Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

a hyopthesis like the Farrer one

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Antonio Jerez wrote - ... Fair enough, if you wish to hold that view. I would only comment that by itself the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, Mark and
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 16, 1998
      Antonio Jerez wrote -
      >As for myself I wholeheartedly endorse the part of the hypothesis of
      >Lagrange, Farrer and Gundry-Morgenthaler that presume Luke's use of
      >Matthew. I am more undecided about the form of the sources that Luke
      >used besides Matthew (and Mark). They may have been both written
      >and oral.

      Fair enough, if you wish to hold that view. I would only comment that
      by itself the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, Mark and other sources,
      and that Matthew used Mark, is not a solution to the synoptic problem to
      my way of thinking.

      For one thing, Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material - about
      half his gospel - not found in Mark. A solution to the synoptic problem
      would, I think, have to be compatible with this phenomenon which can be
      observed in any synopsis.

      For another thing, is it not a rather odd idea that Luke should have
      deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
      to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.