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

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

Expand Messages
  • Tony Buglass
    Jacob wrote: Streeter isn t overly fond of this kind of apocalyptic imagery - calling it at various points, naïve , crude and the people who use it wild
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 27, 2005
      Jacob wrote:
      Streeter isn't overly fond of this kind of apocalyptic imagery -
      calling it at various points, 'naïve', 'crude' and the people
      who use it ''wild' or 'fanatical'.
      John replied:
      It's interesting that Dodd uses these same derisive terms to characterize
      the pneumatology of Acts.
      and Jacob came back:
      B.W. Bacon memorably describes apocalypses as 'grotesque oriental fancy' (p
      419 Studies in Matthew), its imaqery is 'lurid', and John's preaching of
      judgement is 'fervid'

      Not a very profound observation, but doesn't this say more about the
      scholars concerned than the ancient language-forms they found so
      unpalatable? Of course Jewish apocalyptic is alien to English academics
      brought up in an essentially Victorian or Edwardian culture, just as it
      would have been to Roman patricians of the same century. Apocalyptic is
      appropriate to crisis and the oppressed. Streeter and his colleagues were
      light-years away from that experience, and centuries away from the period.

      I recommend D S Russell "Apocalyptic: Ancient and Modern", SCM, 1978 for a
      short (78 page) but scholarly consideration of what apocalyptic as a current
      theological genre could mean. It is the text of theHayward Lectures
      (delivered at Acadia University, Novia Scotia) and Nordenhaug Memorial
      lectures (delivered in the Baptist Seminary in Ruschlikon, Switzerland).

      Cheers,
      Rev Tony Buglass
      Superintendent Minister
      Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
      W Yorks



      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Jacob Knee
      Yes, I think that s right (though the Edwardian theological appropriation of apocalyptic was more varied that I had imagined (the little I know is from Mark
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 27, 2005
        Yes, I think that's right (though the Edwardian theological appropriation of
        apocalyptic was more varied that I had imagined (the little I know is from
        Mark Chapman's book mentioned earlier in this thread). To my surprise I
        learned that R. H. Charles was very critical of Schweitzer's work on Jesus.
        (If anyone has access to copies of Charles' 1908 and 1910 lectures at the
        Manchester and Cambridge Church Congresses I'd quite like to see them).

        It was a really a bit of an aside to my original query - which just in case
        anyone knows, I'll ask again - did anyone earlier than Streeter argue that
        Matthew deliberately heightened Markan/Q apocalyptic imagery (in extent,
        detail and emphasis).

        You know, even studying this a little it makes me realize how apparently
        unknown is the history of the NT discipline. Most theses seem to begin with
        a trot through the canonical 'greats' (Bultmann, Dodd, Conzelmann, etc.)
        without delving more deeply into the debates among the 'not greats'. Is
        there a history of the twentieth century appropriations and understandings
        of apocalyptic in OT/NT - not that I know. What about a history of the
        synoptic problem - if I wanted to know how prevalent the 2DH was in late
        nineteenth century English scholarship, and which were the major issues that
        were being debated - I don't know where you would look.

        The weird thing about scholarship seems to be - how short its memory is.

        Best wishes,
        Jacob Knee
        (Cam, Glos.)

        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-synoptic-l@... [mailto:owner-synoptic-l@...] On
        Behalf Of Tony Buglass
        Sent: 27 February 2005 09:25
        To: Synoptic-L@...
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic-L} Streeter and Matthean apocalyptic

        Not a very profound observation, but doesn't this say more about the
        scholars concerned than the ancient language-forms they found so
        unpalatable? Of course Jewish apocalyptic is alien to English academics
        brought up in an essentially Victorian or Edwardian culture, just as it
        would have been to Roman patricians of the same century. Apocalyptic is
        appropriate to crisis and the oppressed. Streeter and his colleagues were
        light-years away from that experience, and centuries away from the period.

        I recommend D S Russell "Apocalyptic: Ancient and Modern", SCM, 1978 for a
        short (78 page) but scholarly consideration of what apocalyptic as a current
        theological genre could mean. It is the text of theHayward Lectures
        (delivered at Acadia University, Novia Scotia) and Nordenhaug Memorial
        lectures (delivered in the Baptist Seminary in Ruschlikon, Switzerland).

        Cheers,
        Rev Tony Buglass
        Superintendent Minister
        Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
        W Yorks





        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... Have a look at Gosta Lundstrom s _The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: A History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 27, 2005
           

          Jacob Knee wrote:

          > You know, even studying this a little it makes me realize how apparently
          > unknown is the history of the NT discipline. Most theses seem to begin with
          > a trot through the canonical 'greats' (Bultmann, Dodd, Conzelmann, etc.)
          > without delving more deeply into the debates among the 'not greats'. Is
          > there a history of the twentieth century appropriations and understandings
          > of apocalyptic in OT/NT - not that I know.

          Have a look at Gosta Lundstrom's _The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: A
          History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth Century to the
          Present Day_ (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh and London, 1963).

          Isn't there also something on this (and much more) in S. Neil & N.T. Wright's
          _The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961_?

          >  What about a history of the
          > synoptic problem - if I wanted to know how prevalent the 2DH was in late
          > nineteenth century English scholarship, and which were the major issues that
          > were being debated - I don't know where you would look.

          In Kummel's _The New Testament: A History of the Investigation of Its Problems_
          and in older NT introductions, especially that of Moffat.

          Yours,

          Jeffrey

          --

          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

          1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
          Chicago, IL 60626

          jgibson000@...
           


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Jacob Knee
          Hi Jeffrey, Many thanks for the references. I know the Neil and Wright book - it s a good book - but it s the big picture (as it has to be). Introductions
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 27, 2005
            Hi Jeffrey,

            Many thanks for the references.

            I know the Neil and Wright book - it's a good book - but it's 'the big
            picture' (as it has to be). Introductions too eg Kummel's see things from a
            great height (major scholars, major works) - they have to - they're covering
            much territory very rapidly (eg the entire history of the synoptic problem
            in the revised Kummel is 8 pages - followed by 28 pages arguing for his
            preferred solution).

            If you want say, a detailed study of the history of the synoptic problem in
            scholarship (Dungan's book is doing something different IMO) then AFAIK
            we're waiting for Stephen Carlson to write it.

            NT Journals don't seem to publish 'history of interpretation' articles often
            and where they do, it usually seems to be summarizing developments over the
            last, say the last 10 years. When theses are published the history of
            interpretation chapter is often stripped back or removed entirely.

            Clearly if you want to plough through the smallest details of a debate then
            you need to go back to scholars' papers, journal articles and so forth. The
            lack I feel, is that there seems little in between an 8 page summary in
            Kummel and having to work through, say, Streeter's private papers (if such
            exist) and JTS' from 1910. Where are the modern book length studies?

            Best wishes,
            Jacob Knee
            (Cam, Glos.)


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
            Sent: 27 February 2005 17:33
            To: Jacob Knee
            Cc: Synoptic-L@...
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic-L} Streeter and Matthean apocalyptic

            > of apocalyptic in OT/NT - not that I know.

            Have a look at Gosta Lundstrom's _The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of
            Jesus: A
            History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth Century to
            the
            Present Day_ (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh and London, 1963).

            Isn't there also something on this (and much more) in S. Neil & N.T.
            Wright's
            _The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961_?

            >  What about a history of the
            > synoptic problem - if I wanted to know how prevalent the 2DH was in late
            > nineteenth century English scholarship, and which were the major issues
            that
            > were being debated - I don't know where you would look.

            In Kummel's _The New Testament: A History of the Investigation of Its
            Problems_
            and in older NT introductions, especially that of Moffat.

            Yours,

            Jeffrey




            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Shawn J Kelley
            ... Jacob Have you tried: William Baird, History of New Testament Research, Volume II: From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann, Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 27, 2005

              Clearly if you want to plough through the smallest details of a debate then
              you need to go back to scholars' papers, journal articles and so forth. The
              lack I feel, is that there seems little in between an 8 page summary in
              Kummel and having to work through, say, Streeter's private papers (if such
              exist) and JTS' from 1910. Where are the modern book length studies?


              Jacob

              Have you tried: William Baird, History of New Testament Research, Volume II: From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003?  I read it with other questions in mind, but you may find it helpful.  He offers very nice summaries of major figures, follows major arguments, and is also careful to pay attention to the less famous figures.

              Shawn

              Shawn Kelley
              Professor
              Department of Religion and Philosophy
              Daemen College



              Best wishes,
              Jacob Knee
              (Cam, Glos.)


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
              Sent: 27 February 2005 17:33
              To: Jacob Knee
              Cc: Synoptic-L@...
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic-L} Streeter and Matthean apocalyptic

              > of apocalyptic in OT/NT - not that I know.

              Have a look at Gosta Lundstrom's _The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of
              Jesus: A
              History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth Century to
              the
              Present Day_ (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh and London, 1963).

              Isn't there also something on this (and much more) in S. Neil & N.T.
              Wright's
              _The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961_?

              >  What about a history of the
              > synoptic problem - if I wanted to know how prevalent the 2DH was in late
              > nineteenth century English scholarship, and which were the major issues
              that
              > were being debated - I don't know where you would look.

              In Kummel's _The New Testament: A History of the Investigation of Its
              Problems_
              and in older NT introductions, especially that of Moffat.

              Yours,

              Jeffrey




              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Joseph Weaks
              ... I second that. It s as good as this type of attempt can be expected, I think. Volume I is equally laudable. Of course, I may be biased since it was written
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 27, 2005
                On Feb 27, 2005, at 6:52 PM, Shawn J Kelley wrote:
                > Have you tried: William Baird, History of New Testament Research,
                > Volume II: From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann, Minneapolis:
                > Fortress Press, 2003? 

                I second that. It's as good as this type of attempt can be expected, I
                think. Volume I is equally laudable. Of course, I may be biased since
                it was written on my old computer. (I sold Bill Baird my old G3
                computer and helped "set up" his workspace when he was finishing volume
                I.)

                Joe Weaks

                **************************************************************
                Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                j.weaks@...

                The Macintosh Biblioblog http://macbiblioblog.blogspot.com
                "All things Macintosh for the Bible Scholar"
                **************************************************************

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • David Barrett Peabody
                Jacob, As everyone on this list knows well, Stephen Carlson has a substantial bibliography relating to the synoptic problem on his WEB site, but, perhaps
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 27, 2005
                  Jacob,

                  As everyone on this list knows well, Stephen Carlson has a substantial
                  bibliography relating to the synoptic problem on his WEB site, but,
                  perhaps because it is a substantial list, some items that relate most
                  directly to your concerns may get lost there. Here are some of my
                  suggestions for further reading.

                  As far as a survey of developments in 20th century English speaking
                  scholarship is concerned, I don't think there is anything better in
                  print (yet?) than William R. Farmer's, *The Synoptic Problem. A
                  Critical Review of the Problem of the Literary Relationships Between
                  Matthew, Mark, and Luke,* (New York: The Macmillan Co, 1964). You may
                  not agree with Farmer's evaluations of works by the 20th century
                  English scholars he discusses, but you will surely find the most
                  important names in that history there and sometimes quite a detailed
                  discussion of their source critical arguments.

                  If one can get past the strong language used to describe works of
                  leading 19th century German source critics of the gospels, Hans-Herbert
                  Stoldt's *History and Criticism of
                  the Marcan Hypothesis* [(ET Donald L. Niewyk, Macon, GA: Mercer
                  University Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. clark Ltd., 1980, ISBN
                  0-86554-002-0, German original Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
                  1977, ISBN 0-86554-002-0)] does a comparable job of tracing the leading
                  voices advocating Markan Priority in 19th Century Germany upon which
                  these 20th century British scholars, well covered by Farmer, depended.

                  A tool for your own work on the history of the synoptic problem would,
                  of course, be *The Synoptic Problem. A Bibliography, 1716-1988,* edited
                  by Thomas R. W. Longstaff and Page A. Thomas (New Gospel Studies 4,
                  Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-86554-321-6) which
                  contains 1747 entries.

                  Many of the technical arguments for, at least, four hypotheses (2DH,
                  2GH, Farrer-Goulder, Boismard's Multistage Hypothesis) are covered in
                  E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, *Studying the Synoptic Gospels,*
                  (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989)
                  ISBN 0-334-02342-4, esp. "Part 2. The Synoptic Problem," pp. 51-119.

                  William Baird's volumes on the *History of New Testament Research*
                  [Minneapolis, Fortress) also include some comments on the history of
                  source criticism of the synoptics. His is a better general history
                  than either Kummel or Neill/Wright, in my opinion. Baird's work is now
                  completed through the work of Rudolf Bultmann (Volume 1: From Deism to
                  Tubingen, 1992, ISBN 0-8006-2626-5; Volume 2: From Jonathan Edwards to
                  Rudolf Bultmann, 2003; Volume 3: From Biblical Theology to Pluralism,
                  still forthcoming).

                  *The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal,* with an introduction
                  by Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Jr., (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press,
                  1985, ISBN 0-86554-096-9) includes excerpts from the leading proponents
                  and opponents of Markan Priority and the leading proponents and
                  opponents of "Q" in a single volume. Works by B. H. Streeter, J. A.
                  Fitzmyer, W. G. Kummmel, G. M. Styler, H. G. Wood and F. Neirynck
                  provide the case for Markan Priority. Works by B. C. Butler, N. H.
                  Palmer, D. L. Dungan, W. R. Farmer, E. P. Sanders and P. Parker
                  represent the opposition to Markan Priority. Works by Streeter, Kummel,
                  Fitzmyer, C. K. Barrett, F. G. Downing, E. L. Brady and V.
                  Taylor present the case for Q while works by A. M. Farrer, T. R.
                  Rosche, A. W. Argyle, R. T. Simpson, W. R. Farmer, E. P. Sanders and D.
                  L.Dungan present the case for the opposition. In my opinion, reading
                  this set of "primary" texts is far superior to reading anyone's
                  assessment/summmary of them.

                  David J. Neville, *Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism. A
                  History and Critique* (New Gospel Studies 7, Macon, GA: Mercer
                  University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-86554-399-3) represented the state of
                  the art critique of this argument in synoptic source criticism at the
                  time of its publication. Neville discusses Griesbach, Lachmannn, F. H.
                  Woods, W. C. Allen, J. C. Hawkins, H. G. Jameson, J. F. Springer, B. H.
                  Streeter, B. C. Butler, W. R. Farmer and C. M. Tuckett.

                  Also included in the New Gospel Studies Series is the English
                  translation of Hajo Uden Meijboom's Dutch doctoral dissertation of
                  1866,
                  *A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis
                  1835-1866. A Contemporary Report Rediscovered. A translation with
                  introduction and notes of *Geschiedenis en critiek der Marcushypothese*
                  by Hajo Uden Meijboom at the University of Groningen, 1866, translated
                  and edited by John J. Kiwiet* (New Gospel Studies 8, Mercer University
                  Press and Peeters Press, 1993, ISBN 0-86554-407-7). Here Meijboom
                  discusses works by David Friedrich Strauss, C. H. Weisse, G. C. Storr,
                  J. G. Herder, F. D. E. Schleiermacher, K. A. Credner, K. K. F. W.
                  Lachmann, C. G. Wilke, F. Hitzig. Bruno Bauer, F. C. Baur, H. Ewald, T.
                  Colani, E Reuss, E. Scherer, A. Reville, M. Nicolas, T. Tobler, H. A.
                  W.
                  Meyer, B. Weiss, H. J. Holtzmann, K. H. von Weizsacker, G. Volkmar, A.
                  Ritschl, J. J.Prins, W. H. vande Sande Bakhuyzen and M. A. N. Rovers,
                  J. Lambrechts, J. H. Scholten, A. B. C. C. Hilgenfeld, G. d'Eichthal,
                  and K. R. Koslin.

