tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post684877346863994633..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: Darwinian-based objections to Markan PosteriorityJeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-9698854101382193962018-03-02T11:56:27.117-05:002018-03-02T11:56:27.117-05:00Daniel, Yes, you make some good points about the f...Daniel, Yes, you make some good points about the fact that overall Matthew with 28 chapters is longer than Mark with 16, it is actually shorter in individual passages shared with Mark.<br /><br />As for my views on Matthew's Priority, I am, at the least, skeptical of Markan Priority and tend toward the independent development view. That said, I think a good case can be made for Matthew's priority based on the pride of place it has in the canonical order, external evidence from early Christian witnesses, etc.Jeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-71423461740183570742018-03-02T11:50:58.845-05:002018-03-02T11:50:58.845-05:00No Expert, thanks for the comment. Though this pos...No Expert, thanks for the comment. Though this post is about the Synoptic Problem I've previously made the point that this applies to text criticism also. Though Lachmann's challenge to the TR in his Greek NT of 1831 predates Darwin's work, I think Darwin's philosophy clearly had an influence on later nineteenth century outlooks on text criticism.Jeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-84427447299675972012018-03-02T04:58:08.483-05:002018-03-02T04:58:08.483-05:00Mark is shorter than Matthew overall. However, In ...Mark is shorter than Matthew overall. However, In particular pericopae Matthew is consistently shorter than Mark. Though D.A. Carson holds to Markan priority, here's what he says in his Matthew commentary: "when Matthew follows Mark, he condenses controversy stories by about 20%, stories that prove Jesus is the Christ by about 10%, actual sayings of JEsus scarcely at all, and miracles stories by about 50% (cf. Schweizer). Matthew, though allusive, is a highly disciplined writer, rigorously eliminating everything unrelated to his immediate concerns" (EBC 2nd ed., 235).<br /><br />The order could just as easily be reversed, with Mark expanding certain episodes in more detail, and leaving off certain discourses altogether.<br /><br />Pastor Riddle, do you hold Matthaean priority in the synoptics? I've been toying with the idea myself, lately.Daniel Klevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345321896340574768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-16281548308545805062018-03-02T00:13:39.050-05:002018-03-02T00:13:39.050-05:00He is correct. Actually, the entire Griesbach, We...He is correct. Actually, the entire Griesbach, Westcott and Hort textual-critical theory is a Darwinian theory of an earlier New Testament which was not as advanced theologically as is the Byzantine text.No Experthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11968546494524640905noreply@blogger.com