Older woman dating younger women yabb
Modern Bible scholarship is in broad agreement that Mark was the first Gospel written yet Matthew is always listed first in Christian Bibles.
My claimed error is that because "Mark" was written first it should be presented first in the Christian Bible.
I'm not really "into" the idea of checking back and renumbering my own entries, so please be aware that these may be off by one or two numbers starting somewhere in the 200s.
I'll also keep Scripture references Wallack uses past that point to make it more clear where we are in the list, and note now and then what the variations are.
[1-50][51-100][101-150][151-200][201-250][251-300][301-350][351-400][401-450][451-500][501-550][551-600] [600-650][651-700][701-750] A few words of preface concerning Joe Wallack: Extended experience with Wallack on the Theology Web forum indicates Wallack to be a singularly unscrupulous individual.
Most notably, he had to be reprimanded more than once for making racist (anti-Semitic) puns.
Our full report is here but here are some brief points: 1) the evidence rather suggests that while Matthew in Greek did follow Mark, Mark was preceded by an edition of Matthew in Aramaic; 2) most of the presuppositions of Marcan priority are false, such as that "simpler is earlier"; 3) a collection of secular scholars in the 1970s took a close look at the Marcan priority thesis, and disagreed with it; the favored theory of a literary scholar was the Griesbach hypothesis, while an oral tradition specialist said that common oral tradition was sufficient to explain similarities. Common sense and legal procedure require that the testimony which was either relied on to some extent or even just available to another witness be presented first as this is what readers or jurys [sic] will assume if not told otherwise.In addition, it is clear that Wallack has no inkling how to rebut responses to his list of "1001 errors." This is shown inasmuch as, as of June 2009 (this editing), his list, thoigh transposed to a new site, has not gone past 737 entries in nearly 5 years -- corresponding with this posting of our refutations.In addition, please note that a very large number of Wallack's listed "errors" consist of one of these three issues: Places where he holds NT authors to a highly "fundamentalist" and literalist standard, over and against standard methods of historical reportage by ancient authors (which included such techniques as dischronoligization, telescoping, etc.The idea that Matthew was not fluent in Hebrew flounders on the simple fact that Matthew regularly uses the Hebrew version of the OT text; it is simply beyond reasonab;e to make based on a spelling variation, which appears in the LXX -- composed by persons who were themselves fluent in Hebrew.The "LXX was changed" idea is a throwaway without substantiation, of the sort that Wallack frequently offers without documentation or critical examination, much less showing relevance.