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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Aug 10, 2002
      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

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

      Emmanuel,

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

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

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

      >C] Your criteria

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

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

      > What is the structure of Gospel Thomas ?

      True, the Gospel of Thomas appears to be unstructured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Emmanuel Fritsch
      Ron, A] Luke minus Mark for Lk 21:20-28 ... We may say also: The similarity between Luke, Mark and Matthew is interesting, but we can t be sure that it has
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 12, 2002
        Ron,

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

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

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

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


        B] proto-Luke vs early edition

        > >Just imagine that my 'First Edition of Luke' would be
        > >the same of yours, with just a little modification on
        > >Lk21:20-28, where my will follow the Luke minus Mark
        > >pattern.
        > >
        > >Then my 'First Edition of Luke' would passe (1) and (2)
        > >as easy as yours, and would passe (3) better, since some
        > >difficulties on Lk 21:20-28 have been canceled.
        >
        > You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.
        > For my proposed First Edition of Luke I know exactly which pericopae it
        > contained, and I know fairly accurately (based mainly on the NA27 text)
        > how many words it contained, and even fairly accurately how many letters
        > it contained. There is a world of difference between your vague
        > suggestion and my precise hypothesis.

        My suggestion is really precise : I take your work, and I replace
        your proposition for Lk 21:20-28 by the result of 'Luke minus Mark'
        operation on this verses. If your reconstruction is precise, then
        mine will be too. If your reconstruction is good, mine is better
        (just accord. your criteria, cf. the demonstration in my previous mail).


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

        Hey, do you forget your method ? If the difference of author is
        "almost always true", then "earlier edition" by the same author is
        very very rare. In that case, according your own method, you should
        add a new criteria that exclude any "earlier edition".

        This was your method for size and structure of earlier editions (I quote :
        "for new editions rarely double the size of the original" and : "because
        editions subsequent to the first are usually less well structured"). Is that
        not a bias in the application of your method ?


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

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

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


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

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

        In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
        it looks as a fragment. We do not know exactly of what, but it
        looks as a gospel (the closest texts to that fragment are whole
        gospels). And as for a scrap, the text is corrupted, so that we may
        not warrant that the reading we find is exactly the original document:
        the 'Luke minus Mark' operation gives just a track, an image, of a
        previous document.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

        Your criteria looks as universal remedy. They do not fit with facts.
        They look based upon a vague idea of problems of previous generation
        theories, and a deep need to kill fast and wide all "hypothetical sources",
        in order to avoid some headache.

        a+
        manu

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Ron Price
        ... Emmanuel, ... In other words he thought it up himself (in order to make the text a better match with the events which occurred at the Fall of Jerusalem).
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 13, 2002
          Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

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

          Emmanuel,

          I answered this question several days ago as follows:

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

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

          >> You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.
          >> ..... There is a world of difference between your vague
          >> suggestion and my precise hypothesis.

          >My suggestion is really precise : I take your work, and I replace ...

          Your original suggestion that 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 was
          probably part of a larger document was imprecise insofar as you couldn't
          say what was in the rest of the document.
          But here you propose mixing your hypothesis with mine, and I've told
          you already that it wouldn't work. Just because two hypotheses are each
          plausible by themselves doesn't mean that you can necessarily put them
          together and get a plausible hypothesis from the combination.

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

          >Hey, do you forget your method ? If the difference of author is
          >"almost always true", then "earlier edition" by the same author is
          >very very rare. In that case, according your own method, you should
          >add a new criteria that exclude any "earlier edition".

          Not at all. As I see it (and this is partly a question of terminology)
          there are four possibilities for a 'base document': a separate source by
          the same or a different author, and an earlier edition by the same or a
          different author. For simplicity I was considering only what I think are
          the most common cases, i.e. a separate source by a different author and
          an earlier edition by the same author.

          >This was your method for size and structure of earlier editions (I quote :
          >"for new editions rarely double the size of the original" and : "because
          >editions subsequent to the first are usually less well structured"). Is that
          >not a bias in the application of your method ?

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

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

          If you don't know the content of your hypothetical source, then of
          course you can't know its structure, and any assertion that it has a
          good structure would be without foundation. If you *do* know its content
          then it would be nonsense to say "This source is structured" without
          being able to demonstrate it.

          > ..... how will you check it if you can not check the structure
          >even for known gospels ?

