a hyopthesis like the Farrer one
- Antonio Jerez wrote -
>As for myself I wholeheartedly endorse the part of the hypothesis ofFair enough, if you wish to hold that view. I would only comment that
>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
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?