Anyone interested in Synoptic Priority?

[Casper]

Anyone interested in this at all? I find it fascinating, re: early gospel dating. I've even seen some arguments for Johannine priority.

Anyone?

[DFWminis]

I tryed doing some research on this ...did not find much...can you lead me in the right direction?

[Casper]

I guess I could start with some good google terms:

synoptic gospels
synoptic priority
synoptic problem
gospel dating
Two-source-hypothesis
Triple tradition
Farrer hypothesis
Jerusalem school hypothesis

Ur-Markus
Proto-Luke
Quella
Q-document
Naq Hammadi
Mark
Matthew
Luke
Thomas

Griesbach
Holtzmann
Reicke
Schnelle
Schleiermacher
Lindsey
Farmer
Goodacre

The most accepted theory in this country is probably the two-source hypothesis: that Mark was written first, but at the same time a second document, called Q, which was a sayings document only, existed as well. Leter on, Matthew was written from these two documents, as was Luke, although they appeared separately. Thomas was written from Q alone.

A contending theory or group of theories in the US is the triple tradition; that one of the three was first, and the other two evolved from that one, either consecutively or concurrently in some way.

Here is probably a good page to start at (http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html)

[Casper]

Now that more people browse this forum, is anyone here at all interested in this?

It doesn't necessarily require anyone to adhere to a particular dogma to explore the possibilities, although literalists may have issues with some scholarly assumptions (but not all).

[flashstang04]

I need to look into this further, but it is something that I would have to do from home. This requires a lot of attention and more cognitive ability than the average person has time for lol.

[Casper]

I need to look into this further, but it is something that I would have to do from home. This requires a lot of attention and more cognitive ability than the average person has time for lol.

It pretty much consumes my net time and has for about 11 years.

[flashstang04]

It pretty much consumes my net time and has for about 11 years.


Maybe I am assuming too much, but are you not searching for answers you already have? You are a decided non believer correct?

[Casper]

Maybe I am assuming too much, but are you not searching for answers you already have? You are a decided non believer correct?

I find the subject itself fascinating. This is a field that short of a mountain of corroborating evidence is never going to be "solved", and even with that evidence conclusions will vary considerably. No search for any theological answer involved.

In some respects it is kind of like a riddle, or a logic problem, the challenge is the real interest, not the solution.

Look at it from a Christian's perspective and maybe you'll see my answer better; would it make any difference if there were actual indisputable proof that Matthew had a version of Mark available as well as a version of Luke, and used those as resources? Or what if Luke had Mark and Matthew? Is Q necessary?

Maybe that is one reason I like it, it is not a divisive area on its own. In fact, theist insight can be valuable in this endeavor. There are those who insist that Jesus spoke the King's english and everything he said was printed in red ink from the beginning, but those are the fringe for a reason.

It has brought rewards of its own; I've had to study some Latin, and especially some Koine Greek, as well as learn a lot of history about Rome. It introduced me to some paleological concepts like chiasm, Homeric parody and intentional pseudepigraphy. It has been very eye-opening regarding the use of Midrash in Christian exegisis.