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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.