Chuck Jones writes to Bruce Brooks:
<< While this is a rhetorically powerful and attractive thought, Bruce, it ignores a foundational observation about Mt, Mk and Lk that arises when comparing them to each other. They were in the habit of only slightly modifying the wording of their source(s) when incorporating the material in their books. (This observation holds up regardless of the hypothetical direction of literary dependence.)>>
Your final, parenthetic statement is simply not true. Your initial statement is based, I think, on "observations" made on the theory of Markan priority and the Two Source Theory. On the two Gospel Hypothesis, it simply does not stand up at all. Your statement in parentheses, on this hypothesis, would be true of a number of passages, somewhat true of others and not at all true of still others. So the original generalization, as such, would have to be judged fatally simplistic.
Blessed John XXIII National Seminary