Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Revelation to Mike Huybensz
Message-ID: <5503@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 13:01:51 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5503
Posted: Thu Apr 18 13:01:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 13:01:51 EST
References: <281@cvl.UUCP> <465@cybvax0.UUCP> <4881@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1208@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 9

I thought that it was agreed that Mark was used as source for Luke and
Matthew, as well as a lost ``Q'' document. The Mark and Q authors didn't
know of each other's work, and the author of John probably knew but was
writing from another perspective. Who disagrees with this theory?

Wait...wait...who AUTHORATIVELY disagrees with this theory?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura