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

[Synoptic-L] Fallacies

Expand Messages
  • Steven Craig Miller
    To: Brian E. Wilson,
    Message 1 of 43 , Dec 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Brian E. Wilson,

      << In my view, all these "reasons" are fully consistent with the theory of
      Markan Priority being false. They are as much evidence against, as for,
      Markan Priority. >>

      Exactly what do you see to be Taylor's "fallacy"? Initially I assumed you
      meant to imply that the reasons which Taylor gave were all "fallacies." But
      now you seem to say that you concur with all six of Taylor's statements. Is
      it that you deem Taylor's "fallacy" to be that he reaches a conclusion
      different from your own? Or is it something else altogether?

      Take point #4 for example. You wrote/quoted as follows: << (4) There appear
      to be "conscious alterations" by Matthew and by Luke of "awkward"
      statements in Mark. >>

      Obviously, as stated, this argument points more to Markan priority than
      not. Streeter made the same argument:

      << A close study of the actual language of parallel passages in the Gospels
      show that there is a constant tendency in Matthew and Luke -- showing
      itself in minute alterations, sometimes by one, sometimes by the other, and
      often by both -- to improve upon and refine Mark's version >> ("The Four
      Gospels," 162).

      Of course, one can argue that the more primitive grammar and style of
      Mark's gospel is in itself not proof of anything. But I don't think one can
      argue that Matthew and Luke's "alterations" are not proof of Markan
      priority. So I would guess that you meant the former and not the latter.

      Where in point 4 is Taylor's "fallacy"? I would concede that the primitive
      grammar and style of Mark's gospel in itself is not proof of anything. But
      certainly there is the APPEARANCE when one reads the Synoptic gospels
      synoptically that Matthew and Luke are trying to improve on Mark's grammar
      and style. And while this "appearance" by itself cannot prove anything
      definitively, it seems reasonable to me that such an "appearance" is an
      argument for Markan priority. And accepting it as such does not constitute
      any real "fallacy."

      Your point seems to be that this appearance is "fully consistent with the
      theory of Markan Priority being false." No doubt that is also true. It can
      almost be taken as a axiom that all synoptic data is fully (or at least
      "largely") consistent with most every synoptic solution proposed.

      -Steven Craig Miller
      Alton, Illinois (USA)
      scmiller@...



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Leonard Maluf asks -- ... Yes, much more narrowly. Best wishes, BRIAN WILSON E-mail; brian@twonh.demon.co.uk HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk Rev
      Message 43 of 43 , Dec 4, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Leonard Maluf asks --
        >Or do you in fact define more narrowly what you mean by "story
        >dualities" in your article?
        >
        Yes, much more narrowly.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE 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@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.