Matthew's Use of Luke

Mark Goodacre and James McGrath both talk about the possibility of Matthew's usage of Luke (with varying view points!). Interestingly Martin Hengel (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, 68-70) took this view. He wrote: "[W]e must reckon that the later Matthew knew the earlier Luke, took over parts which seemed to him appropriate, i.e. the content of which was promising, and in the process of course also altered his theological wishes accordingly. This is already indicated by the fact that as a rule the more original version is attributed to Q-Luke as opposed to Q-Matthew. In addition - and here Papias can put us on the right road - there were certainly also one or more 'Logia collections'. But - as I have already said - we can no longer reconstruct these adequately, especially as we cannot know what the evangelists changed or omitted in the sources, unknown to us, which they probably had in more abundance than we suppose."

Getting More Sceptical on Q

In recent years I have been becoming more and more pessimistic about the existence of Q due to my readings of Luke. Two particular texts burn in my mind:

1. Jesus' Confession Before Caiaphas

Mark 14.62: καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

Matt 26.64: ἀπ' ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

Luke 22.69: ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν δὲ ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενος ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ.

I find it an amazing coincidence that Mattew and Luke would both independently qualify the Marcan Jesus' statement to the effect that "from now on" you will see/it will be the Son of Man seated besides the Power.

2. Jesus and the Centurion and the Eschatological Reversal Saying

Matt 8.5-10 and Luke 7.1-10 both include stories of Jesus' encounter with a centurion at Capernaum. This is unique among Q material as it is the only narrative in Q itself (and some rightly attribute it to an independent tradition known to both Matthew and Luke). However, Matthew finishes this story with a reference to a saying of eschatological reversal (8.11-13) and yet Luke has this same saying but in a completely different context (13.28-30).

Now earlier I thought that it would be unlikely for Luke to split up Matt 8.5-13 into two parts (Luke 7.1-10 and 13.28-29) if he had access to it when it would be so congenial to his pro Gentile interests. But there again, Matt 8.11-12/Luke 13.28-29 might be another independent saying known to both authors. Luke can also omit some missional material because he intends to bring it up in his second volume (e.g. Mk 13.10).

More telling is the fact that Luke inverts the order of the saying in contrast to Matthew, but Luke also includes "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων) which is arguably a distinctive Matthean expression.

3. Conclusion

I am gradually coming around to the position that Luke used Matthew, but I don't think I'm prepared as of yet to give up the notion that there were still some shared and independent traditions between Matthew and Luke consisting of both oral (e.g. the centurion at Capernaum) and perhaps even written materials (e.g. parable of the mustard seed).

But I'm not Synoptic problem guru and I'll leave it to other minds to figure out.

Review of the new edition of Aland's Synopsis of the Four Gospels

Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Edited by Kurt Aland, (12th edn; Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2001).

Available in the UK from Alban Books

This Gospel parallel compiled by the late Kurt Aland is based on the NA27 and RSV. This Synopsis remains arguably the most useful tool for students, pastors, and scholars who want to study the Greek and English texts of the Gospels side-by-side. I have an older copy of A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek by Ernest De Witt Burton and Edgar Johnson Goodspeed, but Aland's Synopsis is far better in that it also provides an apparatus and English translation.

The introduction includes a description of the RSV text, an explanation of the apparatus and symbols of the NA27 text, and a list of Greek and Latin witnesses. After the Synopsis itself comes two indices including a list of Gospel parallels and a list of NT passages alluded to.

This Synopsis is particularly useful because it has both the English and Greek texts on opposite pages and it means that one does not need a great proficiency in Greek to make use of it. I have used Aland’s Synopsis in class as a way of introducing first year undergraduate students to the Synoptic problem. My preferred starting point is # 128 the ‘Parable of the Mustard Seed’ which is part of the triple tradition and good for discussing Marcan priority and assessing the Two-Source hypothesis against the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre option. Pastors and those preparing sermons or Bible studies can benefit from an immediate, visual, and detailed comparison of parallel Gospel passages.

A note of advice (originating from Mark Goodacre), if you are going to colour code or mark the pages of a Synopsis such as this, then make sure that you photocopy it first just in case you change your mind from which source you think a certain text belongs to!

Papias and the Synoptic Problem

I am currently reading (like everyone else in the blogosphere Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) and I was intrigued by his remark where he intimates the possibility that Papias might be the earliest possible reference to Marcan priority or at least Matthean dependence on Mark:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements . . . Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Does "interpreted them" refer to the words of Jesus or does it refer to interpretation of Peter's account of Jesus' words as contained in Mark? I wouldn't bet my house on it, but it is thought provoking.