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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.