Re: Luke used Mt?
- At 01:53 PM 4/8/99 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
>* 5 Reasons against a World without Q *Wieland,
>This is copied from an article
>"The Synoptic Problem"
> by Daniel B. Wallace
>1. Did Luke Not Know Matthew?
>a. Luke's Lack of Matthean Additions to the Triple Tradition
>"One of the strongest arguments against the use of Matthew by Luke is
>the fact that when Matthew has additional material in the triple
>tradition (`Matthean additions to the narrative'), it is `never' found
>"If Matthew and Luke both used Mark independently, we would expect that
>their editorial additions to the account would seldom, if ever, agree
>with one another. Rather, they would appear as `Matthean additions' and
>`Lukan additions' to the narratives. And this is exactly what we find."
Surely Wallace should have known better than to use this quotation in
his article. He was evidently going along with the assumption that Mark has
priority. But let us dispense with that assumption and consider the AH. The
Matthean additions are then mostly comprised of material that AMk omitted
from Matthew and which ALk failed to reintroduce. One cannot expect that he
would have reintroduced *all* of it. The Lukan additions are those which ALk
added that were not in Matthew or Mark. Thus Wallace's quotation has no
merit whatsoever, unless Markan priority could be taken as fact. (I wrote
"mostly comprised" for the Matthean additions to allow for the likelihood
that a small amount of material was added to Matthew when its Semitic form
was translated into Greek, after both Mark and Luke had appeared.)
>b. Luke's Different Context for the Q MaterialI believe this is evident and cannot reasonably be denied, although Brian
>If Luke used Matthew, why does he never place the common (double
>tradition) material in the same context as it appears in Matthew?
>Matthew has five
>well-defined sections of sayings of Jesus which are, for the most part,
>absent in Mark but present in Luke. In each he concludes the section with
>"and when Jesus finished these sayings." But Luke scatters these sayings
>throughout his gospel.
recently emphasized some apparent exceptions to this.
>"The thesis that Luke obtained the Q material from Matthew cannotHere is where an enlarged view of redaction criticism needs to be utilized.
>explain why Luke would have rearranged this material in a totally
>different and `artistically inferior' format."
That is, in examining the motivations for ALk to have written his gospel,
one needs to examine realistic motivations that reflect poorly on the
writer's character as well as those that reflect favorably. On the AH, ALk's
motivations were: (a) to write a universal gospel that wasn't biased against
gentiles (as Semitic Matthew was) or against Jewish disciples (as Mark is
upon comparing it against Matthew); and (b) to include much of what AMk had
omitted in his use of Matthew -- Mark omits far too much. In so doing,
however, ALk's own heavy bias against Matthew's anti-gentile tone caused him
to treat the Matthean material he was reintroducing in a manner that
expressed his distaste for the Gospel of Matthew. Thus he treated this ("Q")
material in the disrespectful manner described in the above quote from
In so doing, ALk showed his favoritism for Mark over Matthew by following
Mark's order and content especially well in the section where Mark deviates
strongly from Matthew's order.
Hence this argument used by Wallace provides support for the AH even if it
does touch upon Streeter's view that ALk must then have been a "crank."
>d. The Form of the Q MaterialThis would need to be argued in detail. Is a reference available as to
>Overall, Luke has a greater number of harder readings than does Matthew
>in the common material. This is quite difficult to explain on the basis
>of Matthean priority. Especially is this so when Luke's gospel involves
>certain motifs that would have benefited from Matthew's articulation.
>Personally, I regard this as a very strong argument against Matthean
Luke's greater number of harder readings? When I compare Matthew's "poor in
spirit" with Luke's "poor," for example, I see the desire by ALk to remove
any implication that the human spirit might be involved. When I compare
Luke's "Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh" with Matthew's
"mourn" and "comforted," I see ALk's desire to alter the Matthean material
that he was obliged to reintroduce in a careless manner that would sometimes
make it less appealing. I suspect that Wallace never for a moment considered
the likelihood that ALk actually did hold Semitic Matthew in contempt, and
how ALk as a writer would then have felt personally while grudgingly
reintroducing so much from Matthew in order to fulfill a necessary
motivation for his writing it. However, ALk couldn't be too obvious in doing
this, as he was, after all, writing a gospel he no doubt hoped would be
highly accepted. He had to show his disdain for Matthew in a somewhat subtle
>e. Matthew's and Luke's Lack of Agreement in OrderBut of course there's no need to assume Markan priority. The previous
>Although (as it has been pointed out) Matthew's and Luke's complete lack
>of agreement in order whenever they disagree with Mark does not prove
>Markan priority, if Markan priority is assumed, this does establish that
>Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one another. Thus, at least
>one permutation is negated by this evidence, viz., that either Matthew
>used Luke or Luke used Matthew as a secondary source.
argument favoring the AH explains this well.
>f. Luke's Lack of M MaterialAgain the particulars are needed here. However, there is every indication
>Finally, the fact that Luke lacks the `M' material (material unique to
>Matthew) and, conversely, the fact that Matthew lacks the `L' material,
>argues that neither knew the other. It should be carefully noted that
>this is not circular reasoning, though on the face of it it seems to be.
>As soon as we define `M' as material unique to Matthew, then of course
>Luke would lack it! But that is not the real point of this argument.
>Rather, it is that there is so much material in Matthew-and rich
>material at that-which would in all probability have been utilized by
>Luke had he known of it, that for him not to have used it strongly
>suggests that he did not know of its existence.
that Mt 28:18-20 was added later, when Semitic Matthew was translated into
Greek, and I believe Mt 12:17-22 was added then also. It's more plausible
than not that the occasion on which Semitic Matthew was translated provided
a golden opportunity to make small but significant additions and changes
that would make Matthew more appealing to gentiles, and thus allow Greek
Matthew to compete favorably against Mark and Luke.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
- In a message dated 4/8/1999 9:38:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
f. Luke's Lack of M Material
Finally, the fact that Luke lacks the `M' material (material unique to
Matthew) and, conversely, the fact that Matthew lacks the `L' material,
argues that neither knew the other. It should be carefully noted that
this is not circular reasoning, though on the face of it it seems to be.
As soon as we define `M' as material unique to Matthew, then of course
Luke would lack it! But that is not the real point of this argument.
Rather, it is that there is so much material in Matthew-and rich
material at that-which would in all probability have been utilized by
Luke had he known of it, that for him not to have used it strongly
suggests that he did not know of its existence.
>>The defense of this argument on the grounds that it is not circular may be
insufficient to establish it as even remotely cogent. Rather, the argument
suffers from extraordinarily naive presuppositions of how an evangelist
conceived his task; the idea that an evangelist was one whose primary
instinct was to simply reproduce material in front of him, especially
well-written, "appealing" material. (Note: this presupposition owes much to
the theory of Marcan priority, and has some merit IF that theory is true, but
none at all if it is not, and in any case, none at all AS A PRESUPPOSITION).
The argument also suffers from a very superficial understanding of the
relationship between much of the L material in Lk and much of the M material
in Matt. In many cases, the former does indeed strongly suggest that Luke has
read and thoroughly digested Matt, but has made use of Matthew's great
productions in the context of a highly creative re-writing of his own, such
that Luke's Gospel as a whole, and many of its parts in particular, have a
non-literal, analogous (and sometimes dialectical) relationship to Matt. It
would have been completely counter to Luke's principles and training to
simply reproduce into his Gospel especially the more elaborately constructed
Matthean masterpieces. Hellenistic "imitation" involved a competitive
instinct and a principle of emulation by which a second author would attempt
to demonstrate a superior artistic ability by comparison to that demonstrated
in his source. This was not accomplished by literal copying.