6448[Synoptic-L] Matthean and Lukan Dependence on Mark
- Jul 6, 2001Ted Weeden wrote --
>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.
I am not sure that we have any extant sources. For how do we know
which document is a source for any other?
On the Griesbach Hypothesis, for instance, Matthew and Luke are sources,
but Mark is not a source. On the Two Document Hypothesis, Mark and Q
are sources whereas Matthew and Luke are not. I would suggest that the
assumption that we have extant sources is confused and confusing. It may
be that none of the documents we have are sources. Why should they be?
According to Boismard, no synoptic gospel is a source of the others.
>I am not arguing for the non-priority of Mark. I am arguing that you are
>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.
assuming that the non-priority of Mark is ruled out by your
"incontrovertible evidence", and that this assumption has not been
justified. I think we should consider one documentary hypothesis at a
time. Otherwise confusion reigns. Throughout this thread I have been
considering your arguments for your hypothesis.
>If you are arguing that no such source ever existed, then please let us
>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.
know what the argument is. What evidence do you have to support the idea
that there was no hypothetical documentary source prior to all three
synoptic gospels? If you are not arguing that such a source ever
existed, then I am not sure what you saying here. Surely you are not
saying that your mind is simply closed on the issue?
>What I have indicated is that if your argument is to be shown to be
>All you have indicated is that there is a possibility that such a
valid you need to rule out the possibility that such a source existed.
We are considering your hypothesis and your arguments.
>Agreed. As with the possibility that one synoptic gospel was prior to
>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.
the others, or the possibility that a hypothetical Q was used by Matthew
>In this thread I have not been advocating the non-priority of Mark. I
>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
have been considering the assumption you have made concerning the non-
priority of Mark. I have been trying hard to understand what your
vantage point is. It seems that you assume, without any attempt to
justify, that one synoptic gospel must be prior to the others, and that
you then claim that the observed data is "incontrovertible evidence" for
this assumption, when it is fully consistent with no synoptic gospel
being prior to any other. Surely your argument hinges on whether you can
indeed show that one synoptic gospel must be prior to the others. What
basis do you have for this assumption? I think that unless you can come
up with an answer to this question, not only is the ball still in your
court, but it has not even once crossed the net.
>HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot_
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>