Seeing all the kingdom in a moment of time.... (quote, faith, Satan)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

The two animals Jesus uses to enter Jerusalem is taken from the Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Matthew is inventing this 'prophecy', not misunderstanding the story.

Not so much a mis-translation, but Matthew's literal reading of it. Remember that Mark, Luke and John do Not make the same mistake. They simply repeated what was in front of them. Matthew (who seems more interested in OT prophecy) over -thought that one, and took it "Woodenly" It certainly is proof that he of all of them can't be an eyewitness, or he'd know it was not two animals.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

No. Matthew has a royal, kingly Jesus, a political 'hot potato', so Luke (or someone else) could have added a more politically correct version to the earlier version of Luke that lacked a nativity.

And if Luke added the nativity to counteract Marcion as well, that gives him more reason to change the details.

While at a stretch you can argue that Mark knew of the Nativity but left it out because the 'king' claim was politically dangerous, that doesn't explain why John (who would hardly have cared) virtually denies a Bethlehem birth. And surely Mark would do what you suggested with Luke - he'd emphasise the messiah aspect and sidestep the 'King' part. But note that he doesn't alter the 'INRI' notice which suggests political expediency is Not the answer. Add to that the evidence in John and Matthew that Jesus had to have been born in Bethlehem to fulfil scripture, een if he wasn't. That's why Luke and Matthew separately invented stories that totally conflict and do not work individually. It all fits, the evidence supports it and i argue that this is the explanation.

Although you think my English is good, please remember it is not my native language. Putting so many ideas into one sentence is difficult for me to parse. So please forgive me if I abuse your arguments.

I never forget that you are Greek, but your English is so excellent I do forget that perhaps you don't speak it better than me. I have to apologise for writing the way i do, but this is an argument hard to put over without complex argument, but I'll try to be simpler

While I accept Matthew and Luke could have used a common source, the fact that they share common text is also an argument that one copied from the other. And someone invented the incredible stories, whether it is the gospel writers themselves, or your Quelle source.

Oh yes, though in fact my study and research convinces me that a lot of it is not only common story to ALL FOUR Gospel writers, but that much of the action and doings are True. There was a real Jesus who did many of these things. Howbout that? But also that almost NONE of the reported speech or sayings are true, but are Christian inventions. However, you point out that somebody had to write (or report) this stuff, whether based on a reliable early record, copied (and used) from an earlier text, or invented by the writer for some reason. They were either reported true events, or invented tales.

And Matthew is certainly rewriting parts of Mark, so why should Luke rewrite part of Matthew (or the other way round)? At best you have a 50% chance of being correct.

But as I say the serious omissions or conflicts preclude any of them being copied or adapted from any other. This, I'd say, makes it 10% possibility of copying, and when you bring John into the picture with No angel at the tomb where all three synoptics have the same story, it makes for 5% possibility of mutual copying and, add to that the angel at tomb accounts differ very seriously, makes it (for my money) pretty much 0% probability of copying from each other.

As for Lazarus, the point of Luke's story is that a visit from the dead will not convince people that the alleged resurrection of Jesus is proof Christianity is correct. John's expanded Lazarus story has people believing when they see Lazarus raised from the dead, the exact opposite of Luke. To me, this is no coincidence, and a drastic rewrite of Luke too. So I see no problem with Luke or Matthew rewriting the others account, either on a small scale or drastically.

Yes, It is a theory that I'm also toying with, a common 'Lazarus' story that each used in very different ways. But you will readily see that it is not much to do with my Hypothesis of a synoptic original with additions common to two of the writers but not the third (arguing some additional common text - Mark/Matthew and Matthew/Luke) plus additions that are so different that they cannot feasibly be part of any common text. That Mark and Matthew have No real hint of Lazarus makes this episode an Individual addition by Luke and John, like the Nativities and the Resurrections.

That said, I am nagged by the common Lazarus name and the possible link with Simon the leper (in Matthew, as I recall) but I really think this is neither here nor there as regards my Theory.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

But the mutually destructive Nativity and Resurrection accounts in Matthew and Luke preclude Luke being based on Matthew. Even if he had changed it (for doctrinal or theological reasons) he'd make sure it ar least matched, wouldn't he?

