Steven Miller asked --
>What were Taylor's arguments?
Taylor described them as "Reasons for Affirming the Priority of Mark"
("The Gospels: A Short Introduction" - 8th edn, London 1956 - pages
44-47). In shortened form they are --
(1) The great majority of material in Mark is found in either Matthew or
(2) There are no cases in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in
recording the order of incidents
(3) Grammatically and stylistically Mark is "harsher" than Matthew and
Luke in their parallels to Mark
(4) There appear to be "conscious alterations" by Matthew and by Luke of
"awkward" statements in Mark
(5) The structure of Mark is simple, whereas the structures of Matthew
and Luke are relatively complex
(6) Mark contains many vivid details peculiar to his gospel which are
more easily explained as the result of Matthew and Luke having both
softened or omitted these, than as Mark having embellished less vivid
Taylor adds that "Taken together, the foregoing considerations
adequately establish the priority of Mark, a view which is almost
universally held by New Testament scholars."
In my view, all these "reasons" are fully consistent with the theory of
Markan Priority being false. They are as much evidence against, as for,
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...