                  I have substantially elaborated on Meijboom's discussion of the
                  so-called "Strassbourg School" (Colani, Reuss, Scherer, Reville,
                  Nicolas, with further discussions of several other
                  scholars of the general period, including Renan and Schweitzer, in "H.
                  J. Holtzmann and His European Colleagues: Aspects of the
                  Nineteenth-Century European Discussion of Gospel Origins," in *Biblical
                  Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms. 1850-1914* ed. Henning Graf
                  Reventlow and William Farmer (JSOTSupp 192, Sheffield Academic Press,
                  1995, ISBN 1-85075) 50-131.

                  Prior to writing on these 19th century French scholars and their
                  contemporary colleagues, I took up the leading 19th century Germans
                  (especially Wilke, Zeller and Holtzmann, including evidence of the
                  Holtzmann's plagiarism) in "Chapters in the History of the Linguistic
                  Argument for Solving the Synoptic Problem: The Nineteenth Century in
                  Context" in *Jesus, the Gospels and the Church. Essays in Honor of
                  William R. Farmer* ed. E. P. Sanders (Macon, Mercer University Press,
                  1987, ISBN 0-86554-269-4) pp. 47-67. Here, however, I go back further
                  than even David Dungan did. Specifically, I
                  start with some of the text critics of Homer in pre-Christian
                  Alexandria and move forward through Holtzmann, with some critique of
                  Kummel's and Tuckett's comparable history of this period along the way.

                  One of my theology professors once reminded me that "New
                  Testament" is not "a meaningful field of inquiry." One needs to think
                  rather, at the very least, of the period from Alexander the Great to
                  Constantine in order to put the study of the New Testament into an
                  historically meaningful field of inquiry.

                  I believe something comparable could be said about the history of
                  Synoptic Problem scholarship. To begin much, if any, later than the
                  Enlightenment, at least in discussing the history of what Dungan has
                  labeled at least a third type of synoptic problem, is to place the
                  history of that problem outside of a historically
                  meaningful field of inquiry. Therefore, any history of the discussion
                  of the synoptic problem that would begin in 1910 would be inadequate,
                  as most scholars who have written on this topic would agree and have
                  demonstrated by how they have approached the subject.

                  Best,

                  David Barrett Peabody
                  Professor of Religion
                  Nebraska Wesleyan University
                  5000 St. Paul Ave.
                  Lincoln, NE 68504
                  Office Phone: (402) 465-2302
                  WEB site: www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/dbp/index.html



                  > Quoting Jacob Knee <zen20458@...>:

                  > Hi Jeffrey,
                  >
                  > Many thanks for the references.
                  >
                  > I know the Neil and Wright book - it's a good book - but it's 'the
                  > big
                  > picture' (as it has to be). Introductions too eg Kummel's see things
                  > from a
                  > great height (major scholars, major works) - they have to - they're
                  > covering
                  > much territory very rapidly (eg the entire history of the synoptic
                  > problem
                  > in the revised Kummel is 8 pages - followed by 28 pages arguing for
                  > his
                  > preferred solution).
                  >
                  > If you want say, a detailed study of the history of the synoptic
                  > problem in
                  > scholarship (Dungan's book is doing something different IMO) then
                  > AFAIK
                  > we're waiting for Stephen Carlson to write it.
                  >
                  > NT Journals don't seem to publish 'history of interpretation'
                  > articles often
                  > and where they do, it usually seems to be summarizing developments
                  > over the
                  > last, say the last 10 years. When theses are published the history
                  > of
                  > interpretation chapter is often stripped back or removed entirely.
                  >
                  > Clearly if you want to plough through the smallest details of a
                  > debate then
                  > you need to go back to scholars' papers, journal articles and so
                  > forth. The
                  > lack I feel, is that there seems little in between an 8 page summary
                  > in
                  > Kummel and having to work through, say, Streeter's private papers (if
                  > such
                  > exist) and JTS' from 1910. Where are the modern book length studies?
                  >
                  > Best wishes,
                  > Jacob Knee
                  > (Cam, Glos.)
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
                  > Sent: 27 February 2005 17:33
                  > To: Jacob Knee
                  > Cc: Synoptic-L@...
                  > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic-L} Streeter and Matthean
                  > apocalyptic
                  >
                  > > of apocalyptic in OT/NT - not that I know.
                  >
                  > Have a look at Gosta Lundstrom's _The Kingdom of God in the Teaching
                  > of
                  > Jesus: A
                  > History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth
                  > Century to
                  > the
                  > Present Day_ (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh and London, 1963).
                  >
                  > Isn't there also something on this (and much more) in S. Neil & N.T.
                  > Wright's
                  > _The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961_?
                  >
                  > > What about a history of the
                  > > synoptic problem - if I wanted to know how prevalent the 2DH was in
                  > late
                  > > nineteenth century English scholarship, and which were the major
                  > issues
                  > that
                  > > were being debated - I don't know where you would look.
                  >
                  > In Kummel's _The New Testament: A History of the Investigation of
                  > Its
                  > Problems_
                  > and in older NT introductions, especially that of Moffat.
                  >
                  > Yours,
                  >
                  > Jeffrey
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  >


                  --
                  David Barrett Peabody
                  Professor of Religion
                  Nebraska Wesleyan University
                  5000 St. Paul Ave.
                  Lincoln, NE 68504
                  (402) 465-2302
                  www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/dbp


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Jacob Knee
                  Dear David, I am really grateful. That should be me busy for a bit! What I m tentatively suggesting is that scholarship isn t terribly interested in the
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 28, 2005
                    Dear David,

                    I am really grateful. That should be me busy for a bit!

