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

[Synoptic-L] re: Linemann

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... Perhaps. But Schleiermacher was a better scholar than L. So if I have to give credence to one viewpoint over another (which is essentially what
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1 11:52 AM
      At 02:38 PM 9/1/2004, you wrote:
      Now, about the next sentence of the continuing quote, is my first question:
      'Unfortunately for Schleiermacher, logia here means "what the Lord said
      or did", not just "sayings" (she refer to G. Kittel, logian (in Greek), TDNT,
      So my question 1)
      Is she correct in this?

      Perhaps.  But Schleiermacher was a better scholar than L.  So if I have to give credence to one viewpoint over another (which is essentially what scholarship is these days, isn't it?) I have to side with Schleiermacher.

      Somebody has IN GERMAN for me what Schleiermacher has exactly said
      in these matters (or the references where to find his statements)? And again,
      is she correctly rendering his view?

      F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Leben Jesu.
      She is oversimplifying (as is her wanton custom) for polemical reasons.

      Now the words 'have Weisse to thank for' and 'lie' in the last sentence of the
      quote may be a bit coloured (judgemental language), but still my (3d) question
      What is correct (or possibly incorrect) in what she is saying on Weisse?

      No.  She is misreading Weiss, who simply strove to show that Jesus' sayings in the Gospels are framed more by his interpreters than by himself.  That is, the Gospels are interpretation rather than verbatim reporting.

      I'll be happy to have some comments from list members.
      I have never felt comfortable with source theories thus ar, because is seems they
      are ALL not able to give fully satisfying explanations on possible relationship(s)
      between the synoptic texts( I myself include Gospel of John among the
      synoptics as an literary independent entity).

      The presupposition of source criticism is, I think, based on a fallacy.  It seeks to reconstruct ipsissima when such an exercise is, in fact, futile and pointless.  No solution is satisfactory because none can be proven.  (But it does provide loads of doctoral students with something to do).  ;-)

      We maybe have to go back to theories that explain the phenomena from
      general literary INDEPENDENCE of all the four classical gospels?

      No, there clearly is some sort of interdependence.  We just cant trace the family tree (probably because theres too much inbreeding).

      A new swing back of the pendulum, after Peter Hofrichter has suggested in "Johannes,
      Modell und Vorlage der Synoptiker" " has proposed literary dependence of all the synoptic
      gospels on the Gospel of John??

      Appalling and impossible. 

      Anecdotally, Linemann appeared at the Seminary I attended in the 80's, to lead a seminar.  She showed slides of her reconstruction of Gospel relationships, told us she would be taking no questions (and she didnt); announced she had burned all her previous books and those of Bultmann too (who had been her Doktorvater) and was heading to Indonesia to work among the tribesmen.  She was, unfortunately, quite rude.  When a classmate asked if he could possibly get clarification she brusquely said- "I am taking no questions".  She lectured more as the oracle of Delphi than a seeker for truth.  When all is said and done I think we are more willing to accept what someone says if that someone is personable and approachable.  Because i've met her, I wouldnt believe anything Linemann said even if it were a fact.  Hence, my siding with Scheliermacher (whom iv'e not met but whom I have read, with great profit).



      Jim West, ThD
      Pastor, First Baptist Church Petros
      http://web.infoave.net/~jwest  Biblical Studies Resources
      http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com   Biblical Theology Weblog
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.