David,Ken,
I'm afraid I will have to decline to continue this discussion.
Not sure I agree with the direction the board seems to be going (more angry replies and all that goes with that).
I have noticed that you have recently soured in your opinion of me, and maybe pressed one of your buttons. I guess I am what I am. If you like, I can refrain myself from participating in any threads where you have posted the OP.
The intensity level of posts about Synoptic Problem, especially Q, is why I have never liked the tenor of Synoptic studies.
It is only approached by the rancor in debates over the origins/writers of the DSS.
I am going to retire for a bit, as I am super stressed at work.
For lurkers, I am open to off-list exchanges, as always, if anyone is interested in why I have come to the conclusion that some (not all) academics have built houses of cards.
PS: Ken, I will be reading up on the Synoptic Problem from the books you recommended, if only for my own edification, not to "refute" anything. You see, I am all for learning something ...
Dave H
I'm sorry if I sounded rancorous, but it did seem to me that you were beginning with the assumption that the Farrer theory, which I hold to be the most likely solution to the synoptic problem yet, is wrong and that the people who hold it, including the late Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre, and, of course, me, do not have rational reasons for what we believe, but that you could explain how we came to hold the theory we do for irrational reasons. That is, our thinking is wrong, but you could explain how we came to our wrong conclusions because of psychological and sociological reasons.
Do you understand how that sounds? Maybe not rancorous, but perhaps patronizing. If you think I misrepresented what you were saying, please tell me how, and I will try to do better.
I have spent a great deal of time studying the synoptic problem, as of course have Goulder and Goodacre. I have both studied their published work and spent many hours talking about the synoptic problem with them.
Beginning a discussion by claiming someone else's theory is wrong, but not be willing first to discuss whether it is indeed wrong, and offering to explain why other people hold their wrong theory, is probably not a good way to begin a genial discussion.
We've been conversing about the synoptic problem and related things (like the historical Jesus) for about a quarter century now, usually genially. I was actually surprised that you would begin by dismissing the theory I (and Goulder and Goodacre) hold.
I am not at all asking you to avoid threads I start. I am asking you to be prepared to back up the claims you make with reasonable arguments and not expect me to accept that my position is wrong based on your word alone. I think that is basic to having a discussion forum where the purpose is, purportedly, to get to the truth of things (though I could be wrong - I suppose there might be as many purposes as there are members, or more).
Best wishes,
Ken
P.S. I am sorry to hear you are under a lot of stress at work, but glad to hear that you will be reading the books I mentioned. Perhaps you will even be persuaded by them, though perhaps not. Goodacre's Way The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze is an easy introduction, but it is the first 128 pages of Goulder's Luke: A New Paradigm that make the fundamental argument for Luke's use of Matthew and dispensing with Q.
Statistics: Posted by Ken Olson — Thu Mar 21, 2024 10:53 am