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

[Synoptic-L] down the Streeter

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/1/1999 1:40:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/1/1999 1:40:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      scmiller@... writes:

      << Leonard Maluf,

      You write:

      < It is so (amateurish, i.e.), in my opinion, ONLY if taken as an actual
      explanation of the synoptic phenomenon. In itself, Wright's statement
      reflects nothing but the most basic and eminent common sense - which I both
      share with him and confirm. So I agree with you, I think. My assumption
      was, however, that your quote intended to present this observation as a
      point Wright was making by way of explaining the differences in parallel
      sayings of Jesus in the different Synoptic Gospels. If Wright was not in
      fact offering this observation as an explanation for the synoptic
      phenomenon, then I apologize for the epithet. >

      But ... might it not ALSO explain, in part, the Synoptic phenomenon?

      What is so hard in imagining that two similar sayings might both be
      authentic? >>

      It might, and I have no difficulty at all in "imagining" that two similar
      sayings might both be authentic. My problem comes when I examine individual
      cases in point. Then it (almost always) appears to me more likely that
      manipulation by a "second" evangelist is the correct explanation of the
      divergencies.

      << Burnett Hillman Streeter, in the preface of the fourth (revised) impression
      of his "The Four Gospels" (1924, 1930), wrote:

      < When stories or sayings circulate in oral tradition, it is inevitable
      that they should be current in more than one version. Where, therefore,
      Matthew and Luke give 'widely divergent' versions of the same item -- e.g.
      of the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, the Parable of the Lost Sheep -- it
      is unscientific to explain this divergence on the theory of manipulation by
      the respective editors of the common written source Q; it is far more
      likely to be due to the currency of divergent traditions. >

      I apologize if this shocks you, but I don't agree with this conclusion of
      Streeter (or, for that matter, with most of what his statements presuppose).
      I don't believe that either Matthew or Luke are editors of either Mark or Q,
      and I find nothing in the entire book of Streeter that moves me, even
      minimally, in the direction of this hypothesis.

      << Is it possible to take this one step further, and suggest that it is
      possible that similar sayings might both be authentic? By this I don't mean
      to suggest that every similar saying is authentic, only that there is a
      real possibility that some might be authentic. What do you think?
      >>

      I have already agreed with you several times that this is, in theory,
      "possible", but, in my judgment, it is an unlikely explanation in most actual
      cases.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Steven Craig Miller
      To: Leonard Maluf, I quoted Burnett Hillman Streeter, from the preface of the fourth (revised) impression of his The Four Gospels (1924, 1930), as having
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Leonard Maluf,

        I quoted Burnett Hillman Streeter, from the preface of the fourth (revised)
        impression of his "The Four Gospels" (1924, 1930), as having written:

        << When stories or sayings circulate in oral tradition, it is inevitable
        that they should be current in more than one version. Where, therefore,
        Matthew and Luke give 'widely divergent' versions of the same item -- e.g.
        of the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, the Parable of the Lost Sheep -- it
        is unscientific to explain this divergence on the theory of manipulation by
        the respective editors of the common written source Q; it is far more
        likely to be due to the currency of divergent traditions. >>

        To which you replied:

        << I apologize if this shocks you, but I don't agree with this conclusion
        of Streeter (or, for that matter, with most of what his statements
        presuppose). I don't believe that either Matthew or Luke are editors of
        either Mark or Q, and I find nothing in the entire book of Streeter that
        moves me, even minimally, in the direction of this hypothesis. >>

        Actually, I don't find it shocking at all, I am well aware that not
        everyone accepts the Two-Source hypothesis. What I find surprising is that
        when I quote some author, people seem NOT to react critically to the
        statement quoted (as I had been expecting), but rather with their feelings
        toward the author of the quotation. It seems to me that you did this with
        my quotation from Wright, and now you are doing this with my quotation from
        Streeter.

        FWIW ... there is NOTHING in the above quotation from Streeter which
        necessitates one holding Markan priority or the theory of Q (in fact, the
        above quotation says that one does NOT need Q to explain such phenomena).
        The thrust of Streeter's statement is simply: "When stories or sayings
        circulate in oral tradition, it is inevitable that they should be current
        in more than one version." I would suggest that this statement is correct
        no matter what solution to the Synoptic problem one accepts.

        -Steven Craig Miller (scmiller@...)
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/1/1999 10:21:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/1/1999 10:21:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          scmiller@... writes:

          << To: Leonard Maluf,

          I quoted Burnett Hillman Streeter, from the preface of the fourth (revised)
          impression of his "The Four Gospels" (1924, 1930), as having written:

          < When stories or sayings circulate in oral tradition, it is inevitable
          that they should be current in more than one version. Where, therefore,
          Matthew and Luke give 'widely divergent' versions of the same item -- e.g.
          of the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, the Parable of the Lost Sheep -- it
          is unscientific to explain this divergence on the theory of manipulation by
          the respective editors of the common written source Q; it is far more
          likely to be due to the currency of divergent traditions. >

          To which you replied:

          < I apologize if this shocks you, but I don't agree with this conclusion
          of Streeter (or, for that matter, with most of what his statements
          presuppose). I don't believe that either Matthew or Luke are editors of
          either Mark or Q, and I find nothing in the entire book of Streeter that
          moves me, even minimally, in the direction of this hypothesis. >

          [Stephen]
          <<Actually, I don't find it shocking at all, I am well aware that not
          everyone accepts the Two-Source hypothesis. What I find surprising is that
          when I quote some author, people seem NOT to react critically to the
          statement quoted (as I had been expecting), but rather with their feelings
          toward the author of the quotation. It seems to me that you did this with
          my quotation from Wright, and now you are doing this with my quotation from
          Streeter.

          FWIW ... there is NOTHING in the above quotation from Streeter which
          necessitates one holding Markan priority or the theory of Q (in fact, the
          above quotation says that one does NOT need Q to explain such phenomena).
          The thrust of Streeter's statement is simply: "When stories or sayings
          circulate in oral tradition, it is inevitable that they should be current
          in more than one version." I would suggest that this statement is correct
          no matter what solution to the Synoptic problem one accepts. >>

          And again, I would agree with you. As for your sermonette in the previous
          paragraph, I believe it is only partially on target. If you read my response
          carefully, I took issue specifically, and pointedly, with the "conclusion" of
          Streeter's remarks as quoted by you. (Whereafter, in parentheses, I went on
          to vent what you refer to as my feelings toward the author). I note that this
          conclusion, with which I disagree, is not the sentence you single out as
          representing "the thrust" of Streeter's remarks. Hence, once again, we do not
          really disagree. Can we agree to not really disagree agreeably?

          Leonard Maluf
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.