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

[Synoptic-L] Fallacies & Markan Priority

Expand Messages
  • Steven Craig Miller
    To: Brian E. Wilson,
    Message 1 of 43 , Dec 2, 2000
      To: Brian E. Wilson,

      << My point is that Taylor's logic is erroneous. Even if Mark is a
      documentary descendant of neither Matthew nor Luke, it simply does not
      follow that therefore Matthew and Luke are documentary descendants of Mark.
      Taylor's argument is a fallacy in that he uses flawed logic. >>

      I guess I would concur with you here. I can't comment on Taylor's arguments
      per se since I don't have this particular book of his. But I have just
      re-read both Streeter's arguments for Markan priority and Fitzmyer's
      comments on Streeter's argument (in "Jesus and Man's Hope," also reprinted
      elsewhere). And IMO they don't present their arguments in a very logical
      fashion. I would modify Streeter's arguments to something like this:

      (1) There is a direct literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels
      within the (so called) Triple tradition (cp. Streeter's 1st & 2nd points).

      (2) Mark is the "middle-term" for the Triple tradition (cp. Streeter's 2nd
      & 3rd points & Bultler p. 65).

      (3) Mark is more "primitive" (same as Streeter's 4th point). This is shown
      (a) by the use of phrases likely to cause offence, which are omitted or
      toned down in the other Gospels, and (b) by Mark's roughness of style and
      grammar which the other Gospels alter resulting in stylistic or grammatical
      improvements. (Here I would be tempted to add [with all due respect to
      Peter M. Head] a point "c": and by Matthew's and Luke's higher [or more
      developed] Christology.)

      One can disagree with any one or all of these statements. But at least
      there is a logical progression here. The first argument attempts to rule
      out any possibility of an ur-gospel hypothesis for the Triple tradition
      material. Obviously anyone who accepts some sort of ur-gospel hypothesis
      would object to this first argument. If one does not accept this first
      argument, one cannot move on to the next. The second argument is dependent
      upon the first and attempts to side-step the so-called "Lachmann Fallacy,"
      while attempting to rule out all hypotheses which does not have Mark as the
      "middle-term." The third argument is dependent on the first two, it rules
      out any hypothesis which does not accept Markan priority.

      Your criticism of Taylor's 4th point makes sense if he hasn't already
      established that there is a direct literary relationship between the
      Synoptic Gospels. Obviously if there is no direct literary relationship
      between the Synoptics, it doesn't make any sense to talk about who might
      have altered who.

      -Steven Craig Miller
      Alton, Illinois (USA)

      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
        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,

        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.