                    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.

                    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'.

                    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.

                    (Perhaps, I shouldn't be expecting NT scholars to be interested in the, say,
                    Victorian/Edwardian past. They're already interested in the first century
                    past (and many of them on the use of the first century for the twenty first
                    century). But who then is going to write on the _history_ of NT
                    scholarship).

                    Best wishes,
                    Jacob Knee
                    (Cam, Glos.)


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: David Barrett Peabody [mailto:dbpeabody@...]
                    Sent: 28 February 2005 03:18
                    To: Jacob Knee
                    Cc: 'Jeffrey B. Gibson'; Synoptic-L@...
                    Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic-L} Streeter and Matthean apocalyptic

                    Jacob,

                    As everyone on this list knows well, Stephen Carlson has a substantial
                    bibliography relating to the synoptic problem on his WEB site, but,
                    perhaps because it is a substantial list, some items that relate most
                    directly to your concerns may get lost there. Here are some of my
                    suggestions for further reading.


                    [snip]




                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Peter Head
                    ... I m sure that is basically right. People need to have a reason to write on the history of research (esp. the out of the way research in unpublished papers,
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 28, 2005
                      At 11:52 AM 2/28/05, Jacob Knee wrote:
                      >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.

                      I'm sure that is basically right. People need to have a reason to write on
                      the history of research (esp. the out of the way research in unpublished
                      papers, diaries, book reviews etc.); and one of the most basic reasons in
                      this area is a kind of protest-history:
                      Most recent history of the synoptic problem research has come from people
                      unsatisfied with the 2SH and probing the history of research to see how it
                      could be that such a theory became dominant (e.g. Farmer, Stoldt, Dungan,
                      Peabody; [Tuckett: protests the protest-histories]).
                      Schmithals has written a history of research from the 2SH viewpoint,
                      essentially tracing the history of the solution to the synoptic problem.
                      But it doesn't go into little details and doesn't really do (as I recall)
                      much english language stuff.

                      One could make a case that Streeter was one of the three most influential
                      NT scholars of the 20th century [in terms of actually influencing other
                      people to agree with him and cite his work approvingly as proving the
                      point] (certainly top ten). But where is the critical intellectual
                      biography? Maybe it has been tried and actually it is pretty boring (born
                      at a young age - posh family - public school - Oxford and the Church -
                      wrote a few books - later died*); maybe there are no papers, memoirs,
                      diaries etc.; maybe he was just a good summariser of other people's work. I
                      wish I knew.

                      By the way, an interesting book I haven't seen is R.Y. Yarbrough, The
                      Salvation-Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament
                      Theology (Deo, 2004). This, I believe, does look at an alternative history
                      of research. And obviously has an agenda too. Anyone seen this one?
                      Blurb follows:
                      NT scholarship since the Enlightenment is not quite like the histories tend
                      to present it. It has not been the unfolding triumph of objective
                      "critical" or "historical" thinkers over less progressive and dogmatically
                      biased "theological" interests. Rather, in the same respecive eras that
                      "critical" thinkers like F C Baur, William Wrede, and Rudolf Bultmann
                      mapped out approaches to NT theology, responsible scholars from J C K von
                      Hofmann to O Cullmann have responded with viable programs of their own.
                      This volume brings the ascendant Baur-Wrede-Bultmann line of analysis into
                      dialogue with the "salvation-historical" perspective, uncovering a line of
                      inquiry that was significant in the past and may prove promising in the
                      future. A timely reassessment of 19th and 20th century NT scholarship.


                      Cheers

                      Pete


                      * I've made this up from my prejudices I'm afraid.



                      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@...
                    • John C. Poirier
                      ... Pete, I ve not seen the book, and was not aware of it, but I welcome the attempt to rehabilitate Cullmann s work. I ve always thought that Cullmann was
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 28, 2005
                        Peter Head wrote:

                        > By the way, an interesting book I haven't seen is R.Y. Yarbrough,
                        > The Salvation-Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New
                        > Testament Theology (Deo, 2004). This, I believe, does look at an
                        > alternative history of research. And obviously has an agenda too.
                        > Anyone seen this one? Blurb follows: NT scholarship since the
                        > Enlightenment is not quite like the histories tend to present it.
                        > It has not been the unfolding triumph of objective "critical" or
                        > "historical" thinkers over less progressive and dogmatically
                        > biased "theological" interests. Rather, in the same respecive
                        > eras that "critical" thinkers like F C Baur, William Wrede, and
                        > Rudolf Bultmann mapped out approaches to NT theology, responsible
                        > scholars from J C K von Hofmann to O Cullmann have responded with
                        > viable programs of their own. This volume brings the ascendant
                        > Baur-Wrede-Bultmann line of analysis into dialogue with the
                        > "salvation-historical" perspective, uncovering a line of inquiry
                        > that was significant in the past and may prove promising in the
                        > future. A timely reassessment of 19th and 20th century NT
                        > scholarship.

