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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Markan priority is dead!

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... I am not clear why you have brought up that discussion in this context. Indeed quoting it out of its context there generates a misleading impression
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On 3 Jul 2001, at 10:34, John Lupia wrote:

      > On the TC-List (Fri, 15 Jun 2001) Mark Goodacre pointed out that:

      I am not clear why you have brought up that discussion in this
      context. Indeed quoting it out of its context there generates a
      misleading impression concerning what I was in fact saying.
      Further, please note that the quotation does not accurately report
      what I said -- the final sentence below is not mine and does not in
      any way represent my views.
      >
      > >there are lots of Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against
      > Mark, c. 1000 in Neirynck's list. These MAs are prima facie a
      > problem for the theory of Matthew's and Luke's independent
      > redaction of Mark and it is for this reason that defenders of that
      > view often appeal to the possibility that they were generated in
      > textual transmission. This is completely impossible which I have
      > pointed out both on this list and on the TC-list.

      Mark
      -----------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT
      United Kingdom

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      Homepage
      http://NTGateway.com
      The New Testament Gateway

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John Lupia
      ... Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk From: John Lupia To: List Please note that the quotation does not accurately report what Mark Goodacre said -- the final sentence
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:06:51 +0100, M.S.Goodacre@... wrote:

        > On 3 Jul 2001, at 10:34, John Lupia wrote:
        >
        > > On the TC-List (Fri, 15 Jun 2001) Mark Goodacre pointed out that:
        >
        Synoptic-L@...

        From: John Lupia
        To: List

        Please note that the quotation does not accurately report
        what Mark Goodacre said -- the final sentence below is not his but mine and
        does not in any way represent his views, but, rather, mine.
        >
        > >there are lots of Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against
        > Mark, c. 1000 in Neirynck's list. These MAs are prima facie a
        > problem for the theory of Matthew's and Luke's independent
        > redaction of Mark and it is for this reason that defenders of that
        > view often appeal to the possibility that they were generated in
        > textual transmission. This is completely impossible which I have
        > pointed out both on this list and on the TC-list.

        Somehow the spaces got deleted and I missed it. Sorry for such a gross
        blunder. I wish in no way to misrepresent Dr. Goodacre's view. So, I
        repeat that this hypothetical textual transmission theory is a smoking gun
        and no text critic in the world will touch it since it is scientifically
        impossible. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who wish to
        demonstrate to the world how this is possible. Once done it indeed will be
        of such sensational consequence that they will have simultaneously proven
        not only Marcan priority but that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew as we now
        know them were the results of universal scribal conspiracy in the
        manipulation of their texts to read vastly un-Marcan for some undisclosed
        reason. Those who propose such theories fail to see the world of difference
        between scribal transmission creating MA's in isolated texts from it having
        been a global phenomenon and having been made very early on. Of course that
        is also why as a hidden agenda such advocates wish to deny any possibility
        to C. P. Thiede's mid 1st century dating of the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew.
        Please note that I do not put all weight on this as if it were the only
        piece of evidence that destroys this view. Nor do I wish to argue about the
        dating of it here. That is appropriate for the TC-List. Moreover,
        Neirynck's list or Neirynck's wall, to use a better term, is an
        insurmountable hurdle for Marcan prioritists and it is not the only one.

        Cordially in Christ,
        John
        <><

        John N. Lupia
        501 North Avenue B-1
        Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
        JLupia2@...
        <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
        "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
        . unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
        they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





        _______________________________________________________
        Send a cool gift with your E-Card
        http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/



        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.