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

[Synoptic-L] Carlson's Synoptic Problem Website

Expand Messages
  • Tim Lewis
    Stephen, Some comments on your new Synoptic Problem Website: It reads very nicely! Just three brief notes: Perhaps you might wish to add to your Annotated
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      Stephen,

      Some comments on your new Synoptic Problem Website: It reads very nicely! Just three brief notes:

      Perhaps you might wish to add to your Annotated Bibliography: David Laird Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (ABRL; New York: DoubleDay 1999). This contains a wider perspective on the problem than usual (e.g. the fourth gospel is not excluded from the wider problem, along with the relevance of one’s synopsis and one’s critical text used for interpretation). Dungan’s presentation is useful in conjunction with other presentations since very little space is dedicated to the major source theories.

      Concerning "Mark-Q Theory with Proto-Luke" in your Overview of Proposed Solutions: I recall W. G. Kümmel mentioning that even V. Taylor eventually abandoned proto-Luke (I think Kümmel mentioned this in the 1973/1975 edition of his Introduction to the New Testament, trans. Howard C. Kee, (London: SCM Press).

      In your Chronology of the Synoptic Problem, you may wish to make it clearer that Augustine himself did not seem to envision direct copying of material. His is more an apology/justification for the four different (yet inspired) gospels. See Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 38, who for this observation seems indebted to S. McLoughlin, "An Approach to the Synoptic Problem," (S.T.L.thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1963), 28.

      Tim Lewis.



      Timothy M. Lewis
      Cranbourne, VIC 3977
      Part-time Greek Tutor at Whitley College,
      Melbourne College of Divinity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.



      Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Thank you very much. ... Although I ve found many parts of Dungan s history interesting and edifying, I ve been reluctant to include it on my annotated
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 08:35 PM 10/18/2004 +1000, Tim Lewis wrote:
        >Some comments on your new Synoptic Problem Website: It reads very nicely!

        Thank you very much.

        >Just three brief notes:
        >
        >Perhaps you might wish to add to your Annotated Bibliography: David Laird
        >Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text the
        >Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (ABRL; New York:
        >DoubleDay 1999). This contains a wider perspective on the problem than usual
        >(e.g. the fourth gospel is not excluded from the wider problem, along with
        >the relevance of one’s synopsis and one’s critical text used for
        >interpretation). Dungan’s presentation is useful in conjunction with other
        >presentations since very little space is dedicated to the major source
        >theories.

        Although I've found many parts of Dungan's history interesting
        and edifying, I've been reluctant to include it on my annotated
        bibliography of recommended books because (a) most of it really
        isn't about the *synoptic* problem proper--it is more a history
        of gospel history and I cannot get past the new definitions he
        has for the synoptic problem, and (b) when he got the synoptic
        problem proper it seemed like he ran out of gas and didn't have
        much to say he didn't already say elsewhere and better.

        >Concerning "Mark-Q Theory with Proto-Luke" in your Overview of Proposed
        >Solutions: I recall W. G. Kümmel mentioning that even V. Taylor eventually
        >abandoned proto-Luke (I think Kümmel mentioned this in the 1973/1975 edition
        >of his Introduction to the New Testament, trans. Howard C. Kee, (London: SCM
        >Press).

        Oh good, I have this edition. Kümmel, p. 134, writes: "It is
        significant that V. Taylor latterly shifted to conceding that Mk
        furnished the framework for the Lukan passion narrative." I
        wouldn't exactly characterize this concession as an abandonment of
        the proto-Luke hypothesis on Taylor's part, though that may have
        been the last straw for those sympathetic to it.

        >In your Chronology of the Synoptic Problem, you may wish to make it clearer
        >that Augustine himself did not seem to envision direct copying of material.
        >His is more an apology/justification for the four different (yet inspired)
        >gospels. See Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 38, who for this observation seems
        >indebted to S. McLoughlin, "An Approach to the Synoptic Problem,"
        >(S.T.L.thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1963), 28.

        I think that it is certainly the case that throughout most of De Cons. Ev.
        Augustine discusses the content of the gospels synchronically, without regard
        to the order in which they were written. Thus, as de Jonge (whom Kloppenborg
        cites) has shown, Augustine's terms such as OMITTERE and PRAETERMITTERE are
        best interpreted as NON NARRARE (i.e. does not relate, as opp. to omits).

        However, I part company here with de Jonge (and presumably McLoughlin) and I
        conclude that diachronic concerns were indeed operative at (only) the very
        beginning of Augustine's work. In I.3, Augustine expressly listed the
        chronological order and distinguished it from a more logical order based
        on the evangelists personal proximity to Jesus:

        |Isti igitur quattuor evangelistae . . . hoc ordine scripsisse perhibentur:
        |primus Mattheus, deinde Marcus, tertio Lucas, ultimo Johannes, unde alius
        |eis fuit orde cognoscendi atque praedicandi, alius scribendi.

        |So these four evangelists . . . are regarded to have written in this order:
        |first Matthew, then Mark, third Luke, and last John. Hence, there is one order
        |to them in learning and preaching, and another in writing.

        So, chronology has been made explicitly part of the context. Then, Augustine
        used the chronological terminology (PRAECENDENTIS) in his apology for the
        dealing with (apparent) omissions in the gospels:

        |et quamvis singuli suum quendam narrandi ordinem tenuisse videantur, non
        |tamen unusquisque eorum velut alterius praecendentis ignarus voluisse scribere
        |repperitur vel ignorata praetermisisse, quae scripsisse alius invenitur,
        |sed sicut unicuique inspiratum est non superfluam cooperationem sui laboris
        |adjunxit.

        |And although they seem to have each maintained a certain story line of
        |their own, it is still recognized that each one of them did not want to write
        |as if ignorant of another before him or omit by mistake the things that the
        |other is found to have written. But as each was inspired, he did not add an
        |unnecessary duplication for his own work.

        The real target for these comments, Mark, is shortly in view, using the causal
        term BREVIATOR:

        |Marcus eum subsecutus tamquam pedisequus et breviator ejus videtur.

        |Mark seems to have followed closely after him like someone following
        |on his footsteps and abbreviating him.

        Sometimes it is translated as "... his attendant (foot-follower, lackey,
        page, etc.) and abridger." Augustine didn't stop there but then tried
        to justify his conclusion that Mark was an epitomist by pointing out that
        Mark is a subset of Matthew and uses the same words (ATQUE IPSIS VERBIS):

        |Cum solo quippe Johanne nihil dixit, solus ipse perpauca, cum solo Luca
        |pauciora, cum Mattheo vero plurima et multa paene totidem atque ipsis verbis
        |sive cum solo sive cum ceteris consonante.

        |For in fact, he has said nothing with John alone, very little by himself,
        |a few with just Luke, but much more indeed with Matthew, and just as almost
        |many things too in the same words, agreeing either with him alone or with
        |the others.

        This explanation is a bit opaque, but much clearer if read along with the
        table of the Eusebian canons and the number of Ammonian sections in the
        relevant canon. Specifically:

        1. "nothing with John alone": no associated canon;
        2. "very little by himself": Canon X, 11 sections;
        3. "a few with just Luke": Canon VIII, 14 sections;
        4. "but much more indeed with Matthew ... agreeing
        either with him alone": Canon VI: 47 sections;
        5. "or with the others": e.g., Canon I, 73 sections;
        Canon II, 111 sections; Canon IV, 25 sections.

        This to me has all the hallmarks of a literary analysis, indicating
        at least momentary consideration of a literary relationship between
        Matt and Mark, namely that Mark is an abridgement of Matt. For these
        reasons I must demur from McLoughlin and de Jonge's arguments that
        even in the prologue Augustine approached the gospels in a timeless,
        Platonic-minded manner.

        Now, even though I feel that Augustine gave at least momentary
        consideration of a literary relationship, he promptly ignored for the
        rest of his work (pace Peabody 1983 who finds support for Griesbach
        in rather obscure terminology). There are a couple of reasons for
        this. First, there is the Platonism. Second, prior to Jerome's
        revision of the gospels, which we now call the vulgate, the Western
        canonical order was not Matt-Mark-Luke-John, but Matt-John-Luke-Mark,
        as attested in the manuscripts and which Jerome referred to in his
        gospel prologue (which also, by the way, contained a discussion of
        the Eusebian canons). So, Augustine was probably not used to thinking
        about the gospels in their chronological order.

        The focus on literary origins is pretty much a modern concern, and
        we only get glimpses of it here and there in pre-moderns (perhaps
        Origen too: "And Mark, knowing what he [Matthew] writes, narrates the
        beginning of the Gospel" In Joh. 1.6 ANF).

        Stephen Carlson

        See my http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/10/external-evidence-augustine.html



        --
        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@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        Stephen, thank you for this extremely elucidating post and for the accurate citations of Origen and especially of Augustine in De Consensu. I had read the
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 20, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen, thank you for this extremely elucidating post and for the accurate citations of Origen and especially of Augustine in De Consensu. I had read the article of de Jonge when it first came out (was it in the JBL?) ten or twelve years ago, and was impressed with his general argument, but wondered whether it was completely air-tight as a correct interpretation of Augustine's thought. You have clarified this now completely, to my satisfaction at least, with your nuanced discussion accompanied by pertinent Latin citations from Augustine's text. You should write a short article on the topic, responding specifically to de Jonge, (if you have not already done so).

          I think your comment on the Dungan book is also quite fair, and I assume David would agree that his treatment of the Synoptic Problem as such is somewhat skimpy in his History...

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • John C. Poirier
          ... I ll go further than that, Stephen: you should write a book on the history of the Synoptic Problem (or the next best thing: a book on The Synoptic Problem
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 20, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Leonard Maluf wrotes:

            > You should write a short article on the topic, responding specifically to
            > de Jonge, (if you have not already done so).

            I'll go further than that, Stephen: you should write a book on the history
            of the Synoptic Problem (or the next best thing: a book on "The Synoptic
            Problem Today").


            John C. Poirier
            Middletown, Ohio



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Matson, Mark (Academic)
            I concur with John s suggestion. Especially since Dungan s book didn t do it, a history of the study of the Synoptic Problem, especially by Stephen, would be
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 20, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I concur with John's suggestion. Especially since Dungan's book didn't
              do it, a history of the study of the Synoptic Problem, especially by
              Stephen, would be a brilliant addition to the academy's knowledge base.

              >
              > Leonard Maluf wrotes:
              >
              > > You should write a short article on the topic, responding
              > specifically
              > > to de Jonge, (if you have not already done so).
              >
              > I'll go further than that, Stephen: you should write a book
              > on the history of the Synoptic Problem (or the next best
              > thing: a book on "The Synoptic Problem Today").
              >
              Mark A. Matson
              Academic Dean
              Milligan College
              http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/personal.htm


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Wieland Willker
              ... Who s interested in history? Or who is interested in who was the first who uttered a certain theory? The facts are on the table. What we really need is a
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 20, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                John C. Poirier wrote:
                > I'll go further than that, Stephen: you should write a book on the
                > history of the Synoptic Problem


                Who's interested in history? Or who is interested in who was the first
                who uttered a certain theory?
                The facts are on the table. What we really need is a new Streeter.

                Best wishes
                Wieland
                <><
                ------------------------------------------------
                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                Textcritical commentary:
                http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Stephen Goranson
                Of course, Wieland, I would be happy if someone would just explain the facts on the table, as you invite, with or without noting who first uttered a certain
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 21, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Of course, Wieland, I would be happy if someone would just explain the facts on
                  the table, as you invite, with or without noting who first uttered a certain
                  theory. On the other hand, I'm interested in history. And where is the
                  dividing line between history of scholarship and transmission of NT texts?

                  best wishes,
                  Stephen Goranson

                  Quoting Wieland Willker <willker@...-bremen.de>:

                  > John C. Poirier wrote:
                  > > I'll go further than that, Stephen: you should write a book on the
                  > > history of the Synoptic Problem
                  >
                  >
                  > Who's interested in history? Or who is interested in who was the first
                  > who uttered a certain theory?
                  > The facts are on the table. What we really need is a new Streeter.
                  >
                  > Best wishes
                  > Wieland
                  > <><


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • John C. Poirier
                  ... Alright, so we won t sell the book to members of the First Church of Henry Ford. Just as the best systematic theologies are written by those most familiar
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 21, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wieland Willker wrote:

                    > Who's interested in history? Or who is interested in who was the first
                    > who uttered a certain theory?
                    > The facts are on the table. What we really need is a new Streeter.

                    Alright, so we won't sell the book to members of the First Church of Henry
                    Ford.

                    Just as the best systematic theologies are written by those most familiar
                    with the history of theology, so also the best solutions to the synoptic
                    problem are/will be written by those most familiar with the history of the
                    synoptic problem. Too many errors of statement or reasoning that crop up in
                    discussions of the synoptic problem could be avoided by a better knowledge
                    of those who took the same path earlier. The type of history I'm looking
                    for is one that critically engages past contributions, and therefore
                    represents in itself a significant contribution toward a better solution.


