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

6434Re: [Synoptic-L] Matthean and Lukan Dependence on Mark

Expand Messages
  • Ted Weeden
    Jul 5, 2001
      Biran Wilson wrote Tuesday, July 03, 2001:

      > Ted,

      > 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.

      (Snipped text)

      > Now if Mark has the more original version, then it is clear that Mark
      > 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
      > instance.
      > 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.

      My response:

      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@...
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic