Fw: Fw: [Synoptic-L] The "2 1/2 source" hypothesis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave " <gentile_dave@...>
To: "Steph Fisher" <steph7@...>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Synoptic-L] The "2 1/2 source" hypothesis
--- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Steph Fisher" <steph7@...> wrote:
> Hello David,
> Do you mean the "Farrer Hypothesis"? (and not Ferrier?)
> I prefer to think of it as the MwQ Hypothesis (Mark without Q).
> research is suggesting to me so far that my conclusion will be
closer to MwQ
> than Mark with a Q.
So we're probably in pretty close agreement, since I think Luke
probaly saw some of Matthew's text.
> As for the different birth narratives being stumbling blocks, see
> Goodacre "The Case Against Q" pp. 54ff.
I read it, although a while ago now. I still don't think Luke saw
Matthew 1 and 2 however. Why change all those names? Altohugh,
obviously he could have seemn it and choosen not to use it. I just
think its more probable that he didn't see it.
Thanks for the feedback,
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 8/02/2006