Peter Kirby

See here. Please volunteer to be one to discuss if you can devote the necessary amount of time.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Chili

Hello Peter, it is good to see the Augustinian concept in there but I do not see a problem with it.

In Catholicism the Gospel of Matthew replaces Judas (that is why Matthias was chosen) who must first shape the mind of the believer and later betray him when the real truth becomes known = the annhilation of faith through understanding.

Peter Kirby

Except for Chili, I haven't gotten much of a response thus far. So I suppose I should lay down the guantlet:

I challenge Vinnie, Michael Turton, Ben C. Smith, Andrew Criddle, Chris Price, James Hannam, Q. D. Jones, Amaleq13, spin, krosero, TedM, and S. C. Carlson to participate in this discussion of the Synoptic Problem. And I challenge anyone reading this, also, to offer their participation.

I look forward to participating myself--and, the more, the merrier.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Peter - perhaps there has been a thin response because it's the Friday before a 3 day weekend. Or maybe it's hard to think of anything new to say about the synoptic problem.

Peter Kirby

Okay, but to be clear, you don't have to have anything new to say.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Chili

Peter I meant to apologize for posting in your tread but was delighted to see the Augustinian concept. That is to say, I know the truth is out there some place. :rolling:

I now realize that a pm would have served me better and declare that I will no be a participant or a critic. In fact, I won't even read it (I never read any formal debates).

Toto

For reference, here is Stephen Carlson's Synoptic Problem Home Page, which includes a computer-generated list of 1488 viable, documentary synoptic source theory types

Ben C Smith

[Picking up an unusually sturdy glove that some careless person seems to have dropped.] Sure, Peter, let me take you up on the offer. Always eager to display my ignorance in public.

The conditions said first-come, first-serve on the pet hypothesis, so (unless someone has already grabbed it by PM) I pick (a variant of) the three-source hypothesis: Mark wrote first, Matthew later expanded Mark, and Luke later used both Mark and Matthew, as well as a lost document or series of documents or even oral traditions roughly corresponding to Q minus (most of) the so-called Mark-Q overlaps.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Peter,

How can you have a debate when there are so many options to chose from?

It's not a debate that's needed here, but some basic truth telling.

Over 90% of mainstream scholars embrace the 2ST, that is absurd on the face of it.

The assumption is that the 19th century Hortian Mk is the original first century text, which gave rise to both Mt and Lk. No evidence at all exists for this, and there's much evidence for the contrary...

The people who believe this nonsense are no better than zombies, and no rational debate is possible with them, until they supply some proof that the 19th century Hortian Mk is really and truly the original 1c text. The text which was preserved near-miraculously in a couple of 4th-5th century Egyptian manuscripts, and then reconstructed perfectly by those nearly-infallible geniuses Westcott and Hort.

Anyone who believes this stuff is either a crook or an idiot AFAIAC. And the Farrer supporters are no less guilty here than the 2ST supporters.

Regards,

Yuri

Peter Kirby

It's not a debate. Somebody stuck debate in the thread title, but it's not a debate. It's a discussion.

Yuri,

I think I am going to adopt your hypothesis here.

Can you do me a favor and illustrate the steps involved in the origins of the Synoptic Gospels, and what the proto-Gospels looked like at each step? That is, in your best guess.

Something like the chart that exists, e.g., for Boismard's hypohesis, would be fantastic.

I am having a hard time figuring out your hypothesis on the origins of the Synoptic Gospels from your book and website. Thank you for your help.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby