Plausibility, Probability, and Synoptic Hypotheses: A Response to F. Gerald Downing
This note responds to Gerald Downing’s, Plausibility, Probability, and Synoptic Hypotheses, the first article to offer a sustained attempt to show that Matthew’s use of Luke (with Markan Priority) is an implausible solution to the Synoptic Problem. Downing argues that, if Matthew wrote third, he wou...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Peeters
[2020]
|
| In: |
Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses
Year: 2020, Volume: 96, Issue: 1, Pages: 131-137 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Synoptic problem
/ Luke
/ Spring
/ Matthew
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | This note responds to Gerald Downing’s, Plausibility, Probability, and Synoptic Hypotheses, the first article to offer a sustained attempt to show that Matthew’s use of Luke (with Markan Priority) is an implausible solution to the Synoptic Problem. Downing argues that, if Matthew wrote third, he would have been bound to reproduce all, or most, of the occasions when Mark and Luke agree verbatim for sequences of more than thirty characters. In my response I note that this suggestion not only defies common sense but also obliges Matthew to perform physically demanding actions for no discernible benefit. I conclude that we remain short of a reason to reject solutions to the Synoptic Problem in which Mark came first, and Matthew used Luke. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1783-1423 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Plausibility, Probability, and Synoptic Hypotheses (2017)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2143/ETL.96.1.3287378 |