                    John C. Poirier
                    Middletown, Ohio



                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... You mean something like A Treatise on the Synoptic Problem ...? By the way, I ve just received an email from Albert Fuchs announced the publication of
                    Message 9 of 10 , Oct 21, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 10:37 AM 10/20/2004 -0400, John C. Poirier wrote:
                      >Leonard Maluf wrotes:
                      >> You should write a short article on the topic, responding specifically to
                      >> de Jonge, (if you have not already done so).
                      >
                      >I'll go further than that, Stephen: you should write a book on the history
                      >of the Synoptic Problem (or the next best thing: a book on "The Synoptic
                      >Problem Today").

                      You mean something like "A Treatise on the Synoptic Problem" ...?

                      By the way, I've just received an email from Albert Fuchs announced the
                      publication of his magnum opus. Here it is:

                      Stephen Carlson

                      Albert Fuchs
                      Spuren von Deuteromarkus I
                      Mit zwei Beiträgen von Hermann Aichinger
                      <http://www.lit-verlag.de/isbn/3-8258-7/reihe/sntsu>Reihe: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt N.F.
                      Bd. 1, 2004, 296 S., 34.90 EUR, br., ISBN 3-8258-7658-6


                      Entgegen dem verbreiteten Konsens der Exegese, der hauptsächlich in den minor agreements, den unerwartet zahlreichen Übereinstimmungen des Mt und Lk gegenüber Mk, ein Problem für die Forschung bzw. die offene Flanke der Zweiquellentheorie sieht (H. Conzelmann), stellen sich besonders jene Logien, die bei Mt und Lk als parallele Einschübe in den Mk-Stoff erscheinen, als größte Infragestellung des Systems heraus. Während die minor agreements nämlich darauf verweisen, dass mit einer sprachlichen und inhaltlichen Überarbeitung des ganzen MkEv zu rechnen ist und diese, und nicht der kanonische Mk, die Grundlage der Seitenreferenten darstellt, führen die major agreements zur Erkenntnis, dass auch bereits ein Teil des üblicherweise Q zugeschriebenen Materials vom Redaktor der Zweitauflage des Mk verwendet wurde. Damit sind beide Prämissen der Zweiquellentheorie stärkstens in Frage gestellt und eine neue Lösung dringend nötig.



                      Die vier Bände "Spuren von Deuteromarkus" versuchen eine neue Lösung des synoptischen Problems, für das die weltweit akzeptierte Zweiquellentheorie nur eine unzureichende bzw. irreführende Erklärung bietet. Während das herrschende System die agreements des Mt und Lk gegen Mk nur als Störfälle empfindet und mit allen Mitteln zu beseitigen sucht, versucht die deuteromarkinishe Interpretation die Phänomene in ihrem eigenen Wert zu verstehen. Die große Zahl der Fälle - über 1000 parallel zur ganzen Länge des MkEv - und ihr kohärenter Sinn verlangen ein positives Verständnis und nicht eine sachfremde Unterordnung unter die defizitäre Zweiquellentheorie. Die genaue Analyse der sogenannten minor agreements führt zur Annahme einer Zweitauf"|lage des kanonischen Mk, die major agreements stellen sich als Einschübe von Logienmaterial während des gleichen Überarbeitungsprozesses heraus. Beides erweist die zwei Grundpfeiler der Zweiquellentheorie als falsch und verlangt eine grundlegend neue S
                      icht der Zusammenhänge. Die Exegese muss entwicklungsgeschichtlich, nicht quellenkritisch an die agreements herangehen.

                      Albert Fuchs
                      Spuren von Deuteromarkus II
                      <http://www.lit-verlag.de/isbn/3-8258-7/reihe/sntsu>Reihe: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt N.F.
                      Bd. 2, 2004, 336 S., 39.90 EUR, br., ISBN 3-8258-7659-4


                      Es entspricht dem von der Zweiquellentheorie geförderten und weltweit auch noch immer praktizierten Vorgehen der Exegese, die für die Theorie störenden minor agreements als zufälliges Zusammentreffen der literarischen und theologischen Redaktionsarbeit des Mt und Lk an Mk zu verstehen. Dagegen zeigt Deuteromarkus in ein und demselben Prozess der Zweitauflage des MkEv durch sprachliche Überarbeitung die minor agreements produziert wie die major agreements durch den Einschub neuer Logien verursacht wurden. Dementprechend sind alle Versuche verfehlt, die eine Vielzahl von Gründen für die kritischen Phänomene vermuten. Eine solche Bearbeitung ist auch nicht das Werk eines beliebigen Redaktors, sondern bedurfte der Akzeptanz der ganzen Kirche.



                      Die vier Bände "Spuren von Deuteromarkus" versuchen eine neue Lösung des synoptischen Problems, für das die weltweit akzeptierte Zweiquellentheorie nur eine unzureichnde bzw. irreführende Erklärung bietet. Während das herrschende System die agreements des Mt und Lk gegen Mk nur als Störfälle empfindet und mit allen Mitteln zu beseitigen sucht, versucht die deuteromarkinishe Interpretation die Phänomene in ihrem eigenen Wert zu verstehen. Die große Zahl der Fälle - über 1000 parallel zur ganzen Länge des MkEv - und ihr kohärenter Sinn verlangen ein positives Verständnis und nicht eine sachfremde Unterordnung unter die defizitäre Zweiquellentheorie. Die genaue Analyse der sogenannten minor agreements führt zur Annahme einer Zweitauflage des kanonischen Mk, die major agreements stellen sich als Einschübe von Logienmaterial während des gleichen Überarbeitungsprozesses heraus. Beides erweist die zwei Grundpfeiler der Zweiquellentheorie als falsch und verlangt eine grundlegend neue Sich
                      t der Zusammenhänge. Die Exegese muss entwicklungsgeschichtlich, nicht quellenkritisch an die agreements herangehen.

                      Albert Fuchs
                      Spuren von Deuteromarkus III
                      <http://www.lit-verlag.de/isbn/3-8258-7/reihe/sntsu>Reihe: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt N.F.
                      Bd. 3, 2004, 312 S., 34.90 EUR, br., ISBN 3-8258-7660-8


                      Für das richige Verständnis der agreemnts ist es neben anderem von entscheidender Bedeutung, sich jenes Fehlschlusses bewusst zu werden, der darin besteht zu meinen, dass es die erste Aufgabe der Exegese sei, diese Störfälle des Systems im Rahmen der Zweiquellentheorie verständlich zu machen. Den Autoren ist dabei nicht bewusst, dass den agreements damit eine sachfremde Zwangsjacke angelegt wird, die sie selbst nicht zu ihrem Recht kommen lässt. Denn zu fragen ist nicht, ob sich die agreements dem herrschenden Denksystem einordnen lassen, sondern ob dieses zu ihrem Verständnis genügt. Als grosser Trugschluss stellt sich dabei auch die Vorstellung heraus, die agreements könnten z.B. mit Mt-Redaktion erklärt werden, weil sie häufig mt Eigenart an sich haben. Dieser verbreitete Irrtum berücksichtigt nicht die alternative Möglichkeit, dass Mt deuteromarkinisch aussieht, weil er von den agreements beeinflusst ist, sodass Ursache und Wirkung in umgekehrtem Verhältnis stehen zur üblichen
                      Meinung.hspace*0mm



                      Die vier Bände "Spuren von Deuteromarkus" versuchen eine neue Lösung des synoptischen Problems, für das die weltweit akzeptierte Zweiquellentheorie nur eine unzureichnde bzw. irreführende Erklärung bietet. Während das herrschende System die agreements des Mt und Lk gegen Mk nur als Störfälle empfindet und mit allen Mitteln zu beseitigen sucht, versucht die deuteromarkinishe Interpretation die Phänomene in ihrem eigenen Wert zu verstehen. Die große Zahl der Fälle - über 1000 parallel zur ganzen Länge des MkEv - und ihr kohärenter Sinn verlangen ein positives Verständnis und nicht eine sachfremde Unterordnung unter die defizitäre Zweiquellentheorie. Die genaue Analyse der sogenannten minor agreements führt zur Annahme einer Zweitauflage des kanonischen Mk, die major agreements stellen sich als Einschübe von Logienmaterial während des gleichen Überarbeitungsprozesses heraus. Beides erweist die zwei Grundpfeiler der Zweiquellentheorie als falsch und verlangt eine grundlegend neue Sich
                      t der Zusammenhänge. Die Exegese muss entwicklungsgeschichtlich, nicht quellenkritisch an die agreements herangehen.