                        Pete,

                        I've not seen the book, and was not aware of it, but I welcome the attempt
                        to rehabilitate Cullmann's work. I've always thought that Cullmann was
                        dismissed too easily, and have wondered whether there was something in the
                        debate over his work that was over my head (since I couldn't see what all
                        the fuss was about).

                        At the same time, however, I must express my dissatisfaction with
                        Yarbrough's recent attempt to blacken James Barr's eye (in an article in the
                        *Bulletin for Biblical Research*). Yarbrough wants to maintain the old
                        (Barthian) notion that revelation is an organizing principle of biblical
                        theology, but, like everyone else trying to do so, his strategy is to attack
                        the philosophical presuppositions of the counterposition without ever
                        letting the reader peer too closely into the Bible to see whether Barr's
                        description of its major thrusts might be true. (Yarbrough also ignores the
                        arguments of Gunton, Althaus, Downing, Wingren, and others arriving
                        independently at the same position as Barr.)

                        Since the BBR article defends Cullmann, I think it probably provides a view
                        into the book you mention, and my guess is that the book is a mixed bag:
                        while it might do justice to the salvation-history school, it
                        (unfortunately) mixes this with a revelation-based understanding of biblical
                        theology.

                        But as I recently noted myself, it's dangerous to discuss a book without
                        reading it, so I'll set myself to doing that.


                        John C. Poirier
                        Middletown, Ohio




                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Peter Head
                        ... I m afraid my potted and prejudged account was not far wrong: Streeter, Burnett Hillman (1874-1937), biblical scholar, was born at Croydon on 17 November
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 1, 2005
                          >I have just checked the Dictionary of National Biography (online -
                          >fantastic) for Streeter:

                          I'm afraid my potted and prejudged account was not far wrong:

                          Streeter, Burnett Hillman (1874-1937), biblical scholar, was born at
                          Croydon on 17 November 1874, the only son of John Soper Streeter,
                          solicitor, and his wife, Marion Walker. He was educated at King's College
                          School in London, and from 1893, when he went up to Oxford with a classical
                          scholarship at Queen's College, his life was that of a typical Oxford don.
                          Queen's College claimed practically the whole of his academic loyalty: he
                          became successively fellow, dean, and praelector (1905), chaplain (1928),
                          and provost (1933). The only break was from 1899 to 1905, when he was
                          fellow and dean of Pembroke College, Oxford.

                          www.oxforddnb.com/

                          Pete



                          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@...
                        • Bob MacDonald
                          Does anyone know if a layout of the NT texts as implied in Robinson s Priority of John has been done on the web or in print? I am considering how layout
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 6, 2005
                            Does anyone know if a layout of the NT texts as implied in
                            Robinson's Priority of John has been done on the web or in
                            print?

                            I am considering how layout impacts our thought processes
                            and how assumptions are reflected in the layout chosen. I
                            have some database techniques available that allow for the
                            potential of quick changes in layout presentation and I am
                            wondering whether it would be worth doing the experiment
                            with Robinson's ideas - reflecting his assumptions and
                            seeing how many pericopae are out of place at the end.
                            Admittedly, I am already biased by the choice of pericopae
                            in the database - I did not get down to the phrase level -
                            too much work for now.

                            thanks

                            Bob

                            Bob MacDonald
                            http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
                            Victoria, B.C., Canada


                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            I ve been out of town for a while, so forgive the late response. ... David Peabody s list is very good. I would really add only chapter 6 of John Kloppenborg
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 6, 2005
                              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@...
                            • Tim Reynolds
                              ... After the penny drops, the armature will go: Vol. I: The Missing Piece: Reimarus to the Clementine Vol. II: The Bottleneck: The Clementine to
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 10, 2005
                                on 2/27/05 7:18 PM, David Barrett Peabody at dbpeabody@... wrote:

                                > Jacob,
                                >
                                > As everyone on this list knows well, Stephen Carlson has a substantial
                                > bibliography relating to the synoptic problem on his WEB site, but,
                                > perhaps because it is a substantial list, some items that relate most
                                > directly to your concerns may get lost there. Here are some of my
                                > suggestions for further reading.
                                >
                                > As far as a survey of developments in 20th century English speaking
                                > scholarship is concerned, I don't think there is anything better in
                                > print (yet?) than William R. Farmer's, *The Synoptic Problem. A
                                > Critical Review of the Problem of the Literary Relationships Between
                                > Matthew, Mark, and Luke,* (New York: The Macmillan Co, 1964). You may
                                > not agree with Farmer's evaluations of works by the 20th century
                                > English scholars he discusses, but you will surely find the most
                                > important names in that history there and sometimes quite a detailed
                                > discussion of their source critical arguments.
                                >
                                > If one can get past the strong language used to describe works of
                                > leading 19th century German source critics of the gospels, Hans-Herbert
                                > Stoldt's *History and Criticism of
                                > the Marcan Hypothesis* [(ET Donald L. Niewyk, Macon, GA: Mercer
                                > University Press; Edinburgh: T. & T. clark Ltd., 1980, ISBN
                                > 0-86554-002-0, German original Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
                                > 1977, ISBN 0-86554-002-0)] does a comparable job of tracing the leading
                                > voices advocating Markan Priority in 19th Century Germany upon which
                                > these 20th century British scholars, well covered by Farmer, depended.
                                >
                                > A tool for your own work on the history of the synoptic problem would,
                                > of course, be *The Synoptic Problem. A Bibliography, 1716-1988,* edited
                                > by Thomas R. W. Longstaff and Page A. Thomas (New Gospel Studies 4,
                                > Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-86554-321-6) which
                                > contains 1747 entries.
                                >
                                > Many of the technical arguments for, at least, four hypotheses (2DH,
                                > 2GH, Farrer-Goulder, Boismard's Multistage Hypothesis) are covered in
                                > E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, *Studying the Synoptic Gospels,*
                                > (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989)
                                > ISBN 0-334-02342-4, esp. "Part 2. The Synoptic Problem," pp. 51-119.
                                >
                                > William Baird's volumes on the *History of New Testament Research*
                                > [Minneapolis, Fortress) also include some comments on the history of
                                > source criticism of the synoptics. His is a better general history
                                > than either Kummel or Neill/Wright, in my opinion. Baird's work is now
                                > completed through the work of Rudolf Bultmann (Volume 1: From Deism to
                                > Tubingen, 1992, ISBN 0-8006-2626-5; Volume 2: From Jonathan Edwards to
                                > Rudolf Bultmann, 2003; Volume 3: From Biblical Theology to Pluralism,
                                > still forthcoming).
                                >
                                > *The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal,* with an introduction
                                > by Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Jr., (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press,
                                > 1985, ISBN 0-86554-096-9) includes excerpts from the leading proponents
                                > and opponents of Markan Priority and the leading proponents and
                                > opponents of "Q" in a single volume. Works by B. H. Streeter, J. A.
                                > Fitzmyer, W. G. Kummmel, G. M. Styler, H. G. Wood and F. Neirynck
                                > provide the case for Markan Priority. Works by B. C. Butler, N. H.
                                > Palmer, D. L. Dungan, W. R. Farmer, E. P. Sanders and P. Parker
                                > represent the opposition to Markan Priority. Works by Streeter, Kummel,
                                > Fitzmyer, C. K. Barrett, F. G. Downing, E. L. Brady and V.
                                > Taylor present the case for Q while works by A. M. Farrer, T. R.
                                > Rosche, A. W. Argyle, R. T. Simpson, W. R. Farmer, E. P. Sanders and D.
                                > L.Dungan present the case for the opposition. In my opinion, reading
                                > this set of "primary" texts is far superior to reading anyone's
                                > assessment/summmary of them.
                                >
                                > David J. Neville, *Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism. A
                                > History and Critique* (New Gospel Studies 7, Macon, GA: Mercer
                                > University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-86554-399-3) represented the state of
                                > the art critique of this argument in synoptic source criticism at the
                                > time of its publication. Neville discusses Griesbach, Lachmannn, F. H.
                                > Woods, W. C. Allen, J. C. Hawkins, H. G. Jameson, J. F. Springer, B. H.
                                > Streeter, B. C. Butler, W. R. Farmer and C. M. Tuckett.
                                >
                                > Also included in the New Gospel Studies Series is the English
                                > translation of Hajo Uden Meijboom's Dutch doctoral dissertation of
                                > 1866,
                                > *A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis
                                > 1835-1866. A Contemporary Report Rediscovered. A translation with
                                > introduction and notes of *Geschiedenis en critiek der Marcushypothese*
                                > by Hajo Uden Meijboom at the University of Groningen, 1866, translated
                                > and edited by John J. Kiwiet* (New Gospel Studies 8, Mercer University
                                > Press and Peeters Press, 1993, ISBN 0-86554-407-7). Here Meijboom
                                > discusses works by David Friedrich Strauss, C. H. Weisse, G. C. Storr,
                                > J. G. Herder, F. D. E. Schleiermacher, K. A. Credner, K. K. F. W.
                                > Lachmann, C. G. Wilke, F. Hitzig. Bruno Bauer, F. C. Baur, H. Ewald, T.
                                > Colani, E Reuss, E. Scherer, A. Reville, M. Nicolas, T. Tobler, H. A.
                                > W.
                                > Meyer, B. Weiss, H. J. Holtzmann, K. H. von Weizsacker, G. Volkmar, A.
                                > Ritschl, J. J.Prins, W. H. vande Sande Bakhuyzen and M. A. N. Rovers,
                                > J. Lambrechts, J. H. Scholten, A. B. C. C. Hilgenfeld, G. d'Eichthal,
                                > and K. R. Koslin.
                                >
                                > I have substantially elaborated on Meijboom's discussion of the
                                > so-called "Strassbourg School" (Colani, Reuss, Scherer, Reville,
                                > Nicolas, with further discussions of several other
                                > scholars of the general period, including Renan and Schweitzer, in "H.
                                > J. Holtzmann and His European Colleagues: Aspects of the
                                > Nineteenth-Century European Discussion of Gospel Origins," in *Biblical
                                > Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms. 1850-1914* ed. Henning Graf
                                > Reventlow and William Farmer (JSOTSupp 192, Sheffield Academic Press,
                                > 1995, ISBN 1-85075) 50-131.
                                >
                                > Prior to writing on these 19th century French scholars and their
                                > contemporary colleagues, I took up the leading 19th century Germans
                                > (especially Wilke, Zeller and Holtzmann, including evidence of the
                                > Holtzmann's plagiarism) in "Chapters in the History of the Linguistic
                                > Argument for Solving the Synoptic Problem: The Nineteenth Century in
                                > Context" in *Jesus, the Gospels and the Church. Essays in Honor of
                                > William R. Farmer* ed. E. P. Sanders (Macon, Mercer University Press,
                                > 1987, ISBN 0-86554-269-4) pp. 47-67. Here, however, I go back further
                                > than even David Dungan did. Specifically, I
                                > start with some of the text critics of Homer in pre-Christian
                                > Alexandria and move forward through Holtzmann, with some critique of
                                > Kummel's and Tuckett's comparable history of this period along the way.
                                >
                                > One of my theology professors once reminded me that "New
                                > Testament" is not "a meaningful field of inquiry." One needs to think
                                > rather, at the very least, of the period from Alexander the Great to
                                > Constantine in order to put the study of the New Testament into an
                                > historically meaningful field of inquiry.
                                >
                                > I believe something comparable could be said about the history of
                                > Synoptic Problem scholarship. To begin much, if any, later than the
                                > Enlightenment, at least in discussing the history of what Dungan has
                                > labeled at least a third type of synoptic problem, is to place the
                                > history of that problem outside of a historically
                                > meaningful field of inquiry. Therefore, any history of the discussion
                                > of the synoptic problem that would begin in 1910 would be inadequate,
                                > as most scholars who have written on this topic would agree and have
                                > demonstrated by how they have approached the subject.
                                >
                                > Best,
                                >
                                > David Barrett Peabody
                                > Professor of Religion
                                > Nebraska Wesleyan University
                                > 5000 St. Paul Ave.
                                > Lincoln, NE 68504
                                > Office Phone: (402) 465-2302
                                > WEB site: www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/dbp/index.html
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >> Quoting Jacob Knee <zen20458@...>:
                                >
                                >> Hi Jeffrey,
                                >>
                                >> Many thanks for the references.
                                >>
                                >> I know the Neil and Wright book - it's a good book - but it's 'the
                                >> big
                                >> picture' (as it has to be). Introductions too eg Kummel's see things
                                >> from a
                                >> great height (major scholars, major works) - they have to - they're
                                >> covering
                                >> much territory very rapidly (eg the entire history of the synoptic
                                >> problem
                                >> in the revised Kummel is 8 pages - followed by 28 pages arguing for
                                >> his
                                >> preferred solution).
                                >>
                                >> If you want say, a detailed study of the history of the synoptic
                                >> problem in
                                >> scholarship (Dungan's book is doing something different IMO) then
                                >> AFAIK
                                >> we're waiting for Stephen Carlson to write it.
                                >>
                                >> NT Journals don't seem to publish 'history of interpretation'
                                >> articles often
                                >> and where they do, it usually seems to be summarizing developments
                                >> over the
                                >> last, say the last 10 years. When theses are published the history
                                >> of
                                >> interpretation chapter is often stripped back or removed entirely.
                                >>
                                >> Clearly if you want to plough through the smallest details of a
                                >> debate then
                                >> you need to go back to scholars' papers, journal articles and so
                                >> forth. The
                                >> lack I feel, is that there seems little in between an 8 page summary
                                >> in
                                >> Kummel and having to work through, say, Streeter's private papers (if
                                >> such
                                >> exist) and JTS' from 1910. Where are the modern book length studies?
                                >>
                                >> Best wishes,
                                >> Jacob Knee
                                >> (Cam, Glos.)
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> -----Original Message-----
                                >> From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
                                >> Sent: 27 February 2005 17:33
                                >> To: Jacob Knee
                                >> Cc: Synoptic-L@...
                                >> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic-L} Streeter and Matthean
                                >> apocalyptic
                                >>
                                >>> of apocalyptic in OT/NT - not that I know.
                                >>
                                >> Have a look at Gosta Lundstrom's _The Kingdom of God in the Teaching
                                >> of
                                >> Jesus: A
                                >> History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth
                                >> Century to
                                >> the
                                >> Present Day_ (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh and London, 1963).
                                >>
                                >> Isn't there also something on this (and much more) in S. Neil & N.T.
                                >> Wright's
                                >> _The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961_?
                                >>
                                >>> What about a history of the
                                >>> synoptic problem - if I wanted to know how prevalent the 2DH was in
                                >> late
                                >>> nineteenth century English scholarship, and which were the major
                                >> issues
                                >> that
                                >>> were being debated - I don't know where you would look.
                                >>
                                >> In Kummel's _The New Testament: A History of the Investigation of
                                >> Its
                                >> Problems_
                                >> and in older NT introductions, especially that of Moffat.
                                >>
                                >> Yours,
                                >>
                                >> Jeffrey
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                >> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                >>
                                >

                                After the penny drops, the armature will go:


                                Vol. I: The Missing Piece: Reimarus to the Clementine

                                Vol. II: The Bottleneck: The Clementine to Bryan Wilson

                                Vol. III: Mopping Up




                                One David Hilbert: "One can measure the importance of a scientific work by
                                the number of earlier publications rendered superfluous by it." All those
                                Geschictliche tomes will have to be recalled, like Pintos.

                                For latecomers, the suggestion is that the endemic trivial textual
                                disagreements among Mk, Mt and Lk are produced by the same mechanism that
                                generates the same phenomenon in Shakespeare's "bad" quartos relative to his
                                most popular plays, the holographs of which were locked in a backstage
                                trunk. Jonathan Pollard first isolated these "memorial reconstructions" in
                                1908.

                                khazak v'ematz,

                                tim




                                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.