Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)

>> 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.
Well, such a level of similarity is hardly reached without a) extreme divine
inspiration (and a G-d not aware of the fact that such similarity is
suspectly similar to copying), b) psychic talents or c) a common source.

I refer to the word-for-word depiction of details, the relative
chronological similarity, the choice of words - things which could change
without changing the content.

Who draws from who in this case is irrelevant, since what he's after is the
fact that there are only two sources identifiable among the gospels, one
separate source is Acts, and then we've got the epistles - which to some
extent are connected with Acts.

I will not add another word on this topic (I fear it might get to sensitive)
but I will read responses with curiosity and thought.