock" is a metaphor for the temple
                          about to be destroyed.
                          Also a third fact hasn't been faced adequately in the commentaries, namely,
                          that the Pharisees had fixed the first day of the harvest on Nisan 16. This is
                          still the official date in the synagogue for the beginning of the 50 pentecostal
                          days. However, in the open-tomb-ending this is the very day Jesus was buried. On
                          the other hand, all four gospel writers testify that the stone was rolled away on
                          the first of the fifty days according to the christian Judean calendar in apparent
                          accordance with Lv 23,15. Other traditions also took the Sunday after Pesach to be
                          right date (e.g. the Samaritans). Mark considered "the Pharisees" to be hostile to
                          the Jesus' movement (3,6). Mark wouldn't have been ignorant of the implications,
                          for Jesus' resurrection was often compared with the sacrifice of the "first fruits"
                          on that first day (1 Cor 15,20). How to account for these facts?
                          According to the earliest creed Jesus rose from the dead "on the third day
                          according to the Scriptures". Thus far most commentators suppose that the
                          "Scriptures" were mentioned to support the testimony of the resurrection (Hosea
                          6,2) especially by those who take the empty tomb story literally However,
                          "according to the Scriptures" most likely refers primarily to Lv 23,15; it deals
                          with the day of the first fruits, i.e. the Sunday after Pesach according to the old
                          priestly calendar..
                          It will lead too far afield to even briefly describe the elements of Mark's
                          post-70 redaction of an earlier manuscript. The purpose of this introduction is too
                          introduce the post on the benefits this theory of a revision by Mark has on
                          synoptic studies as a whole. I hope to list them in a next post..

                          cordially

                          Karel Hanhart.

                          Manu asked:

                          > You have not answered the question : if this phenomenon is not
                          > a track of an earlier redaction for Lk 21:20-28 (proto-gospel
                          > or rough draft), then where does it come from ? <snip>

                          > Ron stated:

                          > > >Just imagine that my 'First Edition of Luke' would be

                          > > >the same of yours, with just a little modification on
                          > > >Lk21:20-28, where my will follow the Luke minus Mark
                          > > >pattern. Then my 'First Edition of Luke' would passe (1) and (2)
                          > > >as easy as yours, and would passe (3) better, since some
                          > > >difficulties on Lk 21:20-28 have been canceled.

                          <large snip>

                          Manu stated:

                          > In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
                          > it looks as a fragment.

                          He continued at a later point:

                          > Your argument is easily controvertible : many many christians may have
                          > wanted to write the story of Jesus, but only few may have wanted to write
                          > it twice. If we find four early christians that had motivation to write gospels,
                          > why
                          > not a fifth, a sixth, a seventh, and many others ? And on the other hand,
                          > where are your model which show us that a double edition was a common
                          > praxis in early christianity ?

                          (to be continued, KH).


                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • archeboc
                          Ron, ... RP: ... EF: And then I wanted to use the rough draft as a kind of document, and you answered that since you said Luke MIGHT have written out a rough
                          Message 12 of 18 , Aug 13, 2002
                            Ron,

                            Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
                            >You have not answered the question : if this phenomenon is not
                            >a track of an earlier redaction for Lk 21:20-28 (proto-gospel
                            >or rough draft), then where does it come from ?

                            RP:
                            I answered this question several days ago as follows:

                            >> ..... Luke might have
                            >> written out a rough draft of what you call 'Luke minus Mark' for
                            >> Lk 21:20-28 before combining his input with Mark.

                            EF:
                            And then I wanted to use the rough draft as a kind of document,
                            and you answered that since you said "Luke MIGHT have written
                            out a rough draft" so that there is no necessity for it.

                            this is a soap-argumentation. I can not take it firmly
                            in hand. OK : rough draft or proto-gospel, do you agree
                            that something has been written, once, looking as 'Luke
                            minus Mark on Lk 20-28' ?


                            EF:
                            >> You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.
                            >> ..... 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 ...

                            RP:
                            […] 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.

                            EF:
                            "it does not mean that you can necessarily put them
                            together". But in that case, I provided several
                            arguments to show that we can locally improve your
                            hypothesis with this mix. You did not answer with
                            precise objections, but with general considerations
                            that do not apply.


                            EF:
                            >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".


                            RP:
                            Not at all. As I see it (and this is partly a question of
                            terminology) 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.

                            EF:
                            What is the difference between source and early edition ?
                            You choose the terminology for your convenience, but this
                            is disconnected from facts.

                            A document is a "hypothetical source" when you want to
                            rebuke it. It becomes an "earlier ediion" (observe that
                            any "hypothetical"


                            EF :
                            >In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
                            >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
                            >previous document.

                            RP:
                            You seem to be missing my point. Your 'Luke minus Mark' for
                            Lk 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.

                            EF:
                            But (in your hypothesis) Luke thought of it, and write it.
                            And this is a document.


                            EF:
                            >The Sitz im Leben of all hypothetical document would be the same as
                            the
                            >Sitz im Leben of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John : Early christianity.
                            >Where is the problem with that Sitz im Leben ?

                            RP:
                            It's not sufficiently precise.

                            EF:
                            Where is the rule that require a precise Sitz im Leben to be known to
                            allow a document to have existed ? I suppose that Gospel Thomas does
                            not exist, since its Sitz im Leben is not known with precision.

                            Great, Gospel Thomas is a kind of rough draft.



                            RP: [about Sitz im Leben]
                            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.

                            EF:
                            I beg you pardon. I still not undersand how the end of Acts
                            around 60 make the Sitz im Leben of 70-100 less problematic
                            than for the previous.



                            EF:
                            >If we have no problem to find a Sitz im Leben for canonical gospels,
                            >why would we have any problem with the Sitz im Leben of any
                            >"hypothetical source" ?

                            RP:
                            You shouldn't have. But you do have. For I suggest you are quite
                            unable to give a detailed description of the the Sitz im Leben
                            for 'Luke
                            minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28.

                            EF:
                            Absolutely not. The same as Luke.

                            a+
                            manu







                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Ron Price
                            ... Emmanuel, (by the way, I address you thus because I don t understand your signature: a+ manu . If a+ is short for adieu, then it might be better to spell
                            Message 13 of 18 , Aug 15, 2002
                              I wrote:

                              >>> ..... Luke might have
                              >>> written out a rough draft of what you call 'Luke minus Mark' for
                              >>> Lk 21:20-28 before combining his input with Mark.

                              Emmanuel Fritsch replied:

                              >And then I wanted to use the rough draft as a kind of document,
                              >and you answered that since you said "Luke MIGHT have written
                              >out a rough draft" so that there is no necessity for it.
                              >
                              >this is a soap-argumentation. I can not take it firmly
                              >in hand. OK : rough draft or proto-gospel, do you agree
                              >that something has been written, once, looking as 'Luke
                              >minus Mark on Lk 20-28' ?

                              Emmanuel,

                              (by the way, I address you thus because I don't understand your
                              signature: "a+ manu". If a+ is short for adieu, then it might be better
                              to spell it out as "adieu" in an English language discussion group)

                              This looks like another language problem.
                              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*.
                              In any case I can't see the relevance of your division of the
                              possibilities. You seem to think the crucial question is whether
                              something was written or not. To me the crucial question is whether (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. If there are no other texts and, like a typical papyrus
                              fragment, it is not viable by itself, then in my opinion you have not
                              found enough evidence, and you should accept that option (c) is more
                              probable.

                              > ..... I provided several
                              >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.

                              >What is the difference between source and 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.

                              >You choose the terminology for your convenience,
                              > 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? Is it
                              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?

                              >Where is the rule that require a precise Sitz im Leben to be known to
                              >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.
                              You simply have not provided sufficient evidence for 'Luke minus Mark'
                              for Lk 21:20-28. I might live without a precise Sitz im Leben if you had
                              other compelling evidence, but so far you haven't (as far as I can
                              remember) mentioned a single piece of evidence from outside Lk 21:20-28
                              to corroborate your argument.

                              >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.

                              >I beg you pardon. I still not undersand how the end of Acts
                              >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.

                              > [the Sitz im Leben for 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is]
                              > the same as [for] Luke.

                              So presumably it was written at about the same time as Luke.
                              If so, have you observed anything which would allow you to distinguish
                              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?

                              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
                              Since Ron want to reserve his arguments for publication, this discussion is soon arrived to its end. ... If you do not think that Luke might have written a
                              Message 14 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                                Since 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 agree
                                > >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*.

                                If you do not think that "Luke might have written a
                                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 the
                                > possibilities. You seem to think the crucial question is whether
                                > something was written or not.

                                YES.
                                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 whether
                                > (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.

                                Absolutely not. If I want to argue for (a) or (b), I may say
                                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 several
                                > >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.

                                OK. then, for a sake of economy, and until you publish your
                                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 ?
                                >
                                > A source is generally produced by a different author in a different
                                > Sitz im Leben for a different purpose and a different audience.

                                And not an early edition ?
                                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
                                Press, 1992.

                                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
                                letters.
                                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 different
                                > Sitz im Leben for a different purpose and a different audience.

                                You said : "A source is generally...". This "generally" shows that
                                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,
                                > > 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?

                                I do not say that your distinction is not based on
                                facts, I said "it is disconnected". And I may say
                                now that the gap of disconnexion is more than ten
                                centuries large.

                                I apologize, but I would prefer example found in antiquity.


                                > Is it
                                > 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?

                                Sure you may attempt. But there is no warrant that you will succeed.

                                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 to
                                > >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.

                                Sure. And when at least one single evidence has been provided,
                                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 Acts
                                > >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.

                                And so ? We have some precision about 30-60. Less precision about
                                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]
                                > > the same as [for] Luke.
                                >
                                > So presumably it was written at about the same time as Luke.

                                May be. Or may be not.
                                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
                                > 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?

                                ** For 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
                                redaction process.

                                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
                                against imagination.

                                a+
                                manu

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Ron Price
                                This discussion is not getting anywhere, but rather is tending to go round in circles. I will try to summarize the root of our differences. ... Emmanuel et
                                Message 15 of 18 , Aug 25, 2002
                                  This discussion is not getting anywhere, but rather is tending to go
                                  round in circles. I will try to summarize the root of our differences.

                                  Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                                  >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.

                                  Emmanuel et al.,

                                  I have already given my explanation for 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk
                                  21:20-28 as follows:

                                  >> [Luke] thought it up himself (in order to make the [Markan] text [into] a
                                  >> better match with the events which occurred at the Fall of Jerusalem).

                                  The fact that the text almost looks as if it could once have been
                                  (part of?) a separate document is quite insignificant because Luke could
                                  simply have been merging the Markan text with his own mental picture of
                                  the Fall of Jerusalem. He could have transformed his image of past
                                  events into a prophecy of the future during the merging process.

                                  So the main difference between us is that whereas I think that this
                                  explanation is satisfactory and sufficient, Emmanuel disagrees, yet
                                  apparently provides no alternative proposal (see above: "I do not yet
                                  assert ..."). We have explored various aspects of this problem and not
                                  made any real progress. Our judgement on this issue differs, and the
                                  best we can do is to agree to disagree.

                                  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
                                  ... I gave some objections about that implausible scenario and your other arguments (for instance your criteria). You answered with general considerations, but
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Aug 27, 2002
                                    Ron Price wrote:
                                    >
                                    > This discussion is not getting anywhere, but rather is tending to go
                                    > round in circles. I will try to summarize the root of our differences.

                                    and later :

                                    > The fact that the text almost looks as if it could once have been
                                    > (part of?) a separate document is quite insignificant because Luke could
                                    > simply have been merging the Markan text with his own mental picture of
                                    > the Fall of Jerusalem. He could have transformed his image of past
                                    > events into a prophecy of the future during the merging process.

                                    I gave some objections about that implausible scenario and your
                                    other arguments (for instance your criteria). You answered with
                                    general considerations, but not about the detail of arguments.
                                    The most concret argument you used is more than ten centuries
                                    far away from gospel redaction process.
                                    Here is, according me, the root of our differences.

                                    We are waiting for your publication.

                                    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.