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

Ulrich Victor hit again

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Remember Victor? He thinks that we are all wrong and that classical philology is superior to NT TC and knows everything much better. Now he has solved the
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 22, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Remember Victor?
      He thinks that we are all wrong and that classical philology is superior to
      NT TC and knows everything much better.
      Now he has solved the Synoptic Problem!
      I accidentally came across this book in our library, which is buying all
      kinds of obscure books.

      Karl Jaros / Ulrich Victor
      "Die Synoptische Tradition"
      Böhlau, Cologne, 2010
      415 pages

      The book is in German. Here are a few things in my own translation:

      From the preface:

      "With the present examination the two-source hypothesis is disproved in all
      of its parts. Neither is the Gospel of Mark the draft (Vorlage) of the other
      two synoptics, also not in the form of Proto- or Deutero-Mark, nor is there
      a source Q. The three synoptic Gospels turn out to be witnesses independent
      of one another of the events, of which they report, and have a multitude
      (eine Vielzahl) of sources."

      "Three independent Gospels report, without contradicting each other in any
      important point, from the same events."

      "The synoptic Gospels originate from between 40 and 62 CE."

      "We do not want to leave any doubt, that we are still very far away from a
      satisfying text of the Gospels, How far can be shown like this: After an
      analysis of the letter of Jude using the rules of classical philology, the
      author found 21 changes to NA. Extrapolating this ... for the complete NT,
      one gets 4-5000 changes to the current 'standard' text. Establishing this
      urgently desired text will be the job of the next decades."


      From the conclusions:

      "The stemmatic method of Karl Lachmann ... led to provable conclusions ..."

      "It could be proven that not a single of the analyzed pericopes of one
      Gospel is the source (Vorlage) of one or two others. It could be further
      proven that the pericopes go back either to different sources, independent
      of one another, or ... to different, but similar sources."

      "The two source hypothesis has been disproven: None of the Gospels is the
      source of any of the other two, and the existence of Q can be ruled out."

      "The sources established by us are earlier than the synoptic Gospels ...
      Thus we are dealing with (true) facts. ... eye witness accounts ..."


      Well, so much for now.
      As a scientist reading the word "proven" in this difficult context so often
      is really disappointing and annoying.
      The books is mainly a Greek synopsis with German interlinear translation and
      discussion of the evidence after every pericope.
      The minor agreements are explained as editorial work of Mark.
      There are several statistical histograms and charts that give the impression
      of "real science". :-)
      I haven't studied this book in detail yet, not sure if I should.


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
    • Ken Olson
      Wieland, Thanks for this. I recently read Victor s piece on the Christ passage in Josephus - Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus -
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 22, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Wieland,
        Thanks for this. I recently read Victor's piece on the Christ passage in Josephus - Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus - Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 72-82. I hadn't realized it was part of a larger project.
        Best wishes,
        Ken
        Ken OlsonPhD CandidateDepartment of ReligionDuke University

        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        CC: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        From: wie@...
        Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:39:37 +0100
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Ulrich Victor hit again




























        Remember Victor?

        He thinks that we are all wrong and that classical philology is superior to

        NT TC and knows everything much better.

        Now he has solved the Synoptic Problem!

        I accidentally came across this book in our library, which is buying all

        kinds of obscure books.



        Karl Jaros / Ulrich Victor

        "Die Synoptische Tradition"

        B�hlau, Cologne, 2010

        415 pages



        The book is in German. Here are a few things in my own translation:



        From the preface:



        "With the present examination the two-source hypothesis is disproved in all

        of its parts. Neither is the Gospel of Mark the draft (Vorlage) of the other

        two synoptics, also not in the form of Proto- or Deutero-Mark, nor is there

        a source Q. The three synoptic Gospels turn out to be witnesses independent

        of one another of the events, of which they report, and have a multitude

        (eine Vielzahl) of sources."



        "Three independent Gospels report, without contradicting each other in any

        important point, from the same events."



        "The synoptic Gospels originate from between 40 and 62 CE."



        "We do not want to leave any doubt, that we are still very far away from a

        satisfying text of the Gospels, How far can be shown like this: After an

        analysis of the letter of Jude using the rules of classical philology, the

        author found 21 changes to NA. Extrapolating this ... for the complete NT,

        one gets 4-5000 changes to the current 'standard' text. Establishing this

        urgently desired text will be the job of the next decades."



        From the conclusions:



        "The stemmatic method of Karl Lachmann ... led to provable conclusions ..."



        "It could be proven that not a single of the analyzed pericopes of one

        Gospel is the source (Vorlage) of one or two others. It could be further

        proven that the pericopes go back either to different sources, independent

        of one another, or ... to different, but similar sources."



        "The two source hypothesis has been disproven: None of the Gospels is the

        source of any of the other two, and the existence of Q can be ruled out."



        "The sources established by us are earlier than the synoptic Gospels ...

        Thus we are dealing with (true) facts. ... eye witness accounts ..."



        Well, so much for now.

        As a scientist reading the word "proven" in this difficult context so often

        is really disappointing and annoying.

        The books is mainly a Greek synopsis with German interlinear translation and

        discussion of the evidence after every pericope.

        The minor agreements are explained as editorial work of Mark.

        There are several statistical histograms and charts that give the impression

        of "real science". :-)

        I haven't studied this book in detail yet, not sure if I should.



        Best wishes

        Wieland

        <><

        --------------------------

        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

        Textcritical commentary:

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/


















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.