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

          >In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
          >it looks as a fragment. We do not know exactly of what, but it
          >looks as a gospel (the closest texts to that fragment are whole
          >gospels). And as for a scrap, the text is corrupted, so that we may
          >not warrant that the reading we find is exactly the original document:
          >the 'Luke minus Mark' operation gives just a track, an image, of a
          >previous document.

          You seem to be missing my point. Your 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk
          21:20-28 is nothing like a scrap of papyrus. You can examine a scrap of
          papyrus and *know* its wording must have been part of a larger document.
          Your scrap could be, and in my opinion probably is, a hypothetical
          construct which did not exist until Luke thought of it.

          >where are your model which show us that a double edition was a common
          >praxis in early christianity ?

          Given time I could demonstrate that two of the four canonical gospels
          ran into multiple editions. The detailed arguments for John can already
          be found on my Web site.

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

          As it happens, the criteria I have used to derive the original
          editions of Luke and John are very much stricter than those mentioned
          earlier in this thread - see the constraints I put on the first edition
          of John.

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

          It's not sufficiently precise. Please note that I have myself made a
          detailed reconstruction of a proposed gospel source document. It's
          called 'sQ' and it has a very clear Sitz im Leben. You can check it out
          on my Web site under 'synoptic gospel sources'.

          Anyway there is a crucial difference which is often forgotten.
          The period prior to the gospels, when Q was supposedly being written,
          is covered by Acts. There is no such early historical record for the
          period when the canonical gospels were being written, i.e. between
          around 70 CE and 110 CE. Therefore we should reasonably expect to be
          able to provide more precise Sitz information for any supposed early
          Christian gospel source than for the gospel itself.

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

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

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

          Yes indeed.

          >Your criteria looks as universal remedy. They do not fit with facts.
          >They look based upon a vague idea of problems of previous generation
          >theories, and a deep need to kill fast and wide all "hypothetical sources",
          >in order to avoid some headache.

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

          Ron Price

          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

          e-mail: ron.price@...

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

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

            cordially

            Karel Hanhart.

            Manu asked:

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

            > Ron stated:

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

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

            <large snip>

            Manu stated:

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

            He continued at a later point:

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

            (to be continued, KH).


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • archeboc
            Ron, ... RP: ... EF: And then I wanted to use the rough draft as a kind of document, and you answered that since you said Luke MIGHT have written out a rough
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 13, 2002
              Ron,

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

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

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

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

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


              EF:
              >> You are nowhere near knowing what your supposed document contained.
              >> ..... There is a world of difference between your vague
              >> suggestion and my precise hypothesis.
              >>
              >My suggestion is really precise : I take your work, and I replace ...

              RP:
              […] But here you propose mixing your hypothesis with mine,
              and I've told you already that it wouldn't work. Just because
              two hypotheses are each plausible by themselves doesn't mean
              that you can necessarily put them together and get a plausible
              hypothesis from the combination.

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


              EF:
              >Hey, do you forget your method ? If the difference of author is
              >"almost always true", then "earlier edition" by the same author is
              >very very rare. In that case, according your own method, you should
              >add a new criteria that exclude any "earlier edition".


              RP:
              Not at all. As I see it (and this is partly a question of
              terminology) there are four possibilities for a 'base
              document': a separate source by the same or a different
              author, and an earlier edition by the same or a different
              author. For simplicity I was considering only what I think
              are the most common cases, i.e. a separate source by a
              different author and an earlier edition by the same author.

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

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


              EF :
              >In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
              >it looks as a fragment. We do not know exactly of what, but it
              >looks as a gospel (the closest texts to that fragment are whole
              >gospels). And as for a scrap, the text is corrupted, so that we may
              >not warrant that the reading we find is exactly the original
              document:
              >the 'Luke minus Mark' operation gives just a track, an image, of a
              >previous document.

              RP:
              You seem to be missing my point. Your 'Luke minus Mark' for
              Lk 21:20-28 is nothing like a scrap of papyrus. You can
              examine a scrap of papyrus and *know* its wording must have
              been part of a larger document. Your scrap could be, and in
              my opinion probably is, a hypothetical construct which did
              not exist until Luke thought of it.

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


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

              RP:
              It's not sufficiently precise.

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

              Great, Gospel Thomas is a kind of rough draft.



              RP: [about Sitz im Leben]
              Anyway there is a crucial difference which is often forgotten.
              The period prior to the gospels, when Q was supposedly being written,
              is covered by Acts. There is no such early historical record for the
              period when the canonical gospels were being written, i.e. between
              around 70 CE and 110 CE. Therefore we should reasonably expect to be
              able to provide more precise Sitz information for any supposed early
              Christian gospel source than for the gospel itself.

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



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

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

              EF:
              Absolutely not. The same as Luke.

              a+
              manu







              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Ron Price
              ... Emmanuel, (by the way, I address you thus because I don t understand your signature: a+ manu . If a+ is short for adieu, then it might be better to spell
              Message 6 of 18 , Aug 15, 2002
                I wrote:

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

                Emmanuel Fritsch replied:

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

                Emmanuel,

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

                This looks like another language problem.
                When I write: "Luke might have written a rough draft" I am contending
                that this action is plausible. This is not the same as saying that it is
                *probable*.
                In any case I can't see the relevance of your division of the
                possibilities. You seem to think the crucial question is whether
                something was written or not. To me the crucial question is whether (a)
                the text is derived from some foreign (non-Lukan) source or (b) it
                formed part of an edition of the gospel produced by Luke before he
                produced the extant edition or (c) he made it up (with or without the
                use of a rough draft). If you wish to argue for (a) or (b), then you
                should either find other texts which belong to the supposed
                source/earlier edition, or demonstrate that the text is viable by
                itself. If there are no other texts and, like a typical papyrus
                fragment, it is not viable by itself, then in my opinion you have not
                found enough evidence, and you should accept that option (c) is more
                probable.

                > ..... I provided several
                >arguments to show that we can locally improve your
                >hypothesis with this mix. You did not answer with
                >precise objections .....

                Sorry, but I can't give precise objections here as to why 'Luke minus
                Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is inconsistent with my 'First Edition of Luke'.
                The detailed case for the latter is complex and I'm currently trying to
                get it published.

                >What is the difference between source and early edition ?

                A source is generally produced by a different author in a different
                Sitz im Leben for a different purpose and a different audience.

                >You choose the terminology for your convenience,
                > but this is disconnected from facts.

                Many English books have been published in more than one edition. This
                is a fact.
                Many of these also quote from sources which they acknowledge. This is
                a fact.
                How then can you say that my distinction is not based on facts? Is it
                not the same with French books? If you distinguish between an earlier
                edition and a source in a modern French book, why not attempt to do the
                same in ancient Greek books?

                >Where is the rule that require a precise Sitz im Leben to be known to
                >allow a document to have existed ?

                Perhaps we differ in regard to what we call the 'onus of proof'. I
                contend that the onus here should be on the person asserting the
                existence of a hypothetical document/earlier edition to provide
                sufficient evidence of its existence.
                You simply have not provided sufficient evidence for 'Luke minus Mark'
                for Lk 21:20-28. I might live without a precise Sitz im Leben if you had
                other compelling evidence, but so far you haven't (as far as I can
                remember) mentioned a single piece of evidence from outside Lk 21:20-28
                to corroborate your argument.

                >Anyway there is a crucial difference which is often forgotten.
                >The period prior to the gospels, when Q was supposedly being written,
                >is covered by Acts. There is no such early historical record for the
                >period when the canonical gospels were being written, i.e. between
                >around 70 CE and 110 CE. Therefore we should reasonably expect to be
                >able to provide more precise Sitz information for any supposed early
                >Christian gospel source than for the gospel itself.

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

                For Christian documents dated ca. 70-110 CE it is more difficult to
                establish a Sitz im Leben because no contemporary Christian wrote a
                history of the period.

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

                So presumably it was written at about the same time as Luke.
                If so, have you observed anything which would allow you to distinguish
                between a rough draft and a formal document in this case? If not, and if
                your argument about 'Luke
                minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 proved to be correct, what would be its
                significance for the history of the synoptics outside Lk 21:20-28 or for
                the history of Christianity?

                Ron Price

                Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                e-mail: ron.price@...

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Emmanuel Fritsch
                Since Ron want to reserve his arguments for publication, this discussion is soon arrived to its end. ... If you do not think that Luke might have written a
                Message 7 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                  Since Ron want to reserve his arguments for publication,
                  this discussion is soon arrived to its end.


                  I said, and Ron answered :
                  > [...] OK : rough draft or proto-gospel, do you agree
                  > >that something has been written, once, looking as 'Luke
                  > >minus Mark on Lk 20-28' ?
                  > [...]
                  > When I write: "Luke might have written a rough draft"
                  > I am contending that this action is plausible. This is not the
                  > same as saying that it is *probable*.

