Given that the Farrer theory proposes the Lucan writers had a copy of Mt, Ken, why would they have used Mk at all, when Mt had double the content and in better Greek?I favor the Farrer theory, that Luke used Matthew (as Farrer, Goulder, and Goodacre).
Would you propose something like, "well, first they only had Mk and worked on it, then a copy of Mt came along, so they pilfered from it"? I find that implausible, given the conflicts between Mt and Lk which I believe are simpler to understand if the two schools had similar sources, ie the Two Sources plus what they uniquely bring to them.
Statistics: Posted by spin — Fri Apr 26, 2024 9:51 pm