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

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

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    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
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      interpretation.

      > In the quotation from page 212, Streeter has to explain the Mark/Q overlaps.
      > Here, Streeter proposes that Luke went through Mark and his non-Markan source
      > (Proto-Luke) and noted where their contents overlapped.

      In the quote you gave, Streeter is not saying what you
      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-crank
      > 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.

      It is not a question of "well enough done" or not (you used
      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
      Luke.

      a+
      manu

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.