                  If you do not think that "Luke might have written a
                  rough draft" is highly probable, then you should be
                  able to propose at least an alternative. This is the
                  goal of my insistance from the beginning.

                  Rough draft or anything else, do you agree that
                  something has been written, once, looking as 'Luke
                  minus Mark on Lk 20-28' ?
                  If not, you are waited to provide an alternative explanation.


                  > In any case I can't see the relevance of your division of the
                  > possibilities. You seem to think the crucial question is whether
                  > something was written or not.

                  YES.
                  This is the first step.
                  If the existence of this "something" is accepted, we
                  may then decide what this "something" was in fact.
                  Is its existence accepted ?


                  > To me the crucial question is whether
                  > (a) the text is derived from some foreign (non-Lukan) source or
                  > (b) it formed part of an edition of the gospel produced by Luke
                  > before he produced the extant edition or
                  > (c) he made it up (with or without the use of a rough draft).
                  > If you wish to argue for (a) or (b), then you should either
                  > find other texts which belong to the supposed source/earlier
                  > edition, or demonstrate that the text is viable by itself.

                  Absolutely not. If I want to argue for (a) or (b), I may say
                  that (c) is really improbable. And I would prefer this way,
                  rather than yours, since it is easier to argue: did you ever
                  heard about the rough draft of any old greek document ?
                  whithout further argument, the onus of proof is on the defender
                  of this rough draft.
                  There is nothing in (a) and (b) as problematic as this stange feature.

                  I would like to know how many members of this list would
                  agree with your rough draft...


                  > > ..... I provided several
                  > >arguments to show that we can locally improve your
                  > >hypothesis with this mix. You did not answer with
                  > >precise objections .....
                  >
                  > Sorry, but I can't give precise objections here as to why 'Luke minus
                  > Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is inconsistent with my 'First Edition of Luke'.
                  > The detailed case for the latter is complex and I'm currently trying to
                  > get it published.

                  OK. then, for a sake of economy, and until you publish your
                  arguments, we will consider that any hypothetical early edition
                  of Luke is expected to presented a text close to 'Luke minus Mark'
                  for Lk 21:20-28.

                  We are waiting for your challenging views.


                  > >What is the difference between source and early edition ?
                  >
                  > A source is generally produced by a different author in a different
                  > Sitz im Leben for a different purpose and a different audience.

                  And not an early edition ?
                  Hey, since you prefer example found in modern times, I give you the
                  example of a french book, translated in english:

                  "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism" by Leon
                  Vaganay & Christian-Bernard Amphoux. Cambridge University
                  Press, 1992.

                  The early french edition of this 'Initiation a la critique du Nouveau
                  Testament' has been published in 1933. The present one is dated 1988.
                  The first one is due to Vaganay, the second one to Amphoux. For the
                  differences of purposes and audience, just have a look on respective
                  Amphoux's and Vaganay's introductions. (if both have been translated).

                  My example is a bad one ? For those who think that modern edition is
                  not relevant when we are speaking about antiquity, OK, I will quote
                  the only example of double edition I ever heard in antiquity: Plinius
                  letters.
                  The tenth book was not included in the first edition. It contains pieces
                  from another hand (Trajan). It has not been published by Plinius, and not
                  for a litterary purpose (as the first edition), but added to the first
                  one with political views (according to my french edition).

                  > A source is generally produced by a different author in a different
                  > Sitz im Leben for a different purpose and a different audience.

                  You said : "A source is generally...". This "generally" shows that
                  your distinction is highly fuzzy. This would not be too hard if it had
                  been just a semantic precision, but since the discrimination between
                  sources and editions commanded the criteria you use, you charge it
                  with a weight it can not carry on.

                  More over, your definition does not explain how you recognize a
                  source from an early edition, in an old-greek text. And if you can
                  not recognize with security a hypothetical source from an hypothetical
                  early edition, you may not be allowed to use different criteria for
                  hypothetical sources and hypothetical early editions, since a hypothetical
                  early edition may perhabs be a source, and a hypothetical source may
                  perhabs hide an early edition...


                  > >You choose the terminology for your convenience,
                  > > but this is disconnected from facts.
                  >
                  > Many English books have been published in more than one edition.
                  > This is a fact.
                  > Many of these also quote from sources which they acknowledge.
                  > This is a fact.
                  > How then can you say that my distinction is not based on facts?

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

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


                  > Is it
                  > not the same with French books? If you distinguish between an earlier
                  > edition and a source in a modern French book, why not attempt to do the
                  > same in ancient Greek books?

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

                  And in fact, since there is no prima facie evidence to decide if a
                  given text is an earlier edition or another kind of source, it looks
                  difficult to ground your criteria on this distinction.

                  - the way-to-do to distinguish between sources and editions has not been defined
                  - but you are yet building some criteria on this distinguishing operation.

                  Is it not building on sand ?


                  > >Where is the rule that require a precise Sitz im Leben to be known to
                  > >allow a document to have existed ?
                  >
                  > Perhaps we differ in regard to what we call the 'onus of proof'. I
                  > contend that the onus here should be on the person asserting the
                  > existence of a hypothetical document/earlier edition to provide
                  > sufficient evidence of its existence.

                  Sure. And when at least one single evidence has been provided,
                  the onus of proof is on the person asserting the inexistence, to provide
                  a better account of facts that base the alledged evidences.

                  For my part, I do not yet assert the existence of a hypothetical document
                  nor an earlier edition. I just ask for explanation of 'Luke minus Mark'
                  phenomenon. If nobody provides any good explanation for the phenomenon,
                  I will get bad ideas about synoptic problem...


                  > >I beg you pardon. I still not undersand how the end of Acts
                  > >around 60 make the Sitz im Leben of 70-100 less problematic
                  > >than for the previous.
                  >
                  > For Christian documents dated ca. 70-110 CE it is more difficult to
                  > establish a Sitz im Leben because no contemporary Christian wrote a
                  > history of the period.

                  And so ? We have some precision about 30-60. Less precision about
                  70-110. How do you deduce that the lack of knowledge about a deduced
                  source dated perhabs from 30-60, perhabs 60-80, is an evidence that this
                  source is a fake ?

                  The link between both questions (date and Sitz im Leben, vs probability
                  of existence) is far away from my understanding.


                  > > [the Sitz im Leben for 'Luke minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 is]
                  > > the same as [for] Luke.
                  >
                  > So presumably it was written at about the same time as Luke.

                  May be. Or may be not.
                  Since the date of gospel according Luke and its Sitz im Leben are not precise,
                  and subject to many discussion, all considerations of source date, and source
                  Sitz im Leben are useless and lost time.


                  > If so, have you observed anything which would allow you to distinguish
                  > between a rough draft and a formal document in this case? If not, and if
                  > your argument about 'Luke
                  > minus Mark' for Lk 21:20-28 proved to be correct, what would be its
                  > significance for the history of the synoptics outside Lk 21:20-28 or for
                  > the history of Christianity?

                  ** For history of christianity :
                  A synoptic theory should not be first evaluated by its productivity
                  in our knowledge of early christianity, but in our understanding of
                  redaction process.

                  A theory should fit first the synoptic phenomenon. When the good
                  theory is found, historians will examine what we will learn about
                  early christianity. A synoptic theory should never be evaluated
                  through the nice new information it provides about early christianity,
                  unless this nice information would appear in fact as imagination, and
                  the theory built on sands.

                  And if the best synoptic theory does not provide any information
                  about early christianity, we should accept it, and are not allowed
                  to consider this lack of knowledge as a bad point for the theory.


                  ** For history of synoptics :
                  Any theory that does not account the 'Luke minus Mark' phenomenon
                  should be considered as doubtful: we should allways prefer reallity
                  against imagination.

                  a+
                  manu

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Ron Price
                  This discussion is not getting anywhere, but rather is tending to go round in circles. I will try to summarize the root of our differences. ... Emmanuel et
                  Message 8 of 18 , Aug 25, 2002
                    This discussion is not getting anywhere, but rather is tending to go
                    round in circles. I will try to summarize the root of our differences.

                    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                    >For my part, I do not yet assert the existence of a hypothetical document
                    >nor an earlier edition. I just ask for explanation of 'Luke minus Mark'
                    >phenomenon.

                    Emmanuel et al.,

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

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

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

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

                    Ron Price

                    Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                    e-mail: ron.price@...

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Emmanuel Fritsch
                    ... I gave some objections about that implausible scenario and your other arguments (for instance your criteria). You answered with general considerations, but
                    Message 9 of 18 , Aug 27, 2002
                      Ron Price wrote:
                      >
                      > This discussion is not getting anywhere, but rather is tending to go
                      > round in circles. I will try to summarize the root of our differences.

                      and later :

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

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

                      We are waiting for your publication.

                      a+
                      manu

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.