I think I'd venture that all three of the listed theories fail the test
of basic plausibility - IF they are taken to be complete theories, with
no additions needed. If I were to go on and rank them according to which
ones need the least adjustment in order to achieve plausibility I think
I would say:
Although, arguably 1 and 2 could be reversed.
Maybe as a rhetorical point, it might be better to present the 3SH as
just a variation of the accepted 2SH. Besides, while I'm convinced that
our Luke is dependent on Matthew in part, I am agnostic on the idea that
the autograph version of Luke is dependent on Matthew. As a matter of
taxonomy I'm not sure it should really be called a "3 source hypothesis"
unless the autograph of Luke depends on Matthew.
Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician
601 Oakmont Lane,
Westmont, IL 60559
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]