SCOTUS Rules 5-4 for Gay Marriage

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Can we take the off topic stuff to another thread please?

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[robrecht]

Markan priority is no longer a consensus. It's still held by the majority of scholars. It's just not near unanimous anymore. Moreover, the opposition to Markan priority is much larger.

So you're using 'scholarly consensus' to mean 'near unanimous'. I do not agree that the scholarly consensus for Markan priority is dwindling. For example, how many members of SNTS can you name that oppose Markan priority? Has that number grown?

[Rational Gaze]

Do you claim that there is no longer a consensus or that there is now a new consensus opposed to Markan priority?

Markan priority is no longer a consensus. It's still held by the majority of scholars. It's just not near unanimous anymore. Moreover, the opposition to Markan priority is much larger.

[robrecht]

Nope.

Do you claim that there is no longer a consensus or that there is now a new consensus opposed to Markan priority?

[robrecht]

Markan priority is no longer the consensus and is beginning to lose traction, yes. Because there is good evidence it is false.

For example, two arguments in favour of Markan priority are Mark’s being shorter and its simpler style. Albert Lord notes that there were oral parallels of texts that tell the same story, but in a longer and shorter variation. This demonstrates that shorter does not equate with earlier. (Albert B. Lord, The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature, from William Walker, ed., The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Trinity University Press, (1978), p42.)

It is also noted that authors rewrote material in their own style, and whilst some preferred elegance others preferred colloquial speech. (E. P. Sanders, and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, Trinity Press International, (1989), p72.)

David Neville notes that E. P. Sanders has observed that despite being argued by a variety of scholars, the QM hypothesis has been found wanting by most scholars. Neville himself notes that whilst Markan and two-Gospel hypotheses are able to solve the “synoptic problem,” Markan priority is simply just largely assumed without taking into account of alternate viewpoints and dealing with their defender’s arguments. (David Neville, Mark’s Gospel: Prior or Posterior?, Sheffield Academic Press, (2002), p284, 337-338)

William Farmer has written many books arguing in favour of Matthean priority. Other scholars who argue against Markan priority include: Bo Reicke, B. C. Butler, D. J. Chapman, Eta Linnemann, Hans-Herbert Stoldt, and John Rist. Linnemann in particular noted that in a sample of 35 pericopes, only 22.17% of the words are identical among all three synoptic Gospels. (Eta Linnemann, Is There A Synoptic Problem?, Grand Rapids: Baker, (1992), p129)

Even secular and classical scholars have found the Markan/QM hypothesis wanting, including: Northrop Frye, Albert Lord and George Kennedy. Members of the International Institute for the Renewal of Gospel Studies also do not hold to Markan priority, including: Lamar Cope, David Dungan, Allan McNicol, David Peabody, and Philip Shuler. The second problem lies in the testimony of Papias. Papias is often dismissed, but his testimony gives us warrant to suppose there was a version of Matthew written in Aramaic, prior to the Greek version. Papias’ explanation of Mark’s Gospel being based on the preaching of Peter provides a much better explanation. (Bo Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress, (1986), p46-47)

Other problems include the fact that 1st century AD Palestine was an oral culture where writing desks did not exist yet. In such an oral culture, works would have been produced from memory and on notes. In fact, note taking was extremely prevalent in the ancient world. (George Kennedy, Classical and Christian Source Criticism from William Walker, ed., The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, Trinity University Press, (1978), p131)

None of this is evidence that Markan priority is incorrect, though it is true that some arguments used (or attributed in an overly simplistic manner) in favor of Markan priority are weaker than others. For example, there are numerous obvious 'improvements' of Mark's Greek by Matthew and Luke, but this need not be taken to deny that Mark indeed has his own very effective style and used a well thought out plan in composing his gospel.

[Rational Gaze]

Are you using the term consensus to mean 100% agreement???

Nope.

[robrecht]

Yeah, just too bad it isn't the consensus any more. Markan priority still has supporters in academia despite no longer being consensus. Your inability to think isn't our problem, chump.

Are you using the term consensus to mean 100% agreement???

[robrecht]

Yes, I know of the Farmer and Goodacre alternatives, and the potential issues with Markan priority, but surely it's still the majority held view, isn't it? Even Goodacre seems to think that the two source solution will remain dominant for some while.

Yes, of course it is still the consensus. The number and stature of those who dispute it has not called this into question.

[robrecht]

Just to be clear, are you asserting that Markan priority is not the majority held position among academics anymore, or that the relationship between the three synoptics is no longer in question? From my reading, outside of Goodacre and a few others, Markan priority is still assumed.

Last time I spoke with Goodacre, he did not deny Markan priority, 'though of course he does favor the Farrer solution to the synoptic problem.

[RumTumTugger]

Ah, the irony.

you expected any different Starlight can't seem to stop looking at his mirror so he keeps falsely accusing his opponent of what he is guilty of par for the course with Starlight and his ilk because they have not real arguments scholastically or otherwise just their assertions that their world view is the correct one. the problem is RG you are trying to confuse Dimbulb with the true scholarship and facts he does now want anythign to do with the TRUTH or facts.

[RumTumTugger]

this is all just a game to you me and You'reI'm not actually interested in knowledge and simply pretend to find fault with any sources outside your my bubble. Your My rhetorical strategy is just to deny deny deny deny and assert that any and every source that would actually supply knowledge of any kind is untrustworthy since it does not agree with my world view due to being too liberal or too old or both.

FIFY glad to do it.

[Adrift]

Looks like we gots us another derail thread in the making.

Eh, I don't think it's a big enough deal for a derail. If I'm re-reading RG correctly he's not exactly denying that Markan Priority is still the majority view, just that people are reexamining and questioning it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ah, the irony.


In other words, you don't actually know what inerrancy is.


You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.


Yeah, just too bad it isn't the consensus any more. Markan priority still has supporters in academia despite no longer being consensus. Your inability to think isn't our problem, chump.

You're going way over his little head RG. You're wasting your time because I'm running into the conclusion that he just glances (if that) at what his opponents actually believes and therefore makes very bad arguments against his opponents because he really doesn't know what they say or believe.

[Cow Poke]

Looks like we gots us another derail thread in the making.

[Adrift]

I'm fairly certain that, while Goodacre does not accept Q, he does accept Markan priority.

True. I was thinking more in terms of the widely accepted two source solution.