Duvduv

Doug, the analysis is what is interesting regardless of whose name is there. Did you look it over?

Doug Shaver

My own interest in the New Testament is such that I cannot satisfy it in the time available to me for self-education. I have to rely on the work of the few professional scholars whose arguments look cogent to me. An example of such is Robert Price. Not that I believe everything even he says, but to the extent that I think I know anything, that's the way I learned it.

Duvduv

My situation is exactly like yours about self-education. But the link I offered describes the similarities in language between GMatt and Gluke, and I thought you'd have something to say about it.

Doug Shaver

I am aware of the similarities. As I understand it, they are evidence that either (a) one author used material from the other or (b) both used material from a third source. The scholarly consensus is for (b). I leaned toward (a) for a while until I tried to defend it in another forum and got my butt kicked.

aa5874

If you had actual evidence that (a) one author used material from the other, then I am at a loss how you managed to get "Your Butt Kicked".

You most likely did NOT present any actual evidence or presented NO good evidence.

Please, can you IDENTIFY the Forum where you somehow managed to get "Your Butt Kicked" and tell us of the ACTUAL evidence that you PRESENTED to show that (a) one author used material from the other.?

Doug Shaver

For you? No, but I'll post a link if anyone else is interested in seeing how the debate went.

Duvduv

Doug, I don't understand the controversy since the description of the use of the language between Luke and Matthew seems pretty straightforward. How would they have independently had access to a third source that results in such similarity of language for which no evidence exists of such a source in fragments or citations elsewhere?
And what then would be yet another unknown source for GJohn 's version that is so different yet contains some similarities of stories and perhaps language?

aa5874

You are NOT making much sense.

You OPENLY claimed you got your BUTT KICKED and now don't want me to see how it GOT KICKED!!!

I am trying to help you.

You may get your BUTT KICKED on this forum if you don't have any evidence from antiquity to DEFEND the claim that "(b) both used material from a third source.".

Let me warn you in advance---Watch your Butt---No actual source has ever been found to support "(b) both used material from a third source."

Diogenes the Cynic

This is your moderator speaking.

Duvduv

The Farrer Hypothesis looks pretty sensible to me. But it also doesn't exclude other possible influences on the gospel writers. And doesn't exclude GMark from influencing GLuke directly.