RE: [Synoptic-L] Ulrich Victor hit again
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.
Ken OlsonPhD CandidateDepartment of ReligionDuke University
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:39:37 +0100
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Ulrich Victor hit again
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
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.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]