RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: [Synoptic-L} Streeter and Matthean apocalyptic
- 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 terriblyPart of the problem is that past scholars often approach questions
>interested in the _history_ of interpretation. It's not the past that
>interests them - it's the past's utility for the present.
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, forFarmer's book mainly has two targets in mind: the 2DH and the Griesbach
>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
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'I've found that the various New Testament Introductions published around
>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
that time (e.g. A. Juelicher in 1904) to be a useful gauge of contemporary
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"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@...
- on 2/27/05 7:18 PM, David Barrett Peabody at dbpeabody@... wrote:
> Jacob,After the penny drops, the armature will go:
> 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
> *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.
> 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.
> 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
>> 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
>> much territory very rapidly (eg the entire history of the synoptic
>> in the revised Kummel is 8 pages - followed by 28 pages arguing for
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> Kummel and having to work through, say, Streeter's private papers (if
>> 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
>>> of apocalyptic in OT/NT - not that I know.
>> Have a look at Gosta Lundstrom's _The Kingdom of God in the Teaching
>> Jesus: A
>> History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth
>> Century to
>> Present Day_ (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh and London, 1963).
>> Isn't there also something on this (and much more) in S. Neil & N.T.
>> _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
>>> nineteenth century English scholarship, and which were the major
>>> were being debated - I don't know where you would look.
>> In Kummel's _The New Testament: A History of the Investigation of
>> and in older NT introductions, especially that of Moffat.
>> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
>> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
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
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...