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

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

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