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

Markan priority

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    CHUCK: Mark is completely irrelevant to the birth narratives in Mt and Lk and so can t be influencing my thinking on them. LEONARD: Mark may be irrelevant to
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      CHUCK: Mark is completely irrelevant to the birth narratives in Mt and Lk and so can't be influencing my thinking on them.

      LEONARD: Mark may be irrelevant to the birth narratives in Mt and Lk (and I of course wouldn't stop there) but Markan priority is not. The reason you find Luke's treatment of Matthew's birth narratives so off the charts is because your view of what Luke does for a living is based on the theory of Markan priority.

      CHUCK: One of the first items covered in the case against Q is that the question of Mt and Lk's relation in the double tradition has nothing to do with Markan priority, and that a non-Q view does not mean rethinking Markan priority. The two are separate synoptic puzzles to be worked out on their own merits.

      LEONARD: Did you mean, in the above, "the case against Q" or just what you wrote, the case against Q? What I means is:there may be more than one case against Q, and they may involve different assessments of the role of Markan priority in the overall case. Sometimes quotation marks are not only perfectly civil but necessary for proper communication.

      CHUCK: I imagine you would be one of very few members of this list that do not believe Mark was a source for Mt and Lk. Is that your impression?

      LEONARD: I guess so; I never took a head-count, but I suppose the law of averages is in your favor here.

      CHUCK: Could you mention a couple of the arguments for Markan priority that you find to be unpersuasive?

      LEONARD: In general, I don't find (any of) the standard arguments for Markan priority persuasive, and as far as I know they are the strongest existing arguments for that position. I will assume that you know what the standard arguments are, so I will not bore you or the list with reproducing them here. But what intrigues me more is a related question: namely, what argument for Markan priority is considered most persuasive to most scholars? I have the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that the strongest thing in favor of Markan priority is not really an arugment but rather an appeal. For many scholars the strong appeal of the theory is the mere fact that it provides a convenient basis for a source-analysis of Matthew and Luke. My impression is that many people just couldn't deal with a world in which Matthew and Luke were not explicable on the basis of known sources. The pain of having to do so in the case of Mark is mitigated by the comforting fact that Mark is considerably shorter (and of couse also that it remains possible to exercise one's ingenuity by hypothesizing non-extant sources for Mark).

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA
      ________________________________________________________________________
      Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck Jones
      Leonard, Thanks for sharing and clarifying your thoughts. I have no idea how to procede without rewriting the material from standard textbooks on critical
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Leonard,

        Thanks for sharing and clarifying your thoughts. I have no idea how to procede without rewriting the material from standard textbooks on critical synoptic studies--which you have already weighed in the balance and found wanting.

        Best wishes,

        Chuck

        Maluflen@... wrote:
        CHUCK: Mark is completely irrelevant to the birth narratives in Mt and Lk and so can't be influencing my thinking on them.

        LEONARD: Mark may be irrelevant to the birth narratives in Mt and Lk (and I of course wouldn't stop there) but Markan priority is not. The reason you find Luke's treatment of Matthew's birth narratives so off the charts is because your view of what Luke does for a living is based on the theory of Markan priority.

        CHUCK: One of the first items covered in the case against Q is that the question of Mt and Lk's relation in the double tradition has nothing to do with Markan priority, and that a non-Q view does not mean rethinking Markan priority. The two are separate synoptic puzzles to be worked out on their own merits.

        LEONARD: Did you mean, in the above, "the case against Q" or just what you wrote, the case against Q? What I means is:there may be more than one case against Q, and they may involve different assessments of the role of Markan priority in the overall case. Sometimes quotation marks are not only perfectly civil but necessary for proper communication.

        CHUCK: I imagine you would be one of very few members of this list that do not believe Mark was a source for Mt and Lk. Is that your impression?

        LEONARD: I guess so; I never took a head-count, but I suppose the law of averages is in your favor here.

        CHUCK: Could you mention a couple of the arguments for Markan priority that you find to be unpersuasive?

        LEONARD: In general, I don't find (any of) the standard arguments for Markan priority persuasive, and as far as I know they are the strongest existing arguments for that position. I will assume that you know what the standard arguments are, so I will not bore you or the list with reproducing them here. But what intrigues me more is a related question: namely, what argument for Markan priority is considered most persuasive to most scholars? I have the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that the strongest thing in favor of Markan priority is not really an arugment but rather an appeal. For many scholars the strong appeal of the theory is the mere fact that it provides a convenient basis for a source-analysis of Matthew and Luke. My impression is that many people just couldn't deal with a world in which Matthew and Luke were not explicable on the basis of known sources. The pain of having to do so in the case of Mark is mitigated by the comforting fact that Mark is
        considerably shorter (and of couse also that it remains possible to exercise one's ingenuity by hypothesizing non-extant sources for Mark).

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA
        __________________________________________________________
        Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

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