James Barlow wrote:
>So the reputation Luke as a scholar aware of relative antiquity and
>historical merit of his sources validates Markan accuracy in terms of
>general chronological, geographical layout?
No, I didn't mean that. I think Luke must have compared Mark and
Matthew and correctly concluded that Mark was earlier and in general
more reliable in passages where they overlap, and therefore better as a
basis for his own account. But the relative judgement "more reliable"
doesn't "validate Markan accuracy".
> Do you think Luke regarded "Q" as earlier than Mark?
I'm sure Luke would have regarded the 3ST-based sayings source (which
I've called sQ) as earlier than Mark, because Mark was in Greek, whereas
sQ (according to my hypothesis) was in Aramaic.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm