----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)
> Joe scripsit:
>
> > > 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?
>
> Naah, it's specific words, phrases, ordering of elements, etc. etc.
> That's why the first three Gospels are called "synoptic": they have a
> single viewpoint based on the common source, which is very close to Mark
> as we have it today. Indeed, about 90% of the verses in Mark
> are also in Matthew, verbatim or nearly so. Some of the differences
represent
> corrections about Jewish customs (Mark is clearly writing for a Gentile
> audience, as he regularly explains Judaism and sometimes gets it wrong).
>
> > 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.
>
<snip stuff>
Ok then. Thanks for the clarification.