Tag: Synoptic Problem
Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism (2016)
Rick Brannan posted a couple tweets recently about 2016 articles from the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism (1, 2). The journal had apparently fallen out of my list of RSS subscriptions somehow, so I was grateful for the prompt. The full list of 2016 articles in JGRChJ is:
Seth M. Ehorn and Mark Lee, “The Syntactical Function of ἀλλὰ καί in Phil. 2.4”
Matthew Oseka, “Attentive to the Context: The Generic Name of God in the Classic Jewish Lexica and Grammars of the Middle Ages—A Historical and Theological Perspective”
David I. Yoon, “Ancient Letters of Recommendation and 2 Corinthians 3.1-3: A Literary Analysis”
Stanley E. Porter, “The Synoptic Problem: The State of the Question”
Greg Stanton, “Wealthier Supporters of Jesus of Nazareth”
Burnett Streeter and Proto-Luke
In his Four Gospels, Burnett Streeter articulates his view of the sources of Luke and proto-Luke as follows:
The hypothesis I propose in no way conflicts with the generally accepted view that Matthew and Luke are ultimately dependent not only on Mark but on Q—meaning by Q a single written source. Most, if not all, of the agreements of Matthew and Luke, where Mark is absent, are, I think, to be referred to Q; but I desire to interpolate a stage between Q and the editor of the Third Gospel. I conceive that what this editor had before him was, not Q in its original form—which, I hold, included hardly any narrative and no account of the Passion—but Q+L, that is, Q embodied in a larger document, a kind of “Gospel” in fact, which I will call Proto-Luke. This Proto-Luke would have been slightly longer than Mark, and about one-third of its total contents consisted of materials derived from Q (Streeter 208).
Click here for a diagram of Streeter’s understanding of the synoptics’ sources. For an online version of the Four Gospels with sectional pagination, see κατα~Π (1924 ed.).
In this post:
![]() |
Ferdinand Christian Baur
See Kümmel 139. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series.
In this post:
![]() |
Burnett Streeter
See Kümmel 327. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series.
In this post:
![]() |
Heinrich Holtzmann
Early Holtzmann
Late Holtzmann
See Kümmel 151–55. Please see the symbol key for an explanation of the diagrams in this post series.
In this post:
![]() |