Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Mt/Lk agreements against Mk

Expand Messages
  • Richard Richmond
    John C. Poirier wrote: This is not how Ockham s razor cuts in this case: the lack of Matthew s and Luke s agreements in order against Mark only means that Mark
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 3, 2005
      John C. Poirier wrote:

      This is not how Ockham's razor cuts in this case: the
      lack of Matthew's and
      Luke's agreements in order against Mark only means
      that Mark is the
      mediating term, *not* that Mark is prior. E.g., if
      Luke knows Matthew's
      order *through* Mark's mediation, then we would not
      expect Matthew and Luke
      to agree in order against Mark.

      Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed
      to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar;
      William of Occam. Occam was a village in the English
      county of Surrey where he was born.

      Stated succinctly is: that all other things being
      equal the simplest explanation is likely to be the
      correct one.

      In this situation it cuts like a knife. Three
      documents contain the same material in substantially
      the same order and sometimes word for word, and two of
      those documents never agree against the third in
      order. A grammar school teacher would conclude ( and
      has by the way) that Matthew and Luke have copied from
      Mark which as William of
      Occam recommends, is the simplest explanation and the
      most likely to be correct.


      Rick Richmond rickr2889@...



      ____________________________________________________
      Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
    • John C. Poirier
      ... I know all about it, but it s good to have it stated like this. ... No it doesn t. (See below.) ... That grammar school teacher (whether he s the one
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 3, 2005
        Rick Richmond wrote:

        > Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed

        > to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar;

        > William of Occam. Occam was a village in the English

        > county of Surrey where he was born.

        >

        > Stated succinctly is: that all other things being

        > equal the simplest explanation is likely to be the

        > correct one.



        I know all about it, but it's good to have it stated like this.

        > In this situation it cuts like a knife.

        No it doesn't. (See below.)



        > Three documents contain the same material in substantially

        > the same order and sometimes word for word, and two of

        > those documents never agree against the third in

        > order. A grammar school teacher would conclude ( and

        > has by the way) that Matthew and Luke have copied from

        > Mark which as William of Occam recommends, is the simplest

        > explanation and the most likely to be correct.



        That grammar school teacher (whether he's the one named by E. A. Abbott or
        someone else) would be wrong. If A and C agree in order only where they
        also agree with B, then that does *not* prove (or make it easier to suppose)
        that they A and C depend upon B. It is as I stated in my previous post: A
        could be first, then B, and then C, in which case (if C doesn't know A
        directly) C could only possibly agree with A where A and C both agree with
        B. Likewise, C could be first, then B, then A. Or yet again, B could be
        first, and used independently by A and C, and the same pattern of agreement
        would obtain. (If you don't believe my logic, just work it out on paper.)

        The logical fallacy that you're propounding is a famous one: it was
        decisively overturned by Butler in 1951, and since then many people have
        called attention to it. It is one of the biggest blunders in NT
        scholarship, and unfortunately it still has a hold on the field of NT
        Introduction.



        John C. Poirier







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.