Originally Posted by Roland

I am currently involved in a LONG discussion with someone at another site about the independence and/or interdependence of the Synoptic gospels. I was explaining to him the generally accepted argument that Mark came first and that Matthew and Luke used Mark, plus the document Q. Pretty bland stuff actually. Then he came up with a counter scenario that I had never heard of before. I just thought I'd run it past you all and see if he has a leg to stand on with his view of how it all came together or whether he's just making it all up as he goes along. I must say he caught me off guard with it. Here goes:

Alex: Well, Roland, according to our most reliable historical evidence, Matthew was the first gospel written, in Aramaic. This first proto-Matthew draft came in very early - in the 40s or 50s perhaps and was written in Judea, by the apostle Matthew (Levi) exclusively for the Hebrews, to try to convince them that Jesus of Nazareth was their long promised Messiah. This proto-Matthew gospel contained what scholars today call M and Q and little narrative.

Some years later (probably during the 60s) Mark (Paul and Peter's missionary companion) wrote His gospel perhaps while in Rome, completely independent of Matthew, and based on Paul's first-hand eyewitness. His gospel gained popularity amongst the gentile nations and quickly became accepted as official scripture there.

Some years later, perhaps a disciple of Matthew, took the proto Matthew gospel and incorporated many of the narratives from the now widely accepted Gospel of Mark into a finalized version of a Greek Gospel of Matthew we have today. So why would Matthew (a suppossed eyewitness) need 2nd hand info from Mark? Because Mark is based on the first-hand eyewitness testimonies of Peter. And remember, Peter, along with brothers James and John were the 3 disciples who were part of Jesus' smaller ring who got to witness many of the things Matthew and the other disciples did not witness (see the Transfiguration, healing of Peter's mother in law, raising of young girl from the dead, the passion narratives in the Garden....). So hence the dependence of Matthew on Mark, yet the primacy of Matthew.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

. It's also a complete load that there is any support for the existence of an Aramaic Matthew.

Originally Posted by judge

But we have an Aramaic Matthew. It is called the peshitta. It actually exists.


The problem is that "scepticism" in the western world is a reactionary movement. It exists as a reation against western fundamentalism (not such a bad thing IMHO).
But it reacts against wetsern christianity , catholicism and it's child, protestantism. It never bothers to question deeply enough catholic and protestsnt assumptions about themselves.
Seceptics blindly accept the prorestant propaganda that the NT was penned in greek. No scholar ever bothered to back this up. Protestants blindly beleive it and sceptics blibdly follow the fundamentalists.

Maybe you think I'm wrong?
Check the facts for yourselves.

Originally Posted by GentDave

They are all too simple to be completely correct, I agree. But some could be correct as a broad outline for most of the material.

The problem is that more complex solutions, while more plausable explinations of the data, can not be proven based on firm evidence,

Originally Posted by GentDave

because too many other complex hypothesis would also explain all the data with as much plausability.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There certainly isn't a shred of evidence for connecting GMatt with any apostle or with any known author.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's also plainly dependent on Mark

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

as has to be post-destruction (70CE). It's also a complete load that there is any support for the existence of an Aramaic Matthew. Q is a Greek composition and so is Mark.

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

How can they _all_ explain all the data with equal plausibility?

What you're saying here, essentially, is that the Synoptic theorising is not a scientific pursuit... Because, in science, only one theory usually explains the evidence best.

But I do believe that the Synoptic studies can and should be a scientific pursuit.

The simple solution to the Synoptic problem is that all 3 Synoptics depend on an earlier proto-gospel.

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

The simple solution to the Synoptic problem is that all 3 Synoptics depend on an earlier proto-gospel.

Originally Posted by GentDave

They don't ALL have equal plausibility. But a large number will have similiar enough plausability that identifying the single more probable is probably not possible.

Originally Posted by GentDave

And even if we can identify it, the probablity that that solution is exactly correct will be less than 50%.

Originally Posted by GentDave

There will always be a trade off, I can always add more complexity to explain one more detail, but then the model lacks parsimony.

Originally Posted by GentDave

As the number of models to be considered multiplies the a priori probability that any one of them is correct becomes smaller, and the data we can use to choose between them is stretched ever thiner.

Science looks for simple models. - Sometimes simple models that explain most of the data. Ideally all the data is explained. But the tradeoff for the last details of explination may be an extream loss of simplicity. And in our case, the data is not good enough to judge between a large number of very similiar very complex models.

Originally Posted by GentDave

Yes, I believe this is a question we can approch scientificly,

Originally Posted by GentDave

but I also believe a fully detailed answer is beoynd the ability of science to answer.

Originally Posted by GentDave

There is no single complete solution that in its exact form is more than 50% likely to be true based on evidence, much less something like 95% or 99%.

The best we can do is make general statements that are highly probable to be *mostly* true.

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Rather than a proto-gospel, I would guess that it's an oral tradition--very confused, very piecemeal, with probably a few written pararaphs, themselves based on oral tradition. The melange just seems much too great to consider them to be some coherent copy of a common source, except that the common source might itself be what I've described.

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

I don't envy those who try to sort out the origins of the Synoptics, unless they enjoy doing 3-dimensional jigsaws with most of the pieces missing.