On Tuesday, July 2, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote: Either I do not understand your comment on Streeter, or I disagree with your interpretation of what he says. bothMessage 1 of 2 , Jul 2, 2002View Source
On Tuesday, July 2, Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:
Either I do not understand your comment on Streeter,
or I disagree with your interpretation of what he says.
both quotes speaks about the order of material in Luke, but :
In the first quote, the "inappropriate order" is the order of :
- non markan material present in Matthew (202, or 201)
- it is inappropriate in the Markan context
- in comparison with the context of same details in Matthew.
In the second quote, the appropriate order is the order of :
- Sondergut Luke (i.e. 200)
- appropriate in its own context
(=Lukan sondergut present an internal coherence)
A little bit of both, I think. I’m referring to Streeter’s overall assessment of the arrangement of Luke’s non-Markan material. He believes that Luke arranged this non-Markan material by combining Q and L in big blocks (Lk. 1-4.30, 6.20-8.3, 9.51-18.14, 19.1-25, 4G p. 167) set apart from the Markan material. On Streeter’s hypothesis, most of this material was contained in a document that he calls "Proto-Luke"(4G, p. 222) that Luke composed prior to combining it with Mark.
In the quotation from page 83, Streeter is arguing against the theory that Luke took his double tradition ("Q") material from Matthew. Luke, he says, would have had to have gone through Mark and his non-Markan source (Matthew) and noted where their contents overlapped. In most of these cases of overlap, he would have to have chosen to follow one version (usually Mark’s) and omit the other (usually Matthew’s). Then he would have had to have taken the Matthean material that remained and arranged it in one of his non-Markan blocks. This, he says, Luke would not have done unless he were a crank, because Luke’s non-Markan blocks are not well enough designed that Luke might have preferred their order to Matthew’s.
In the quotation from page 212, Streeter has to explain the Mark/Q overlaps. Here, Streeter proposes that Luke went through Mark and his non-Markan source (Proto-Luke) and noted where their contents overlapped. In most of these cases of overlap, he would have chosen to follow one version (usually Proto-Luke’s) and omit the other (usually Mark’s). In effect, he removed the Markan version from its context in Mark so that he could use the non-Markan version in one of his non-Markan blocks. Streeter thinks this is reasonable, because Proto-Luke (consisting of Q material, including Mark/Q overlaps and L material, including Mark/L overlaps) constitutes "a complete Gospel so considerable as to seem worthy not only of being compared with, but even of being preferred to, Mark". He is arguing that Luke’s non-Markan blocks are well enough designed that Luke might have preferred their order to Mark’s.
So Streeter is saying that while, overall, Luke’s arrangement of his non-Markan (Q+L) material constitutes "a complete Gospel so considerable as to seem worthy not only of being compared with, but even of being preferred to, Mark" in matters of order, it yet manages to give the Q material (excepting, presumably, the Mark/Q overlaps) contexts with no special appropriateness. Streeter thinks that Luke might rearrange Mark’s order because he preferred the order found in his non-Markan blocks, but he would not have rearranged Matthew’s order on that basis. I suppose this is possible, but I think it is at the very least questionable. It may be Luke’s combination of Q and L is so aesthetically pleasing that it can be seen as a complete gospel capable of being preferred to Mark yet not so aesthetically pleasing as to be capable of being preferred to Matthew. But that is a very fine distinction on which to insist. It seems to me, rather, that Streeter’s aesthetic judgment on how well Luke’s non-Markan material is arranged varies depending on what source critical theory he is advocating at the moment.
I realize that I am only calling Streeter’s generalizations into question here and not providing evidence that Luke’s arrangement of his non-Markan material is, in fact, appropriate and that he might have preferred his order to Matthew’s in specific cases. For that I must refer to the work of others:
Goodacre, Mark, _The Case Against Q_ (Harrisburg, PA: TPI, 2002) 81-132.
Matson, Mark, "Luke’s Rewriting of the Sermon on the Mount",
Shellard, Barbara, _New Light on Luke_ (London and New York: Sheffield, 2002) 85-147.
Kenneth A. Olson
Graduate Teaching Assistant
University of Maryland
Department of History
2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
College Park, MD 20742-7315
This is an answer to an old mail of Ken, about some quotes of Streeter. I think that you are forcing quite a bit the comparison between p. 83 and p. 212 ofMessage 1 of 2 , Aug 2, 2002View SourceThis is an answer to an old mail of Ken, about some quotes of Streeter.
I think that you are forcing quite a bit the comparison
between p. 83 and p. 212 of Streeter's Book.
* In page 83 (according the quote you gave - 2 Jul 2002) Streeter says
that if you compare the order of common non-markan (~202) in the Luke
and Matthew, they differ firmly.
So you have :
- an original source (Mark)
- two deriving documents (Luke and Matthew).
- a question : Is Luke dependant also upon Matthew ?
=> the answer is no, because the operation of derivation
from Matthew to Luke looks awfully difficult.
* In page 212, the situation is absolutely different, and Streeter is not
comparing two resulting documents, but he try to evaluate the preferences
of Luke vis-a-vis his sources (Mark and proto-Luke, whose existence is
assumed in the context).
Now you have :
- two sources (Mark and proto-Luke).
- a single deriving document (Luke)
- a question : is L material a proto-gospel, or
just various and heterogenuous materials ?
=> the answer is L is a whole document, since it is prefered often to
Markan version, even in the order of pericopae.
This is my own interpretation of the quotes you gave,
but I do not understand how they make sense in another
> In the quotation from page 212, Streeter has to explain the Mark/Q overlaps.In the quote you gave, Streeter is not saying what you
> Here, Streeter proposes that Luke went through Mark and his non-Markan source
> (Proto-Luke) and noted where their contents overlapped.
present here as his own. Are you sure about your views ?
May you give a better quote ?
You wrote in a latter post :
> Proto-Luke may be gone, but the Luke-would-have-to-be-a-crankIt is not a question of "well enough done" or not (you used
> passage is still frequently quoted. My point is that Streeter
> has to qualify this remark later. I was trying to be as brief
> as possible in my earlier post. The non-existence of Proto-Luke
> doesn't greatly affect the case. The arrangement of Luke's
> non-Markan blocks is the same whether we accept Proto-Luke
> or not. Is it well done or isn't it? Streeter seems to hold
> conflicting opinions on the matter. It's not well enough done
> that Luke might have preferred its contexts for Matthean-parallel
> material to Matthew's, but it is well enough done that Luke might
> have preferred its contexts for Markan-parallel material to Mark's.
also the word "aesthetical"). It is just a question of ability
and plausibility for the operation : if we assume that Luke
discriminates Matthew into markan and non-markan material, we
may also assume that he was a crank. For what purpose such an
operation ? And what a waste of time and work !
If we assume that Luke had some other sources than Mark and Matthew,
(which is not an implausible theory) then the work looks easier to
explain, and a main source (according Streeter) is appearing behind
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...