Tue Apr 9 15:12:18 1996

From majordom  Tue Apr  9 15:12:18 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00535; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:12:18 +0500
Message-Id: <9604091909.AA12635@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:08:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stephen C Carlson" 
In-Reply-To:  from "Maurice Robinson" at Apr 8, 96 11:28:41 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1090      
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Maurice Robinson wrote:
>The modern critical texts will have a tendency to claim more
>harmonizations of Mark to Matthew, which are attributed to a presumption 
>of Markan priority as well as to the fact that Matthew was the most 
>popular gospel in the early church.  The real reflection of the Markan 
>hypothesis would be seen in their internal evidence decision to follow a 
>non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents 
>itself.

If this is true, then I don't see why Markan priority (as opposed
to harmonizing tendencies) would be a good reason.  If we *knew* that
Mark was first, how does that help us establish which competing claim
to the text of Mark is stronger?  What Matthew may or may not have
changed is not relevant, because we don't know if Matthew followed or
departed from Mark in the first place.

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

Back