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.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...