I had written:
> ..... the Griesbach Theory should have been abandoned many decades ago, as
> it does not really stand up to rational argument and it defies common sense.
Leonard Maluf replied:
> It might interest you to know that there are people who would say exactly the
> same about the Two Source Theory (and who would also think hasty and
> irresponsible?Ron's view of the Griesbach theory). But simply?trading
> dogmatisms in this way is not famous for advancing the science.
Greetings. It seems a long time since we've heard from you.
It is not dogmatic to recognize an obvious truth. Dogmatism only enters the
debate when good rational arguments are brushed aside or countered by
blatantly feebler arguments (a common occurrence in discussions on so-called
'Intelligent Design'). It's clear to me that the argument about Markan
priority was essentially settled over a century ago, and I cannot see why
modern scholars should devote serious debating time to a theory (Griesbach)
which fails all the best tests of the directionality of documentary
dependence. Mark's style is improved. His bluntness is ameliorated. His
major gaps are filled in. When we look at it the other way round, it is
difficult to see what motivation Mark would have had to produce a shorter
gospel story with much duplication and then severely trim the sayings of
Jesus and not include any resurrection appearances. What a waste of effort!
The gospel message would have lost nothing had all copies of Mark been
destroyed in the second century. Need I say more?
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm