Mark Goodacre has kindly brought attention to his recent post on Mike Bird
et al. who are attracted to versions of the 3ST.
You claim that if Luke used Matthew, "there is no need" for a separate
source to explain the double tradition. But surely the right question is not
"Is there a need?", but "What is the evidence for another source/sources?".
FT supporters usually avoid investigating this question in depth. Strangely,
you do think there are other sources but (unless I've missed something) you
have never delineated them in detail. Anyway it is very difficult to see the
logic by which a single extra source is apparently ruled out, whereas
multiple extra "sources" are taken to be quite plausible, especially as the
single extra source is arguably historically attested (by Papias).
I wonder if the above-mentioned post indicates that you are beginning to
treat the 3ST as seriously as you have for long wanted 2ST supporters to
treat the FT. :-) Because the 3ST is 'in between' the 2ST and the FT, it
might turn out to have the best of both worlds, combining the 2ST's
adeptness with aphorisms with the FT's adeptness with DT non-aphoristic
material. It would thus have more explanatory power than either of its close
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]