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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.