Luke and Matthew

Uh, Carl, I think that I'll take door number 2 (with a little oral Quellen 
and maybe Mark thrown in)!  Especially since Luke says:
"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events 
(note: this sounds like literary sources to me) that have been fulfilled 
among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning 
were eyewitnesses and servants of the word (note2: this sounds like oral 
sources to me), I too decided, after investigating everything carefully 
from the very first, to write an orderly account (note3: another literary 
source) for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth 
concerning the things about which you have been instructed (note4: again, 
an oral source!)."   (Luke 1:1-4)

Sounds to me like Luke had an agenda for writing (perhaps with some
alterations) what he had heard and read.  Maybe his agenda explains the 
difference between Luke and Matthew and Mark?

Leo Percer

Date:	26-OCT-94 10:45p
From:	IN%"cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu"  "Carl W Conrad"
To:	IN%"STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org"  "STEVE SCHAPER"
CC:  	IN%"B-Greek@virginia.edu"
RE:	RE: Q and Papias

Return-path: <owner-b-greek@virginia.edu>
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU)
 by baylor.edu (PMDF V4.3-7 #8312) id <01HIQQP70I9C8WWKNC@baylor.edu>; Wed,
 26 Oct 1994 18:50:01 CDT
Received: from Virginia.EDU by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa13846; 26 Oct 94 19:46
Received: from peach.wustl.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa13832; 26 Oct 94
 19:45 EDT
Received: by peach.wustl.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-3.0-SLT/GHC) id AA08072; Wed,
 26 Oct 94 18:45:06 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 18:45:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Q and Papias
In-reply-to: <25a_9410261714@cheswicks.toadnet.org>
X-Sender: cwconrad@peach
To: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Cc: B-Greek@virginia.edu
Message-id: <Pine.NXT.3.91.941026183815.7776B-100000@peach>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

On 25 Oct 1994, STEVE SCHAPER wrote:
> In a message dated 10-23-94  DDDJ wrote to Steve Schaper:
> D> It is obvious that there is a literary relationship between Matt and
>  D> Luke. Whether this is Q or whether this is an abridgement of one
>  D> gospel writer by another will never be proven.
> It has been conclusively (or so it seems to me) shown that there is no
> literary relationship between the synoptics. Yes, they record the same events,
> often, but the actual texts show, when analyzed, that they are not
> _literarily_ dependant. That does not preclude, of course, witnessing the same
> events and then writing them down, or taking notes or memorizing as the
> disciples of rabbis often did.
How can literary relationship between Luke and Matthew be conclusively 
denied in the face of extended passages that have identical Greek text? 
To me that is explicable in very few ways: (1) Mt copied Lk; (2) Lk 
copied Mt; (3) Lk & Mt both copied a third source; (4) the identical 
texts sprang like Athena from the head of Zeus. It is not simply a matter 
of similar accounts of similar or the same events told by different 
witnesses to the same events, but of identical Greek text in several 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com