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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Self-contradiction in the 4G?

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    ... Hello Ken, Either I do not understand your comment on Streeter, or I disagree with your interpretation of what he says. both quotes speaks about the order
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > Ken Olson quotes :
      > (_The Four Gospels_, 1924, p. 183).
      > (_Four Gospels_, 212).

      and says :
      > Is Luke's non-Markan material inserted into contexts that have no special
      > appropriateness or does it form a complete Gospel so considerable as to seem
      > worthy not only of being compared with, but even of being preferred to, Mark,
      > especially in matters of order? Streeter appears to hold conflicting opinions
      > about the artistry of Luke's arrangement of the non-Markan blocks. It seems
      > that a very questionable value judgment (to coin a phrase) is involved here.

      Hello Ken,

      Either I do not understand your comment on Streeter,
      or I disagree with your interpretation of what he says.

      both quotes speaks about the order of material in Luke, but :

      In the first quote, the "inappropriate order" is the order of :
      - non markan material present in Matthew (202, or 201)
      - it is inappropriate in the Markan context
      - in comparison with the context of same details in Matthew.

      In the second quote, the appropriate order is the order of :
      - Sondergut Luke (i.e. 200)
      - appropriate in its own context
      (=Lukan sondergut present an internal coherence)


      a+
      manu

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Ken Olson
      ... Is Luke s non-Markan material inserted into contexts that have no special appropriateness or does it form a complete Gospel so considerable as to seem
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In what is probably the most frequently quoted passage in discussions of the Synoptic problem, B. H. Streeter wrote:

        >>subsequent to the Temptation story, there is not a single case in

        which Matthew and Luke agree in inserting the same saying at the same point in the Marcan outline. If then Luke derived this material from Matthew, he must have gone through both Matthew and Mark so as to discriminate with meticulous precision between Marcan and non-Marcan material ; he must then have proceeded with the utmost care to tear every little piece of non-Marcan material he desired to use from the context of Mark in which it appeared in Matthew–in spite of the fact that contexts in Matthew are always exceedingly appropriate–in order to re-insert it into a different context of Mark having no special appropriateness. A theory which would make an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank<< (_The Four Gospels_, 1924, p. 183).

        In his much less frequently quoted discussion of the Mark/Q overlaps, Streeter goes on to say:

        >>I am not concerned to prove that Luke thought meanly of Mark as an

        authority–had he done that he would not have incorporated two-thirds of it–nor yet that he always preferred the non-Marcan version.  My point is, firstly, that the frequency of his preference, and especially the fact that it extends to matters of order, is explicable only if the non-Marcan material formed a complete Gospel so considerable as to seem worthy not only of being compared with, but even of being preferred to, Mark<< (_Four Gospels_, 212).

        Is Luke's non-Markan material inserted into contexts that have no special appropriateness or does it form a complete Gospel so considerable as to seem worthy not only of being compared with, but even of being preferred to, Mark, especially in matters of order?  Streeter appears to hold conflicting opinions about the artistry of Luke's arrangement of the non-Markan blocks.  It seems that a very questionable value judgment (to coin a phrase) is involved here.

        Best Wishes,

        Ken

        Kenneth A. Olson
        Graduate Teaching Assistant
        University of Maryland
        Department of History
        2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
        College Park, MD 20742-7315

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