I wonder, however, if Don Wilkins (the translator whose statement prompted Rick’s inquiry) and the Lockman Foundation are actually making a correct statement about this matter. The translators of both the original NASB and the 1995 Update are known and a full listing of their names is available online; and while I don’t know every name in the list, my first inclination regarding some of the scholars whose names I do know wouldn’t be to think that they reject Markan priority. But more to the point, note, for instance, that the Lockman Foundation likewise states that all NASB translators “support the philosophy of literal translation” (cfr. the listing of translators linked above). But is this factually accurate? Could this be said, for instance, of translator Moisés Silva in view of his published views on this matter, and of his participation in such translation projects as the New Living Translation and the Spanish Nueva Versión Internacional? There seems to be something of an inclination for sweeping generalizations at work here.
Rick also mentions that it is a matter of concern for (at least some of?) the translators “that adherence to Markan priority may affect one’s view of inspiration,” which is profoundly disturbing. This idea certainly seems to have taken root among many fundamentalists, and even turns up in the articles and responses in the book Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (review forthcoming), a survey of explicitly Evangelical options. Now, it is well known that I myself am an unrepentant neo-Griesbachian, and consequently no friend of Markan priority; but I have no sympathy whatever for the type of fearmongering that effectively demonizes perfectly viable positions by perversely casting aspersions on the integrity of the confessional commitments of the scholars who hold them. One could only hope that such reprehensible tactics would be abandoned altogether, but sadly, realistic individuals shouldn’t hold their breath.