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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.