In a message dated 00-03-29 02:19:38 EST, willker@...
<< Brian recently asked for a new experiment. Here is one:
Try Luke alone.
How many and what sources can you extract from it, if we assume that all
copies of Mt and Mk had been lost?
This is certainly possible to some extent, see John.
Now imagine that in the desert of Egypt after centuries of Lk-research one
copy of Mt have been found.
What would you make of it? Dating, priority, sources?>>
I would think that Matthew was a source of Luke, and that Luke used this
source with considerable creativity. What is still more interesting, however,
is the fact that, on the terms of this very interesting experiment, one also
finds it unnecessary to look for a new source for the material now identified
as Lk-Mk double-material. By analyzing carefully what Luke has done with his
Matthean source, that (Lk-Mk) material is already (in most cases) called for
before one needs to go looking for another source. The same is true of a
great deal of the SLk material. I strongly second the value of the above