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

[Synoptic-L] Fallacies

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

      VT: << Significant of the stability of critical opinion is the fact that,
      in a modern commentary, it is no longer necessary to prove the priority of
      Mark. (n.12) The extensive parallels to Mark in Matt. (90 per cent of
      Mark's verses) and in Luke (over 50 per cent), the high average of verbal
      agreement (about 51 per cent in Matt. and 53 per cent in Luke), the
      relative agreements in order, the stylistic and grammatical improvements in
      the later Gospels, the softening or omission of bold Markan statements, and
      the vivid character of Mark's Story, all combine to make it certain that
      Mark is our earliest Gospel used as a source by Matthew and Luke. >>

      BEW modifying VT: The extensive parallels to Mark in Matt. (90 per cent of
      Mark's verses) and in Luke (over 50 per cent), the high average of verbal
      agreement (about 51 per cent in Matt. and 53 per cent in Luke), the
      relative agreements in order, the stylistic and grammatical improvements in
      the later Gospels, the softening or omission of bold Markan statements, and
      the vivid character of Mark's Story, all combine
      to make it certain that EITHER Mark is our earliest Gospel used as a source
      by Matthew and Luke OR THAT THE THREE SYNOPTISTS INDEPENDENTLY USED A
      COMMON DOCUMENTARY SOURCE. >>

      BEW: << I would suggest that when the logic of the argument is corrected in
      this way, it is seen that the various phenomena adduced by Taylor as
      evidence for the theory of Markan Priority are equally evidence for the
      theory of Non-Priority of any synoptic gospel. Conversely, taking out my
      words in capital letters leaves an argument using erroneous logic, showing
      that Taylor's argument is fallacious. >>

      Your message didn't specifically indicate any fallacy, so where is Taylor's
      fallacy in the quotation provided by Stephen Carlson?

      -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.