Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Self-contradiction in the 4G
- This is an answer to an old mail of Ken, about some quotes of Streeter.
I think that you are forcing quite a bit the comparison
between p. 83 and p. 212 of Streeter's Book.
* In page 83 (according the quote you gave - 2 Jul 2002) Streeter says
that if you compare the order of common non-markan (~202) in the Luke
and Matthew, they differ firmly.
So you have :
- an original source (Mark)
- two deriving documents (Luke and Matthew).
- a question : Is Luke dependant also upon Matthew ?
=> the answer is no, because the operation of derivation
from Matthew to Luke looks awfully difficult.
* In page 212, the situation is absolutely different, and Streeter is not
comparing two resulting documents, but he try to evaluate the preferences
of Luke vis-a-vis his sources (Mark and proto-Luke, whose existence is
assumed in the context).
Now you have :
- two sources (Mark and proto-Luke).
- a single deriving document (Luke)
- a question : is L material a proto-gospel, or
just various and heterogenuous materials ?
=> the answer is L is a whole document, since it is prefered often to
Markan version, even in the order of pericopae.
This is my own interpretation of the quotes you gave,
but I do not understand how they make sense in another
> In the quotation from page 212, Streeter has to explain the Mark/Q overlaps.In the quote you gave, Streeter is not saying what you
> Here, Streeter proposes that Luke went through Mark and his non-Markan source
> (Proto-Luke) and noted where their contents overlapped.
present here as his own. Are you sure about your views ?
May you give a better quote ?
You wrote in a latter post :
> Proto-Luke may be gone, but the Luke-would-have-to-be-a-crankIt is not a question of "well enough done" or not (you used
> passage is still frequently quoted. My point is that Streeter
> has to qualify this remark later. I was trying to be as brief
> as possible in my earlier post. The non-existence of Proto-Luke
> doesn't greatly affect the case. The arrangement of Luke's
> non-Markan blocks is the same whether we accept Proto-Luke
> or not. Is it well done or isn't it? Streeter seems to hold
> conflicting opinions on the matter. It's not well enough done
> that Luke might have preferred its contexts for Matthean-parallel
> material to Matthew's, but it is well enough done that Luke might
> have preferred its contexts for Markan-parallel material to Mark's.
also the word "aesthetical"). It is just a question of ability
and plausibility for the operation : if we assume that Luke
discriminates Matthew into markan and non-markan material, we
may also assume that he was a crank. For what purpose such an
operation ? And what a waste of time and work !
If we assume that Luke had some other sources than Mark and Matthew,
(which is not an implausible theory) then the work looks easier to
explain, and a main source (according Streeter) is appearing behind
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...