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
      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@...
    • 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 2 of 6 , Sep 2, 2004
        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 3 of 6 , Sep 6, 2004
          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.