Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Duh! That's what I get for doing posting on PB while watching election returns!

As any competent redaction critic could tell you, utilizing the same tools as they employ with the Synoptics, the original post (ipissima verba Dennis) citing the blog and the good doctor lacked the explanatory comments and they were evidently scribal interpolations by a dyslexic nitwit sometime after the fact. Indeed, if you compare the lexical data on word usage, you will find that the person who placed the comments above each of the quotations could certainly not have been the same individual who penned the final paragraph (beginning "Yikes . . ."). While I believe that the confusing sentences were added a few minutes after the original post, they are clearly secondary. Perhaps we should simply dismiss them from the argument, unless you wish to focus on the final canonical shape of the material. In that case, I will simply have to say that the trajectory of interpretation leads me to believe that since the text means whatever it means to me, it really doesn't matter if the sentences are logically backwards.