Re: [Synoptic-L] Self-contradiction in the 4G
Re: [Synoptic-L] Self-contradiction in the 4GKen Olson wrote:
>In the quotation from page 212, Streeter has to explain the Mark/QKen,
>overlaps. Here, Streeter proposes that Luke went through Mark and his
>non-Markan source (Proto-Luke) and noted where their contents overlapped.
>In most of these cases of overlap, he would have chosen to follow one
>version (usually Proto-Lukes) and omit the other (usually Marks). In
>effect, he removed the Markan version from its context in Mark so that he
>could use the non-Markan version in one of his non-Markan blocks.
I don't think Luke made such a careful comparison of Mark with his non-Markan source in order to minimize overlap.
Where there is a 'Mark/Q overlap', Luke normally retained both versions of a saying, thus producing a doublet. In most of the cases where Luke omitted the Markan version, this can be explained by a tendency to omit blocks rather than isolated pericopae.
(1) Luke didn't seem to like 'Seed growing secretly', omitting the block Mk 4:26-34 which includes the Mustard seed saying.
(2) Within the 'Great omission' (Mk 6:45-8:26) is the Markan version of the 'No sign' saying.
(3) 'Cup of water' and 'Hand/eye' were apparently not to Luke's taste, but doubtless eager to start the 'Journey to Jerusalem', he omitted the whole block Mk 9:43-10:12, which includes the Markan versions of the Millstone, Salt and Divorce sayings.
(4) Luke didn't like Mark's account of the withering of the fig tree, but he omitted the whole block Mk 11:20-25, which includes Mark's versions of the Mulberry tree and Ask sayings.
(5) Luke rejected a saying which appeared to limit Jesus' knowledge (Mk 13:32). But then, doubtless eager to start the Passion narrative, he omitted the block 13:32-37, which includes the saying about the thief.
As against all these sayings which appear to have been omitted as a result of Luke's preference for dealing in blocks, I have only found two Markan sayings versions ('Last/first' and 'Measure') which were omitted as individual pericopae.
> It may be Lukes combination of Q and L is so aesthetically pleasing thatOn Streeter's theory, as you pointed out, in the 'Mark/Q overlap' Luke tended to prefer proto-Luke's version to Mark's version of sayings. But that doesn't indicate that Luke saw proto-Luke as "aesthetically pleasing".
>it can be seen as a complete gospel capable of being preferred to Mark yet
>not so aesthetically pleasing as to be capable of being preferred to
>Matthew. But that is a very fine distinction on which to insist.
Anyway Streeter's viewpoint is no longer held in its entirety by modern scholars, for his proto-Luke has been abandoned. It's difficult to see the benefit of trying to refute an argument that no one holds.
Even the essence of Streeter's case, i.e. that if Luke took the 'Q' sayings from Matthew it would have involved the unlikely deliberate abandonment of the aesthetically pleasing Matthean plan, is rather weak. For it could be that Luke simply disliked the implied emphasis on Jesus as a new Moses.
More difficult to explain on the Farrer Theory is that selecting sayings from Matthew would have involved a careful search of an 18000 word document, the selection of around 60 sayings, followed by their rearrangement in a more congenial order. Of course this is *possible*. But would an editor who sometimes preferred block level editing to pericope level editing have been prepared to add such a tedious task to his other more pressing editorial tasks? I doubt it. I think he'd probably have made it easier in some way, such as keeping closer to the Matthean order.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm