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

10024RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic-L} Streeter and Matthean apocalyptic

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    Mar 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I've been out of town for a while, so forgive the late response.

      At 11:52 AM 2/28/2005 +0000, Jacob Knee wrote:
      >I am really grateful. That should be me busy for a bit!

      David Peabody's list is very good. I would really add only
      chapter 6 of John Kloppenborg Verbin, EXCAVATING Q (2000).

      >What I'm tentatively suggesting is that scholarship isn't terribly
      >interested in the _history_ of interpretation. It's not the past that
      >interests them - it's the past's utility for the present.

      Part of the problem is that past scholars often approach questions
      that are not considered interesting today or adopt premises that
      are not adopt today. Another part is that prior to 1881 or so,
      scholars were still working with the Textus Receptus as their text,
      which means that some interpretive problems we have today simply
      didn't exist back then and vice versa.

      >Farmer's historical work has the kind of detail that _is_ needed. But, for
      >example, his chapter on Streeter focuses almost entirely on the minor
      >agreements and IMO history interests him in order to explain how the, in his
      >view, erroneous 2DH became the predominant theory in his own day. So, his
      >history is more or less a cataloguing of error. So to say, 'where did it all
      >go wrong'.

      Farmer's book mainly has two targets in mind: the 2DH and the Griesbach
      Hypothesis (later to termed the 2GH), which means that the details of
      the views of scholars who support other solutions tend to get lost in his
      historical overview when those details are not on point with either the
      2DH or the 2GH.

      As for Farmer's treatment of Streeter, I think he focused correctly on
      Streeter's actual contribution in his FOUR GOSPELS (1924) to the 2DH,
      which was the disposing of the last set of Minor Agreements (MAs) that
      continued to prop up Ur-Markus. Streeter barely argued otherwise for
      Markan priority and the arguments he did make were largely fallacious.

      >What made me think of this was - in the introduction to 'Oxford Studies'
      >Sanday writes (Page Xxiii) that 'the positions mainly defended by Sir John
      >Hawkins and Mr. Streeter are held by a considerable majority of scholars'. I
      >immediately thought - is that true - and didn't know where to go to begin to
      >check it.

      I've found that the various New Testament Introductions published around
      that time (e.g. A. Juelicher in 1904) to be a useful gauge of contemporary
      opinion.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
      "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@...
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic