I had written:
>> Suppose Mark was not extant, and we tried to
>> reconstruct the source behind
>> Matthew and Luke. What would we end up with? Well
>> the "Double Tradition" in
>> this scenario would consist primarily of parts of
John Lupia replied:
> [snip] (This quote should be cited in a publication on
> the Synoptic Problem and Objectivity.)
> QED : Objectivity unattained!
> Ergo : For a Markan-prioritist, even in a world
> without Mark who looms highest on the horizon? Mark!
Again your conclusion is based on a misunderstanding. Perhaps my wording was
not clear enough. I meant "... the "Double Tradition" in this scenario would
consist primarily of parts of material which most scholars in the real world
attribute to Mark." I did not mean to imply that in this scenario scholars
would be able to reconstruct the canonical Mark. Indeed I think it unlikely
that they would be able to do so.
My argument is that the scenario's "Double Tradition" would in fact (as seen
from the real world via Farrer, 2ST or 3ST) consist of more than one source,
but that if Farrer and 2ST supporters apply to my scenario the assumption
they use in the real world (the Double Tradition has a single source), they
will therefore arrive at the wrong conclusion. The "Double Tradition" in my
scenario is analogous to the Double Tradition in the real world, both
containing a mixture of narrative and sayings (albeit in different
proportions). Therefore the real world assumption of Farrer and 2ST
supporters is simplistic. QED.
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm