In their recent survey of the synoptic problem E. P. Sanders and M. Davies argue that a complicated solution must be held to be the most likely, and conclude,Mark probably did sometimes conflate material which came separately to Matthew and Luke (so the Griesbach hypothesis), and Matthew probably did conflate material which came separately to Mark and Luke (the twosource hypothesis). Thus we think that Luke knew Matthew (so Goulder, the Griesbachians and others) and that both Luke and Matthew were the original authors of some of their sayings material (so especially Goulder). Following Boismard, we think it likely that one or more of the gospels existed in more than one edition, and that the gospels as we have them may have been dependent on more than one proto- or intermediate gospel.

No abstract

TrvEUncc 0eou and SOCKTUAOS QEOU are interchangeable. Accordingly we must entertain the possibility that Luke changed the-TTVEOUCCTI of Q t o SOCKTUACJ). Furthermore, if TTVEUHOC represents the more primitive tradition and thus is potentially nearer the verba Christi, one cannot draw the consequence that Jesus was more 'advanced' and 'spiritual 1 than to use crass anthropomorphisms. If he was as well versed in the Old Testament as Manson believes, he surely knew Ezek. viii. 1-3, and the other ' priestly' writings. The influence of this tradition upon the formation of the gospels seems more likely than ever since the discoveries at Qumran. 1

No abstract

In Josephus' Antiquities we can see quite clearly the work of a first century Hellenistic Jewish redactor. We have his sources (mainly the canonical Scriptures) in a form very close to that which he used, and so can discern the direction and the extent of the changes made. This allows for a useful comparison with the Synoptic gospels, where the direction (and therefore the kind) of change is still in dispute; and especially with Luke's Gospel, where the stated intentions and the widely agreed 'tendencies' are often identical with those of Josephus.