Yuri Kuchinsky

Vinnie,

You got it wrong. Here's how I think it worked.

-----------proto-gospel X-----
-----------/---------\----------
----------/-----------\---------
---------M------------\--------
--------/-\-------------\-------
-------/---\-------------\------
------Mk---Mt----------Luke--

So, in this case, the proto-gospel X is at the same time the main source of Lk.

And "M" is the source of both Mk and Mt.

Quote:

For instance, did Matt know Luke or vice versa?

There may have been some minor cross-fertilisation between the latter editions of Mt and Lk.

Quote:

What do you feel is the best positive evidence for this view? Does it adequately explain the triple tradition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? For instance, 90 percent of Mark is in Gmatthew so in your view Matthew's version of Proto Gospel x must have had very close to that same number of Marcan verses correct?

Yes, I'd think so.

Quote:

But that makes proto Gospel X a gospel in its own right.

Yes, of course.

I'll answer your other points later...

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Vinnie,

I looked at the rest of your last post, but most of your questions seem to have been based on misunderstandings. Sorry if what I said before was somewhat confusing.

Again, here's how I think these developments worked,

-------proto-gospel X-------
---------/-------\------------
--------/---------\-----------
-------M----------\----------
------/-\-----------\---------
-----/---\-----------\--------
----Mk---Mt---------Luke----

Thus, the proto-gospel X was at the same time the basic source of Lk.

Also, in this case, "M" was the common source of both Mk and Mt.

Now, why should this hypothesis be seen as preferable to others?

It explains quite well all that unique primitive material in Lk, both in its narrative structure, and in the particular pericopes (and even in the sayings material).

It explains the many close similarities between Mk and Mt.

And it explains quite well the certain Southern Judaic (Judah-oriented) flavour of both Mt and Mk. (As opposed to the Northern-oriented/Samaritan flavour of Lk)

Now, this "proto-gospel X" was most likely quite short. And also, M was likewise quite short. Thus, the shortness of our canonical Mk can be seen as a survival of that primitive tradition.

In fact, as I see it, my hypothesis explains _all_ the evidence on the ground. And it also allows for M to have been written originally in a Semitic tongue.

As I see it, M was composed in Jerusalem quite early, as a response to the "proto-gospel X", that was most likely produced in the diaspora by the Hellenistic Jewish-Christians.

The way I see it now, the "proto-gospel X" may have been circulating from the beginning both in Greek and Aramaic (and/or Hebrew).

Also, Shem-Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew fits quite comfortably into this scheme. It probably depended directly on M.

All the best,

Yuri.