tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post2351099600677029451..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: SBL Annual Meeting, San Diego, Sunday afternoonMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-4789165318182963852007-11-24T12:53:00.000-05:002007-11-24T12:53:00.000-05:00Hi Mark,May I once again plead for more neutral te...Hi Mark,<BR/><BR/>May I once again plead for more neutral terminology within the Synoptic Problem that does not presume Markan priority? This is in reference to "...on compositional practices and the Synoptic Problem, with special reference to Luke's use of Matthew's additions to Mark." Even if that should be Ken Olson's wording, why not be neutral enough to refer to it as, e.g., "(the writer of) Luke's use of Matthean content not in Mark"?<BR/><BR/>If Markan priority were really well established, it would be understandable. But some 16 instances of <A HREF="http://www.tjresearch.info/MAH.htm#FatinMk" REL="nofollow">Markan "fatigue"</A> relative to Matthew have been demonstrated and not refuted, and much of the tradition from the early church fathers favoring the priority of a Hebraic Matthew has never been logically dismissed. The presumption of Markan priority thus rests upon seriously flawed assumptions, and our terminology should not ignore this. The role of the translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek, after Mark and Luke had appeared, explains a lot that the Farrer and Mark-Q hypotheses can't explain.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.com