----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)
> Joe scripsit:
>
> > Four sources. You forget that the Bible was formerly seperate.
>
> Matthew and Luke both draw on Mark as a principal source; they also have
> common elements, presumably drawn from a lost source (conventionally named
> "Q"), and unique elements. John is independent, but is also much later
> than the others.
Um, I don't suppose the common elements could reflect the historical
accuracy of the gospels? And are you sure it's not that Luke and Mark both
draw on Matthew as a source? After all, Matthew is the one who was actually
purported to be there. Luke and Mark were later.
> --
> John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com
www.ccil.org/~cowan
> "You cannot enter here. Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back!
> Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!" --Gandalf
>