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

[Synoptic-L] Re: down the Streeter

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Oct 1, 1999
      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 2 of 3 , Oct 2, 1999
        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.