B. H. Streeter was a man of parts. Maybe too many parts.

This book had two purposes: to discuss the "synoptic problem," and to bring a new viewpoint to the textual criticism of the New Testament.

On the first point, it was extremely effective. Streeter was a proponent of the "four-source hypothesis" -- that there were four sources used to create the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. One was the Gospel of Mark itself, the oldest surviving gospel. Another, which supplied the common material of Matthew and Luke not found in Mark, is known as "Q." And Matthew and Luke each had their own individual sources, "M" and "L."

This part of Streeter's work is now very widely accepted; almost all scholars accept Mark's priority, and believe in Q, M, and L (although the probability is high that Q is at least two sources, one written and one oral, and L or M might also be comprised of multiple sources).

But then there is the part on textual criticism -- that is, the reconstruction of the New Testament text based on comparison of the late, badly copied manuscripts which survive. The basic method of this, as practiced by Westcott and Hort, was to group the thousands of manuscripts into types, assess the types, and then use the relationships of the types to determine the original text.

Westcott and Hort's theory revolved around three types, Alexandrian (early good), Byzantine (late and bad), and "Western" (early but very erratic). The text of Westcott and Hort was essentially Alexandrian.

Streeter, based largely on discoveries made since Hort's time, concluded that there was a fourth early type, which he labelled "Caesarean."

This discovery, at the time, was greeted with great interest, and for a while there was a mad rush to add manuscripts to the "Caesarean" type. Unfortunately, Streeter's theory had a problem, because he recovered the "Caesarean" text from a whole bunch of manuscripts which he regarded as part "Caesarean," part Byzantine. His "Caesarean" type was what was left when you took the Byzantine parts out of "Caesarean" manuscripts.

This produced a tremendous problem. For on thing, far too many textual critics couldn't seem to fathom Streeter's simple definition. (It is my observation that far too many textual critics can't even fathom the definition of the word "definition"; they are completely incapable of rigorous thought. So the field produces a depressing amount of muddy scholarship.) Streeter's other problem is that he didn't in fact know what the Byzantine text was -- so he was trying to subtract an unknown quality from another unknown quality. Hard to be sure of the result in that case!

So the "Caesarean" text has become a subject of uncertainty and controversy, marked by abominable methodology and critics talking past each other. No one these days even knows if it exists. Streeter's work should be a starting point for a fruitful discussion. Instead, it has become a starting point for dogmatism and stalemate.

The sections on the synoptic problem remains useful, although there are now much newer treatments on the material. The sections on textual criticism... won't help you until more modern textual critics decide to stop arguing and start paying attention to what Streeter said to find out if it's true or not. Almost a century after Streeter wrote, that idea doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda. ( )

Establishing the early case for Proto-Luke, Streeter's work defines Source Critical Studies of the New Testament. Though the trend of Form Critical Studies undermined the influence of Source Criticism, (and with it the Proto-Luke Theory), it nevertheless remains as one of the most interesting and yet to be developed means of understanding the Biblical Text in terms of its form and content. This book sparked the work of some of the great 20th century textual scholars including Vincent Taylor, and the notion of a Proto-Lukan text has been carried on by academics like Thomas Brodie. ( )

This is a great resource for learning about where the gospels originated (city, authors etc,), very scholarly and the author is quite convincing. The best from my library on this subject. ( )