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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Aug 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 18 , Aug 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 18 , Aug 7, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 18 , Aug 8, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 18 , Aug 9, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 18 , Aug 10, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 18 , Aug 12, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 18 , Aug 13, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 18 , Aug 13, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 18 , Aug 13, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 18 , Aug 15, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 18 , Aug 25, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 18 , Aug 27, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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.