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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The status of Q and (of) the Two-Source Theory

Expand Messages
  • Frides Laméris
    Hi Stephen, ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Frides Laméris ; Sent: Thursday, September
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Stephen,

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
      To: Frides Laméris <flameris@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
      Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 6:06 AM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The status of Q and (of) the Two-Source Theory

      Thanks for your welcome to the list
      and the references!

      I'll try to get hold of the German version of Stoldts criticism of the
      Markan Hypothesis and see if the Schleiermacher texts are also
      available in the library.

      Stephen:
      > Yes, but please realize that Linnemann is also
      > against *any* literary relationships between
      > and among the synoptic gospels.

      As long as there are no aprioris build in into the possible literary
      (in)dependence, there are chances traces can be found of such a
      relationship between (gospel) texts. Because thusfar however, after almost
      a few hundreds years of critical research, definite results of the
      dependence
      approach seem to be minimal (who would dare to say: as far as proofed
      certainty is concerned almost nil), the better chances may at last be for
      more traditional approaches which reckon with a minimum of LITERARY
      dependence.
      (For the problems around the definition of 'literary dependence', please see
      my post
      of today to Jim West).

      I wish we had a simple example (one to start with!); describe all the
      different approaches;
      list the different presuppositions; have them rated as to their weight, do
      some more
      necessary steps, and create the (mathematical) formula which gives an
      evaluation of the (relative) strength(s) and weaknes(ses) of all the
      explanations/approaches!

      I was once told in mathematics one tends to go for solutions that are
      most simple and elegant.

      Maybe somebody can also work out some software which could do the
      job sketched above. I'll leave that with pleasure to the (paid) experts!

      Independent greetings to all

      Frides Laméris
      Zuidlaren (Home)
      Netherlands





      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Frides Laméris
      Hi Jim, ... From: Jim West To: Frides Laméris Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The status of Q and (of) the Two-Source
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jim,
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jim West
        Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 8:51 PM
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The status of Q and (of) the Two-Source Theory
         
        re your (rather historical) anecdote:
         
        It seems to me you have something to digest with Mrs. Linnemann
        having not given you the chance to speak out on the seminar.
        Must have been a really frustrating experience.
        Robert Yarbrough wrote (internet) an good article on her science contribution:
        Eta Linnemann, Friend or Foe of Scholarship? (1997). He comes to a balanced
        position, having evaluated many reviews of her book 'Is there a synoptic problem'?.
         
         
        snip
         
        You:
        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).  ;-)
         
        Me:
        I must confess New Testament Science seems not (to have been) able to contribute significantly to establish
        criteria for recovering ipsissima verba. Its a kind of intellectual exercise which gives (as usual) only dialectial results.
        This means: two scientists with the same criteria in hand may get opposite results when they apply the criteria to
        the texts. I noticed this fact several times during my NT studies. I happened to take home from the university
        library a recent survey on this matter: Hyeon Woo Shin: 'The search for valid criteria: Textual Criticism, the synoptic Problem, and historical Jesus research, diss., Amsterdam, 2003. For the theorist ( a little part of me), its is wonderful.
        The old criteria are a bit polished, some new are formulated.  But I am sure it will not bring us closer to the matter
        deciding what are (not) ipsissima verba.
        That hinges much more on other presuppositions and choices taken about what the gospels are or what they are not.
        Its true, little (almost nothing even) can be proven. So the question may be: why are we (still) undertaking all these efforts??
        (Maybe I quitt when I have found the solution !?)

        ME:
        >We maybe have to go back to theories that explain the phenomena from
        >general literary INDEPENDENCE of all the four classical gospels?
          YOU:
        No, there clearly is some sort of interdependence.  We just cant trace the family tree (probably because theres too much inbreeding).

        I am struggling these days with theories of Paul Anderson on possible interrelationship(s) between the gospels.
        There are many options. Anyway, the term literary (in)dependence should be(come) better defined.
        Linnemann 1992 (Is there a synoptic Problem), whose excellent scientific PAST cannot be denied, is emphatic
        on that. Even from great similarities in (two) texts, one should not hastily jump to conclusions of literary dependence.
        If we think, gospel writers were plagarianists, we first have to see wat rules underly writing up plagarian texts generally
        in time related documents.
        As far as I know Linneman has also been first in providing a table of 'seven types of literary dependence', so that one
        does not run down to a text with a too simple (in)dependence definition.
         
        Here one point of myself (and of several other theologians of course):
         
        If we think many things in gospel texts cannot stem from memory based actual history, maybe more research
        has to be done of the role of memory itself, etc. etc.
         
        Wishing you all the best
         
        P.S. I do take questions!
         
        Frides Laméris
        Zuidlaren (Home)
        Netherlands.
         
      • John C. Poirier
        ... Definite results of the dependence approach are *not* minimal, as far as demonstrating the fact of dependence is concerned. What is up in the air is not
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Frides Laméris wrote (in response to Carlson):

          >As long as there are no aprioris build in into the possible literary (in)dependence, there are chances traces can be found of such a relationship between (gospel) texts. Because thusfar however, after almost a few hundreds years of critical research, definite results of the dependence approach seem to be minimal (who would dare to say: as far as proofed certainty is concerned almost nil), the better chances may at last be for more traditional approaches which reckon with a minimum of LITERARY dependence.
          >
          Definite results of the dependence approach are *not* minimal, as far as
          demonstrating the fact of dependence is concerned. What is up in the
          air is not the question of dependence but the *direction* of dependence,
          which is a different matter altogether. You cannot turn the unsettled
          state of the latter into an unsettling of the former.

          Frides Laméris wrote (in response to West):

          >Even from great similarities in (two) texts, one should not hastily jump to conclusions of literary dependence. . . . If we think many things in gospel texts cannot stem from memory based actual history, maybe more research has to be done of the role of memory itself, etc. etc.
          >
          Have no fear, I've come to save the day: just read my article on
          "Memory, Written Sources, and the Synoptic Problem: A Response to Robert
          K. McIver and Marie Carroll" in the most recent *Journal of Biblical
          Literature*. (It will help you sleep more soundly.)


          John C. Poirier
          Middletown, Ohio



          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... I think that Jack Poirier has already pointed that there is a big difference between the fact of some literary interdependence and the direction of that
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 03:07 PM 9/2/2004 +0200, Frides Laméris wrote:
            >As long as there are no aprioris build in into the possible literary
            >(in)dependence, there are chances traces can be found of such a
            >relationship between (gospel) texts. Because thusfar however, after almost
            >a few hundreds years of critical research, definite results of the
            >dependence approach seem to be minimal (who would dare to say: as far as
            >proofed certainty is concerned almost nil), the better chances may at last
            >be for more traditional approaches which reckon with a minimum of LITERARY
            >dependence.

            I think that Jack Poirier has already pointed that there is a
            big difference between the fact of some literary interdependence
            and the direction of that relationship. I would also dispute the
            idea that independence is "more traditional" than dependence,
            because Augustine assumed dependence in his discussion of the
            agreement of the gospels.

            >I wish we had a simple example (one to start with!); describe all the
            >different approaches; list the different presuppositions; have them rated as
            >to their weight, do some more necessary steps, and create the (mathematical)
            >formula which gives an evaluation of the (relative) strength(s) and
            >weaknes(ses) of all the explanations/approaches!

            At my web site, I have enumerated (based on a computer program) a list of
            1488 viable, documentary solutions to the synoptic problem, with 0, 1,
            or 2 relevant hypothetical documents. (Independence is not one of them.)

            See http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/enum.htm

            >I was once told in mathematics one tends to go for solutions that are
            >most simple and elegant.
            >
            >Maybe somebody can also work out some software which could do the
            >job sketched above. I'll leave that with pleasure to the (paid) experts!

            The hard part is not the software, but devising a formula that can
            reasonably evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the
            possible solutions.

            Stephen
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
            Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.