Not if he is trying to replace Matthews Jewish gospel. Do not forget there were many different flavors of Christianity during the first half of the 2nd century AD, each one trying to be the one true faith. Luke is not saying Matthew has a few details wrong, he is saying his gospel is wrong, away with it. And then the competing gospels were thrown together as a response to Marcion's attempt at a canon.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

And I don't believe that Matthew or Luke can be based on Mark (no revered Bethsaida, no syrio -phoenecian woman in Luke, no Pilate's surprise in either - that is one of Mark's own additions. They do Not follow mark but all three follow a common original.)

Matthew has Herod wanting to kill John the Baptist, but is then distressed when he is tricked into killing him. This makes no sense. But Mark says Herod protected John, and liked to hear him. So Herod being distressed does make sense here. This tells us that Matthew had started to rewrite Mark, but then ended up including Marks version of the story.

Matthew does this several times, writing silly things that is easily explained by Matthew using Mark, but getting fatigued. He even copies Mark in places, word for word. If I run several passages through my plagiarism detection algorithm, it comes up positive. And the fatigue tells us who copied whom, Matthew used mark.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I still argue that the evience for a common text, But the evidence that they cannot be a copy of one by the other Plus Mark not having this material where he is dealing with the same even (e.g temptation in the wilderness) leaves the conclusion:

That is the problem, the evidence points to A copying B AND for A and B using a common source, C. It is a problem I have to be aware of with my plagiarism detection algorithm. In modern terms, the first means one person gets fired or expelled, the second means both do.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

A common text used by both Matthew and Luke that wasn't known to Mark but which both used in their gospels but often in different places and contexts. My argument is that My thory is confirmed by the way the text reads, and the Explanation run into serious problems.

Which is confusing. You are arguing all three used a common text that only two of them knew about.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

They do Not follow mark but all three follow a common original.)

versus

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

A common text used by both Matthew and Luke that wasn't known to Mark but which both used in their gospels but often in different places and contexts.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Not if he is trying to replace Matthews Jewish gospel. Do not forget there were many different flavors of Christianity during the first half of the 2nd century AD, each one trying to be the one true faith. Luke is not saying Matthew has a few details wrong, he is saying his gospel is wrong, away with it. And then the competing gospels were thrown together as a response to Marcion's attempt at a canon.

But that still leaves the question of why Luke, in rewriting Matthew's Nativity (for doctrinal reasons) would not make sure his version at least fitted in with Matthew or did not contradict. He'd at least not have the family 'returning' to Nazareth after the circumcision, but stay in Bethlehem until the wise men show up and then have the flight to Egypt and then relocate to Nazareth, and forget about the tax census, which isn't needed and you don't have the problem of an apparently roman tax census in Herodian Judea. Thus i say that Luke's gospel was not a rewriting of Matthew but a completely individual effort, based I would say on Josephus.

Matthew has Herod wanting to kill John the Baptist, but is then distressed when he is tricked into killing him. This makes no sense. But Mark says Herod protected John, and liked to hear him. So Herod being distressed does make sense here. This tells us that Matthew had started to rewrite Mark, but then ended up including Marks version of the story.

That will also work whether you postulate a common synoptic story or (more likely a Matthew/Mark ("M" or "P" document (1) that itself elaborated what is in Luke - as I recall, that Herod added to his crimes by locking John up in prison. That Matthew's version of the story is silly is neither here nor there for the 'M' document theory, other than it is likely that Mark reflects the original form and Matthew amended it rather clumsily, as he often does.

Matthew does this several times, writing silly things that is easily explained by Matthew using Mark, but getting fatigued. He even copies Mark in places, word for word. If I run several passages through my plagiarism detection algorithm, it comes up positive. And the fatigue tells us who copied whom, Matthew used mark.

But Luke also matches Mark where Matthew doesn't. I think you have to look elsewhere for the textual evidence. That is the Bethsaida material. Or the 'Great Omission' of the Other feeding of 4,000, the syrio phoenecian woman and the warning about the leaven of the Pharisees. Luke has none of this and in fact matched John's version, and this I propose represents the original form of the story which was also used in the Synoptic original. That Mark and Matthew add all this common material unknown to Luke, means that he did not Omit it, but they added it. Thus as we have Two writers using common text, we have Q for Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) and 'M' or "P" for Matthew and Mark but not Luke.

I know this smacks of Ptolemaic epicycles postulated to keep the theory alive, but it isn't too complex.

(1) original story - all 4 gospels.
(2) synoptic original differs from John. No nativity, No resurrection appearance.
(3) Matthew and Mark base their gospel on the original using also "M" or perhaps a gospel that already had that added in.
Matthew and Luke also base their gospels on the synoptic original but Luke can't base his on Mark, nor indeed Matthew, as he has no 'M' material. They add in the extra material of Q and probably not working from a gospel with that in as Matthew and Luke use it differently.
(4) Mark, Matthew and Luke all make their own additional inventions, tweaks and edits, not found in the others and you can bet contradicts the others.

You argue that Luke strewed half the sermon material along the road to Peraea because he thought that a good idea, but he'd surely leave the Lord's prayer taught to the disciples at the Sermon or before it, not later on. This is evidence that Luke could not be based on matthew, but they both used common additional material ("Q") is individually different ways.

That is the problem, the evidence points to A copying B AND for A and B using a common source, C. It is a problem I have to be aware of with my plagiarism detection algorithm. In modern terms, the first means one person gets fired or expelled, the second means both do.

Yes, the Problem popped up quite early. I know that it is generally assumend that Mark is the Original form. But as i have showed above there are reasons why he can't be. So we have a common simple original they all three used and Luke (I found) is often closer to the original simple gospel than either Matthew or Mark.

Which is confusing. You are arguing all three used a common text that only two of them knew about.



versus

Yes. I found it quite a puzzle during my years of study of the Gospel problem, but it all Shook down and i hope my litle Table will set out the sequence of gospel evolution. The reasons Why are not so important and what the text shows dis happen.

(1) "P" and "Q" ...geddit?

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

But that still leaves the question of why Luke, in rewriting Matthew's Nativity (for doctrinal reasons) would not make sure his version at least fitted in with Matthew or did not contradict. He'd at least not have the family 'returning' to Nazareth after the circumcision, but stay in Bethlehem until the wise men show up and then have the flight to Egypt and then relocate to Nazareth, and forget about the tax census, which isn't needed and you don't have the problem of an apparently roman tax census in Herodian Judea. Thus i say that Luke's gospel was not a rewriting of Matthew but a completely individual effort, based I would say on Josephus.

While I agree Luke used Josephus, the magi are part of the Jesus as king angle, and everything dependent on that must go. And there is no tax problem, in AD 6 or 7, the son of Herod was removed for being useless, and Judea became a Roman province, hence the census. Luke is rewriting history just as he does in Acts. Luke rewrites Paul's travels, because Paul has no problem rearranging his material.

Of course he makes an error in that Nazareth was in Galilee, which did not become a Roman province until 43 AD, or thereabouts. So Joseph and the pregnant Mary would not have had to make the week long journey in the first place.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

That will also work whether you postulate a common synoptic story or (more likely a Matthew/Mark ("M" or "P" document (1) that itself elaborated what is in Luke - as I recall, that Herod added to his crimes by locking John up in prison. That Matthew's version of the story is silly is neither here nor there for the 'M' document theory, other than it is likely that Mark reflects the original form and Matthew amended it rather clumsily, as he often does.

Fair enough, but you are still talking about an hypothetical document, whereas Matthew rewriting Mark is based on texts we do have.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

But Luke also matches Mark where Matthew doesn't.

Because Luke has a choice of material. Sometimes he preferred Mark, other times Matthew.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Or the 'Great Omission' of the Other feeding of 4,000

I will cut this short here because the updated data privacy act means I have to go through my work and tell people precisely where they do not have any private data stored. It could be a long week, but fortunately we have some holidays I can work on while my clients enjoy the weather.

Mark has 2 sets of 5 miracles, 5 on the Jewish side of the Jordan mirrored by 5 on the Gentile side. This includes the feeding of the 5,000 men (probably based on Homer). This is Mark inventing allegory, because Mark depends on heavily the OT, Homer and to some degree Paul's letters. Matthew cuts the Gentile set because he is a Jewish Christian, and he believes the Gentiles should convert by keeping all the laws, not an iota to be dropped.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You argue that Luke strewed half the sermon material along the road to Peraea because he thought that a good idea, but he'd surely leave the Lord's prayer taught to the disciples at the Sermon or before it, not later on.

Luke rearranges Paul's letters (they contradict the fictional Acts) so why should Luke not rearrange the rather boring sermon?

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Yes, the Problem popped up quite early. I know that it is generally assumend that Mark is the Original form.

Assumed? You are arguing that evidence that in any other field indicates plagiarism somehow does not apply here.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

(1) "P" and "Q" ...geddit?

This must be something English.

[Harry Diogenes]

Sorry, I missed this. I will answer just a few of these.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

While at a stretch you can argue that Mark knew of the Nativity but left it out because the 'king' claim was politically dangerous, that doesn't explain why John (who would hardly have cared) virtually denies a Bethlehem birth. And surely Mark would do what you suggested with Luke - he'd emphasise the messiah aspect and sidestep the 'King' part. But note that he doesn't alter the 'INRI' notice which suggests political expediency is Not the answer.

He also has Jesus dressed in the purple cloak. But the structure of Mark suggests it was meant to be performed by Christians, probably in secret. It is not until later that Jesus as king becomes dangerous, when it became more popular. Pliny the Younger knew nothing about Christianity around 110 AD.

And I do not argue Mark left the nativity out, I argue it had not been invented until Matthew.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I never forget that you are Greek, but your English is so excellent I do forget that perhaps you don't speak it better than me.

German. My grandparents were Greek, as was my mother. But my grandparents on my fathers side became German citizens, so my father was born German. But we was raised as Greek at home, and German at school.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

There was a real Jesus who did many of these things. Howbout that? But also that almost NONE of the reported speech or sayings are true, but are Christian inventions. However, you point out that somebody had to write (or report) this stuff, whether based on a reliable early record, copied (and used) from an earlier text, or invented by the writer for some reason. They were either reported true events, or invented tales.

I too used to believe Jesus was real. But then I read the epistle to the Hebrews (in Greek), and noticed that it mentions the ongoing Temple sacrifices. Which means it predates 70 AD. It also says Jesus was the heavenly sacrifice that paralleled the earthly one, and that his sacrifice was a one time event in heaven. It also says Jesus never walked the earth, and that if he did, he would not be a priest.

So I think the whole earthly Jesus thing is an invention, and Mark is the guilty party. Especially as Paul can also be read that way.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Yes, It is a theory that I'm also toying with, a common 'Lazarus' story that each used in very different ways. But you will readily see that it is not much to do with my Hypothesis of a synoptic original with additions common to two of the writers but not the third (arguing some additional common text - Mark/Matthew and Matthew/Luke) plus additions that are so different that they cannot feasibly be part of any common text. That Mark and Matthew have No real hint of Lazarus makes this episode an Individual addition by Luke and John, like the Nativities and the Resurrections.

Mark and Matthew have no hint of Lazarus at all. I raised this point to demonstrate how 1) Luke (just like the other gospel writers) can invent stories, and that 2) other people had no problems rewriting stories almost completely. Which removes the need for your hypothetical sources.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

While I agree Luke used Josephus, the magi are part of the Jesus as king angle, and everything dependent on that must go. And there is no tax problem, in AD 6 or 7, the son of Herod was removed for being useless, and Judea became a Roman province, hence the census. Luke is rewriting history just as he does in Acts. Luke rewrites Paul's travels, because Paul has no problem rearranging his material.
Of course he makes an error in that Nazareth was in Galilee, which did not become a Roman province until 43 AD, or thereabouts. So Joseph and the pregnant Mary would not have had to make the week long journey in the first place.

I agree with all that, apart from "It must all go" I's say "It must all be re -written, as they do (1). But this is why Luke does not make sense on its' own terms. If anything is makes it more pointed that Luke, if he'd known of Matthew's nativity, would never have written his the way he did, let alone if he was taking it as a model.

Fair enough, but you are still talking about an hypothetical document, whereas Matthew rewriting Mark is based on texts we do have.

Oh yes, the "Synoptic original", "Q" and the Mark/ Matthew document (you are right - an English saying "Mind your P's and Q's, ho, ho) are hypothetical. If they'd turned up in the Faiyum, there would be no argument, but they are not extant and have to be postulated (by me) because the current hypotheses do not work as well as postulating the three hypothetical documents.

Because Luke has a choice of material. Sometimes he preferred Mark, other times Matthew.

But apart from my arguments that he couldn't have copied either Mark or Matthew, we have where he doesn't "Choose" either; he omits the whole of the "M" common material and uses a simple 5,000 - feeding similar to John and which i therefore argue represents the original form of the story and thus strongly implies a simpler form of the Gospel than even Mark or Matthew (who add the other feeding of 4,000, which is part of the material common to them and to nobody else).

I will cut this short here because the updated data privacy act means I have to go through my work and tell people precisely where they do not have any private data stored. It could be a long week, but fortunately we have some holidays I can work on while my clients enjoy the weather.

Mark has 2 sets of 5 miracles, 5 on the Jewish side of the Jordan mirrored by 5 on the Gentile side. This includes the feeding of the 5,000 men (probably based on Homer). This is Mark inventing allegory, because Mark depends on heavily the OT, Homer and to some degree Paul's letters. Matthew cuts the Gentile set because he is a Jewish Christian, and he believes the Gentiles should convert by keeping all the laws, not an iota to be dropped.

That's Ok. But doesn't have any relevance to the argument I'm making. In fact I believe the Feeding of 5,000 men really happened - after all it is in all four gospels - but it was covered up as a miracle very early on...or so I suspect. That the cover -up was based on Homer is an interesting suggestion (it is noted that references to Greek writings are found in the Gospels) and I have seen in Luke that he appears to work from both Paul's letters and Josephus, which none of the others do, though some of his recommendations do appear and is a Study I want to do when I complete the Gospels and get going on Paul. So which particular part of Homer did you have in mind?

Luke rearranges Paul's letters (they contradict the fictional Acts) so why should Luke not rearrange the rather boring sermon?

Quite so, and that is probably the reason why he did spread it about, but your argument at he took it from Matthew rather than from a separate document they both used runs into this problem yet again. If he had copied Matthew, wouldn't he have left the Lord's prayer in the sermon rather than having it taught to the disciples long after Matthew says it was taught at the sermon?

It is another example of "Luke would not have written it that way if he'd copied it from Matthew". The more example we get of this, the harder it is to explain it away with "Luke had some reasons to change it and never mind that it contradicted".

Assumed? You are arguing that evidence that in any other field indicates plagiarism somehow does not apply here.

The assumption that Mark is the original is the assumption of many Bible -scholars. Indeed Some argue for Matthew. After some study, I opted for Mark being the earliest. In fact I'm sure of it, but I soon saw some reasons why Matthew, never mind Luke, could not have been based on Mark as we now have it. That is why I postulate a pre -Mark Synoptic gospel (now missing) that is pretty much like Mark and Luke in their simpler forms, with neither the Mark/Matthew material Or the Matthew-Luke material.

Thus given a simpler original, where did the extra material come from?

Where they totally contradict, I conclude that they cannot have copied from another, but where two of the writers show a common text, I postulate a text they both used, but the discrepancies preclude one copying from the other. Thus I postulate a document (now lost ) they both used. I could be wrong and it is not a theory I have seen anywhere else, but it sure explains all the problems... pretty much.

This must be something English.

Indeed. see above.

(1) something of a touchstone case or precedent here is the Anointing at Bethany. Common to all the gospels but Luke. How can that be? Why isn't it there? Well I say it is but totally rewritten and shifted to Galilee (7.38). Pretty much identical wording, but rewritten to look totally different. That's what Luke does with something of an embarrassment. He doesn't ignore a completely different story but adapts it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok sorry for the digression. though I hope it was informative. Back to you folks for the business on the mountain looking across the flat earth, Luke apparently not having got the E mail from Eratothenes.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You have made your case about eyewitness accounts but NOT about their being accounts of real events subject to the "telephone effect" ("Chinese Whispers" for you UK folk) only in writing.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I think I have, in reference to the substantial duplication of text in the Synoptics, reported speech, description of doings and even the 'thoughts' of the writer. The idea of oral transmission with errors creeping in is refuted by the matching sections of text, just as the mutually destructive contradictions scuppers the claim that one gospel copied another.

The essential feature of the Chinese Whispers is that each participant adds or modifies or even embellishes what is passed to them, so it would allow for all such discrepancies to exist, especially for such a long and complex narrative.

I know that the tradition of separate eyewitness accounts or Mark (or some claim Matthew) being the original and the others copied it, but neither of those views stand up to scrutiny.

I suppose demand for the common sections of text would come next, but this is getting too derailed from the original topic which was how you could explain Jesus being shown (or possibly Shewn) all the kingdoms of the world at once.

I would not begin to challenge either you or Diogenes on NT exegesis. However, about the possibility of seeing everything at once, there are theoretical speculations that time and space only exists for us because of the nature of the formation of our consciousness. This would result in the counterintuitive idea that the whole of reality just exists and we can only experience it temporally and spatially because of the way our consciousness forms. Just a thought.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. That's one way to explain how all the world's kingdoms could be shown to Jesus at once. Once could also just say "Magic".

[TRANSPONDER]

I missed this, too.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Sorry, I missed this. I will answer just a few of these.



He also has Jesus dressed in the purple cloak. But the structure of Mark suggests it was meant to be performed by Christians, probably in secret. It is not until later that Jesus as king becomes dangerous, when it became more popular. Pliny the Younger knew nothing about Christianity around 110 AD.

And I do not argue Mark left the nativity out, I argue it had not been invented until Matthew.

The purple cloak is in all four (though Matthew makes it red) so is part of the original story. Perhaps it reflects some ritual done by Christians in secret. In fact Jesus as king was dangerous from the start as this smacked of rebellion and why Jesus Jewish followers were in conflict with the Authorities.

The Christian problem with regarding Jesus as 'king' was because this meant that they refused to respect the state cult. This was also rebellion, but of a rather different kind

German. My grandparents were Greek, as was my mother. But my grandparents on my fathers side became German citizens, so my father was born German. But we was raised as Greek at home, and German at school.

Ok. Got it.

I too used to believe Jesus was real. But then I read the epistle to the Hebrews (in Greek), and noticed that it mentions the ongoing Temple sacrifices. Which means it predates 70 AD. It also says Jesus was the heavenly sacrifice that paralleled the earthly one, and that his sacrifice was a one time event in heaven. It also says Jesus never walked the earth, and that if he did, he would not be a priest.

So I think the whole earthly Jesus thing is an invention, and Mark is the guilty party. Especially as Paul can also be read that way.

There is nothing in that to make Jesus an invention. I argue that Paul was a real person, he knew the Real apostles, and they knew the real Jesus.
think the sequence of events was like this.
Jesus' messianic mission fails and he is executed for rebellion
The disciples perk up when they tell themselves that Jesus may be dead but his messianic spirit has gone back to heaven and will come again to finish the Job.
Paul picks this idea up and uses it in his way of Gentiles being saved, not by the Torah but by Faith in Jesus' as the Messiah. The 'sacrifice' was obedience to death (wiping out the sin of Adam - disobedience).
The Christians took Pauline ideas and developed them, turning the Law not being needed for salvation as being a barrier to it. Also the man -messiah get progressively more godlike.
A spiritual resurrection isn't convincing enough, so different and contradictory stories of the body getting up and walking are invented. It better explain Mark not having such a story that just after the war, there wasn't one.

I already explained why Mark can't be the original . It also has to be from a post -war original with the destruction of the Temple cast as 'prophecy'.

Mark and Matthew have no hint of Lazarus at all. I raised this point to demonstrate how 1) Luke (just like the other gospel writers) can invent stories, and that 2) other people had no problems rewriting stories almost completely. Which removes the need for your hypothetical sources.

But I maintain that Luke cannot have based his Lazarus story on John as there is no connection other than the name. If the names were different, no connection could be suspected. There may be a connection, but I'd be in the realms of speculation, involving the Lazarus -leper and 'Simon the leper' connection. Something was going on, but we can only guess what.