6434Re: [Synoptic-L] Matthean and Lukan Dependence on Mark
- Jul 5, 2001Biran Wilson wrote Tuesday, July 03, 2001:
> Ted,(Snipped text)
> What you have missed is that although your arguments do indeed rule
> out the priority of Matthew and do indeed rule out the priority of Luke,
> they do not rule out the non-priority of Mark. They therefore do not
> establish Markan Priority incontrovertibly.
> Now if Mark has the more original version, then it is clear that MarkMy response:
> did not depend on either Matthew or Luke. For Mark could hardly have
> produced a more original version from less original ones. The priority
> of Matthew and the priority of Luke are therefore both ruled out. This
> part of your argument is flawless.
> But it simply does not follow that because Mark has the more original
> version therefore Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark in front of them
> and altered what they found in Mark. If Matthew and Luke both used
> another source, then Mark could have done the same. To arrive at the
> conclusion that Matthew and Luke each used Mark, you must show that all
> three synoptic gospels are not independent documentary descendants of
> the same documentary source. In other words, you must rule out the
> possibility that no synoptic gospel is prior to the other two. This you
> have not done. This part of your argument is flawed logic.
> For the possibility remains that no synoptic gospel is the documentary
> descendant of any other synoptic gospel, as Boismard maintains, for
> On the evidence you have presented, it is possible that neither Matthew
> nor Luke depended directly on Mark. The evidence you adduce is
> consistent with Mark having been written last.
> It is therefore untrue that you have presented "incontrovertible"
> evidence that Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. To show incontrovertibly
> that Matthew and Luke used Mark you would have to present evidence to
> rule out incontrovertibly the possibility that no synoptic gospel is the
> documentary descendant of any other. This you have not done. None of the
> arguments in your essay does this.
> If you have such evidence, then I would be very interested to know what
> it is.
Brian, given all the extant sources that we have, I have presented
empirical evidence that on its own merits incontrovertibly points to the
conclusion that Matthew and Luke were directly dependent upon Mark. You
argue for the non-priority of Mark based so far in our exchanges, upon an
unsupported hypothesis that there was a source prior to Mark which Mark,
Matthew and Luke used in composing their Gospels. I cannot be persuaded
that such a source ever existed, unless you can produce it, and using
recognized tests for empirical verification, show me incontrovertibly that
Mark was dependent upon it. All you have indicated is that there is a
possibility that such a source existed. All kinds of possibilities can be
imagined. Because they are "real" in our imagination does not make them
real in the empirical world of recognized rules or principles for
verification. From my vantage point the ball is in your court to produce
such a hypothetical source to support your claim for the non-priority of
Mark. Until you do so, all the empirical evidence that we have which can
be tested according to verifiable means, in my view, argues, again based
upon the evidence I have offered in my essay, for the priority of Mark and
the dependence of Matthew and Luke upon Mark.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>