Changes

* Assuming that the Gospel of Matthew was written first, then it's interesting that Mark and Luke, who subsequently would copy from Apostle Matthew, place the section about Jesus being Lord of the Sabbath, not only different from Matthew's placement, yet ''exactly the same way respective to preceding and succeeding sections''. If Matthew's Gospel was written first, then it's plain unlikely that Mark and Luke would have independently and coincidentally felt like placing that part the exact same way; in order to still give credence to the Augustinian hypothesis, either Mark or Luke borrowed the other's work.

* Assuming that the Gospel of Matthew was written first, then it's interesting that Mark and Luke, who subsequently would copy from Apostle Matthew, place the section about Jesus being Lord of the Sabbath, not only different from Matthew's placement, yet ''exactly the same way respective to preceding and succeeding sections''. If Matthew's Gospel was written first, then it's plain unlikely that Mark and Luke would have independently and coincidentally felt like placing that part the exact same way; in order to still give credence to the Augustinian hypothesis, either Mark or Luke borrowed the other's work.

* Under Markan priority, it would go to follow that Mark's Gospel was written first, and Matthew and Luke subsequently copied from him, presumably in their own independent style; this therefore explains why Matthew and Luke's placement of the Sabbath section is different between those two Gospels. When Luke copied from Mark, he felt like retaining Mark's ordering, while when Matthew copied, he decided to place it in a different area respective to preceding and succeeding sections.

* Under Markan priority, it would go to follow that Mark's Gospel was written first, and Matthew and Luke subsequently copied from him, presumably in their own independent style; this therefore explains why Matthew and Luke's placement of the Sabbath section is different between those two Gospels. When Luke copied from Mark, he felt like retaining Mark's ordering, while when Matthew copied, he decided to place it in a different area respective to preceding and succeeding sections.

** Here's something interesting: Matthew's ordering, when one reads [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011-12&version=ESV Chapters 11–12], indicates chronological succession. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2-3&version=ESV Mark] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%205-6&version=ESV Luke], OTOH, don't.

** Here's something interesting: Matthew's ordering, when one reads [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2011-12&version=ESV Chapters 11–12], indicates chronological succession when it comes to the section about the Lord of the Sabbath and the one right before. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2-3&version=ESV Mark] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%205-6&version=ESV Luke], OTOH, don't.

Using [[Occam's razor]], Markan priority seems like the most sensible conclusion based on the internal evidence. —[[User:LT|<code><span style="background:#FF8181">'''LT'''</span></code>]] '''''[[User talk:LT|^{(Matthew 26:52)}]]''''' Friday, 19:54, January 26, 2023 (EST)

Using [[Occam's razor]], Markan priority seems like the most sensible conclusion based on the internal evidence. —[[User:LT|<code><span style="background:#FF8181">'''LT'''</span></code>]] '''''[[User talk:LT|^{(Matthew 26:52)}]]''''' Friday, 19:54, January 26, 2023 (EST)