9823Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independence
- Sep 19, 2004Hi Karel,----- Original Message -----From: Karel HanhartSent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:06 PMSubject: Re: [Synoptic-L] documentary independenceYou:I wonder who this Verkaik is, you mentioned in your contribution. Could you clarify?I'll try to contact him somehow. I only know that he graduated at Vrije Universiteit A'dam.On the website of Sönke Finnern where she(he?) deals with
'Die Traditionshypothese als Alternative zur Zweiquellentheorie:
Ihre neueren Vertreter, ihre Argumente, ihre Beurteilung* '
I found a reference to another study of Verkaik:
Verkaik, André, Hangovers over 'Überhänge': A study of the Additional Minor Details of Mark found in neither Matthew nor Luke, www.inexes.com/nt/synoptic_problem/ hangovers0t.html (5.3.01).
I will contact you off list when I have found out more about him.
Zuidlaren (Netherlands).----- Original Message -----From: Frides LamérisTo: synoptic-l@...Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:41 PMSubject: [Synoptic-L] documentary independenceHi Tim,----- Original Message -----From: Tim LewisTo: synoptic-l@...Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:46 AMSubject: [Synoptic-L] documentary independenceYou wrote:>snip>It seems the Synoptics share much fewer verbal similarities than we might expect with documentary dependence given their context.My point is that one usually admits documentary dependence only when one believes that similar content, phrasing and sequence would not be expected given the context. Often it seems just as likely that the text has already had a oral life of its own. Could not phraseology from one Church's gospel effect another without positing direct literary dependence?Can someone please convince me that the synoptics are documentarily (inter)dependent (given the oral context).For my part, I very much doubt if real proof for documentary dependence proof can be given.E. Linnemann refers in her book 'Is there a synoptic problem' (I have a german edition from 1999) to the kind of considerationsyou are entertaining. She has also a lot of statistical observations that make documentary dependence of the synoptics according to her rather IMprobable. I think I referred before to the work of (Dutch) André Verkaik 'Tenability of Synoptic Independence' (a study that unfortunately I have not yet got hold of), who (also) goes for an (literary) independence view.As for myself, important, I think, is the point that when one allows more room for the gospel texts to reflect a higher level of historicity, directly or indirectly going back to reliable eyewitnesses, it MUST be that a certain percentage of the material being the same or having likeness can already be accounted for by this very fact.Other factors have to be considered of course and these one can certainly find in the literature of the 'Independentists'.As I have just rather recently gained (greater) interest in this matter, and I have not yet found the time to study (all) the details of the independence view, I am happy to leave the discussion at this point.I have understood from L. Dungans 'A history of the Synoptic Problem' that the formation of source theories often has been driven by questionable ideological factors. The postulated existence of Q is for me most enigmatic.One wonders, what drives the Q-theorists to almost make it a 'gospel' by itselfHoping the point that I have raised makes some connection with the question you have asked,Best wishesFrides LamérisZuidlaren (Home)(Netherlands)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>