Starboy

As to the synoptic problem, not knowing anything about what you are selling is a well-established practice in this society. In the private sector if inaccurate or fraudulent claims are made there is recourse to the courts, unless of course you are talking about truth mongering religions. The day may come where religion is no longer exempt. Each year our society becomes more litigious, might it happen in the near future? Someone sue an established religion for fraud, manipulation and coercion and win? I can't wait.

Starboy

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

CX

It's really not all that puzzling. I'd venture to say that very few people Xian or otherwise are familiar with or have even heard of the synoptic problem. Unless you have specifically studied NT ext criticism, which is an extremely esoteric and complex subject of interest only to a few intellectually curious types, you would likely never recognize the synoptic problem. You certainly couldn't figure it out by just reading the NT. Thus for the majority who are really only nominally Xian and know perhaps a few passages they've heard in use liturgically, the synoptic problem is never discovered. Hell you'd probably be surprised (or maybe not) how many Xians think Mark and Luke were apostles.

not a theist

Isn't that a frightening thought!

Actually, many scholars think that Matthew and Luke used a proto-Mark rather than the version of Mark that we now have. And certainly some scribal assimilation of the texts did happen. But I think that Kosh makes a very good point. Also, the degree of alteration would have to be vast since around 95% of the Markan material is found either in Matthew or Luke. I doubt that harmonization happened on that scale (at least I hope it didn't!)

Vorkosigan

So could it be that GMark was modified after Luke and Matthew wrote theirs?

There are several hypotheses in this regard. Evan Powell has argued that John 21 was originally the ending of Mark, and that Luke's copy of Mark incorporated that passage, since Luke parallels John at this point.

Vorkosigan

CX

Not just considered, but a well known phenomenon called "smoothing" or "harmonizing". In studying the NA27 we can see that some variants are very well explained by a scribe taking a passage in a given text and altering it to read like a similar passage in a different gospel. On this theory either the scribe is altering the text specifically for the purpose of eliminating a discrepancy or the alteration is unconscious and a product of the scribe being more familiar with a parallel version of a given phrase, passage or story.

Amos

If the gospels were fully understood that would be the end of religion. Let's put it this way. If our mandate is to obtain the mind of God would that not be the end of religion? If we explain the bible to the believers would that not remove the need for faith . . . since they speak on behalf of the life of man as God (Jn.5:39-40).

Religion must be a game we play, but a game with a purpose and this is for real and for keeps. Where religions go wrong is in filling up mental institutions with 'failed' divine comedies.

not a theist

I learned about it when I was 13 and read Michael Grant's Jesus.
I guess this just really surprises me. When my girlfriend and myself bought a the Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible so that we could study together (this was about 7 years ago during my Christian days), the Synoptic Problem was given a prominent discussion in it. When I read the Penguin commentary on Mark, just for fun, a few years back it was discussed in it. I think it probably is discussed in just about every commentary on the gospels out there.
Don't these people read commentaries???
This is supposed to be what their whole life is about, aren't they interested in learning anything about it?
I guess it just seems hypocritical to me that they are willing to base their whole lives on something but are too lazy to do a bit of basic research into it.
In retrospect, it looks so obvious; but you're probably right. I've known about it for so long, even while I was a Christian, that I don't know what it's like not knowing of it.
I run into a heck of a lot of them too.
When corrected about this, they usually resort to claiming that Mark was a kid that followed Jesus and the apostles around.

Most recent ridiculous proposal I've run into: even though Luke admits that he knows about other written gospels and did research, he still didn't use them in composing his gospel. I find these proposals hilarious since the logical outcome of their claims is that he just made it all up out of thin air.

CX

No. Most people in this country are Xian by upbringing who attend church perhaps a few times a year or once a week at best. Most protestant liturgies only include a couple readings (one from the OT and one from the NT). They follow a liturgical calendar that repeats in a yearly cycle. Hardly anyone actually reads the bible much less a commentary. Put it this way. I love the representative republic form of government by which my country is organized. It has a huge impact on my life etc. Even so I have never read the entire constitution. I know a few bits an pieces that were spoon fed to me in grade school and college. I undoubtedly know next to nothing concering the authorship or text critical issues associated with that document. Most people are not actively seeking a belief system or a "true" picture of reality. They accept what they were taught as children and go through the nominal ritual motions of belief. Even a superficial understanding of the synoptic problem requires a fair amount of effort. Why on earth would anyone who is comfortable in their belief and not actively seeking answers go to that trouble? Not only that (and this will probably sound a bit elitist) but the majority of rank and file Xians (and non Xians for that matter) don't have the education or the mental tools to study and comprehend the subject. I work on intelligence scales and educational assessments for a living. 68 percent of all people are within 1 standard deviation of the average for a given intelligence scale (in the case of the most well known, the Stanford Binet, average is 100). A nontrivial number of people are two standard deviations below average. There ends up being a relatively small number of people who are of above average intelligence. I think some of this material requires more than average intelligence. Couple that with the desire to maintain the status quo and the issue becomes and insurmountable obstacle. I've been following your discussion on PlanetWisdom concerning copying in the gospels. It is fairly obvious that the people there are either unwilling or unable to understand the issue. Though most of them are kids so you have to cut them some slack for lack of experience.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

CX

That is simply someone who is profoundly ignorant of the issue. Given that Luke is alleged to be a gentile physician and companion of Paul some 20 to 30 years after Jesus' death, where precisely did he get the information for his gospel? Is the assumption that all of it derives from personal interviews? How is that more reliable than written sources? I'm not even sure I understand why anyone would object to Luke's use of written sources.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Godless Dave

I think it goes back to Augustine's idea that interpreting the Bible critically is too difficult and dangerous for the masses and best left to scholars. I briefly dated a woman who was ELCA Lutheran but had been raised in a more conservative church. At college she took a couple Bible studies courses. "There's a lot of stuff they don't tell you in church" she said.