Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Bias against omissions?
> There is, though, theoretically at least. Tell me, please, e.g., how onegoes
> about establishing Markan priority to a reasonably high degree ofprobability
> without assuming things about the motives of the authors? This would beWe talk about Occum's razor a lot in order to select the simplest
> really new to me.
> Leonard Maluf
hypothesis. But, part of simplicity is not only the number of documents, but
how simple the author's task was. An author that behaved like GH Mark had an
enormously difficult task, and one that we have never seen performed
anywhere else. Thus, the hypothesis that an author behaved as GH Mark did, I
would consider to be a fairly extraordinary claim. Without sufficient
evidence to support the claim, I'd choose a simpler explanation. The sorts
of activities I see the authors doing on my hypothesis are relatively
simple. They copy, they delete offensive bits, they add material in
appropriate places. They may be reconciling two texts, but they do it in a
manner that one would not be at all difficult.
That the authors behaved in relatively simple ways is not a starting
However, simplicity is a criteria by which competing hypotheses are judged.
In effect, given the information I have, I believe my hypothesis is the best
one because it is truly the simplest one. More information might change that
view of course.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...