                      Albert Fuchs
                      Spuren von Deuteromarkus IV
                      <http://www.lit-verlag.de/isbn/3-8258-7/reihe/sntsu>Reihe: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt N.F.
                      Bd. 4, 2004, 320 S., 34.90 EUR, br., ISBN 3-8258-7661-6


                      Durch die genaue Untersuchung der agreements kommt ans Licht, dass sowohl Name wie Begriff der Zweiquellentheorie zur Lösung des synoptischen Problems unangemessen sind und teilweise sogar in die Irre führen. Durch die Berücksichtigung der minor agreements hat sich nämlich ergeben, dass nicht der kanonische Mk Grundlage für Mt und Lk ist, sondern eine inhaltlich wie sprachlich überarbeitete Zweitauflage. Die major agreements, d.h. die parallelen Einschübe von Logien in den Mk-Stoff, haben darüber hinaus gezeigt, dass auch die Q-Vorstellung der Zweiquellentheorie defekt ist, weil zumindest ein Teil des für gewöhnlich dieser Quelle zugerechneten Materials bereits von Deuteromarkus verwendet wurde, sodass sich die besonders in letzter Zeit vom International Q Project und anderen so stark propagierte Einheitlichkeit von Q als Fehlvorstellung herausstellt. Theoretisch ist sogar mit der Möglichkeit zu rechnen, dass dieses Material nie zu Q gehörte.



                      Die vier Bände "Spuren von Deuteromarkus" versuchen eine neue Lösung des synoptischen Problems, für das die weltweit akzeptierte Zweiquellentheorie nur eine unzureichnde bzw. irreführende Erklärung bietet. Während das herrschende System die agreements des Mt und Lk gegen Mk nur als Störfälle empfindet und mit allen Mitteln zu beseitigen sucht, versucht die deuteromarkinishe Interpretation die Phänomene in ihrem eigenen Wert zu verstehen. Die große Zahl der Fälle - über 1000 parallel zur ganzen Länge des MkEv - und ihr kohärenter Sinn verlangen ein positives Verständnis und nicht eine sachfremde Unterordnung unter die defizitäre Zweiquellentheorie. Die genaue Analyse der sogenannten minor agreements führt zur Annahme einer Zweitauflage des kanonischen Mk, die major agreements stellen sich als Einschübe von Logienmaterial während des gleichen Überarbeitungsprozesses heraus. Beides erweist die zwei Grundpfeiler der Zweiquellentheorie als falsch und verlangt eine grundlegend neue Sich
                      t der Zusammenhänge. Die Exegese muss entwicklungsgeschichtlich, nicht quellenkritisch an die agreements herangehen.

                      --
                      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@...
                    • Peter M. Head
                      Wieland wrote: Who s interested in history? Or who is interested in who was the first ... I am interested in the history. Dungan s book has some strengths in
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 22, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Wieland wrote:
                        Who's interested in history? Or who is interested in who was the first
                        >who uttered a certain theory?
                        >The facts are on the table. What we really need is a new Streeter.

                        I am interested in the history. Dungan's book has some strengths in looking
                        at broader world-view issues and influences (a much needed contribution
                        even if not always very convincing), but is pretty hopeless on the history
                        of the study of the synoptic problem (as everyone but him defines it).
                        We've got Schmithals, but it is only in German and based on a rather
                        triumphalist (teutonic) view of history ('to trace the history of the
                        synoptic problem is to solve the problem). But he does go into the actual
                        arguments that people used. We've got bits in Ku/mmel's History (useful
                        quotes and such like) and in Baird's History. We've got bits of protest
                        history in Farmer and Stoldt. We've got a bit as regards Q in various
                        places (esp. K-V Excavating). And we've got quite a few bits and bobs in
                        articles, monographs etc.

                        But we don't have any history of the study of the synoptic problem. Despite
                        the intrinsic importance of the subject and its influence on the rest of NT
                        studies (esp. hist. Jesus, but other areas as well). If Stephen wants to
                        write one, then more strength to him.

                        Peter


                        >Best wishes
                        > Wieland
                        > <><
                        >------------------------------------------------
                        >Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                        >mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                        >http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                        >Textcritical commentary:
                        >http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                        >
                        >
                        >Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        >List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                        Peter M. Head, PhD
                        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                        Tyndale House
                        36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                        566607
                        Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                        http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm


                        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.