Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Thus, the Synoptic studies is not a properly scientific field of study.



Thus, the Synoptic studies is not a properly scientific field of study.



I'm afraid you don't quite understand this concept of parsimony...



Science looks for simple models, that much is true... But the simplicity of these models is always contingent on the state of the data. If our factual data is complex, then the models offered to explain it will likewise have to be complex.

Thus, it is absurd to demand simple models where they are guaranteed to fail in explaining all the complexities of the data which they would purport to explain.

The concept of parsimony really means that our theories need to be as simple as possible. But it certainly doesn't mean that our theories need to be simplistic.



Well, that's not how it sounds to me...



Now you contradict yourself.



Yours,

Yuri

Originally Posted by GentDave

What I am suggesting is that the amount of data we have in the synoptic problem may allow us to formulate something simple, analogous to the idea gas law.

Originally Posted by GentDave

We will have evidence that our solution is incomplete, but not enough information to impove our simple model with certainty.

Originally Posted by GentDave

Both the ideal gas law, and a simple synoptic solution may allow us to make general statements that have a high probability of being mostly true.

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Sure, Dave!

And this something simple, this simple solution is that all 3 Synoptics depend on an earlier proto-gospel!



And I think there _is_ enough information to impove our simple model with some certainty.



Agreed.

Yuri.

Originally Posted by GentDave

I think the general statement that we don't possess the first written gospel can be shown to be probably true. Agreed. I also think the first written Greek gospel, was a lot more like Mark than anything else we have. Again, I would judge that to be very probably true.

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Do you think the Bethsaida section was part of the original Mk?

Yuri.

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Why don't you argue for Peshitta priority, rather than belittling the ones who don't believe it?

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Revisiting this...has Gentile considering running the Alexander Romance rescensions through his methodology? There's like 24 of them, significant added material, yet the source text is identical. And they are in Greek, albeit Attic AFAIK.

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Aside from the maximalist attempt to conserve as much as possible of the traditional statements of gospel authorship (which is a non-starter in contemporary Biblical criticism), the scenario basically boils down to a proposal that Q also contained the so-called M material, which Matthew retained and Luke did not.

I'm not aware of any scholar who has seriously proposed that Q contained M too as a solution and worked out its implications.*

* I have a web page outlining the various different solutions to the synoptic problem that have been proposed, so if someone is aware of a scholarly publication that actually argues that Q also contained M, I'd really like to know.