In a message dated 12/2/2000 4:54:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<< To put the point another way, the arguments that have (very)
traditionally been used for the theory of Markan Priority are, in my
view, just as much arguments for the theory of the Non-Priority of any
synoptic gospel. Taylor's six "reasons" are no more reasons for
affirming the theory of Markan Priority than for affirming the theory of
Brian, I wonder why you state this as strongly as you do. You are making a
valid point generally -- which amounts to distinguishing, rightly, between
the term "priority" in a purely temporal sense, and "priority" in the more
philosophical sense, according to which that which is "secondary" depends for
its existence on what is "prior" -- but I think it is an overstatement to
affirm that valid arguments for the temporal priority of Mark would be "just
as much" arguments for the non-priority (in a philosophical sense) of any of
the Synoptic gospels. I would simply say that such arguments are
non-conclusive for the question of the dependence of Matt and Lk on Mark.
A more fundamental problem with the classical arguments in favor of Markan
priority (in either sense) is their "reversibility" (to use Mark Goodacre's
term) or their non-conclusivity for other logical reasons, and especially
their failure to take into account the evidence of clearly secondary features
of Mark. (I will admit, for the moment, that these secondary features do not
conclusively prove the dependence of Mark on Matt and Lk either).
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...