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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.