Re: Luke CANNOT use Matthew
- At 06:57 PM 4/20/99 GMT, Stephen Nelson wrote:
>appears that the sum of the arguments [of Bock's] can be divided into two
>A. Luke cannot have used Matthew because of the implausible way in
>which he is required to have reorganised Matthew's material.
>(Argument from inclusion.)
>B. Luke cannot have used Matthew because of the implausible occasions
>upon which he has failed to include important Matthean material.
>(Argument from omission.) [....]
>I propose that rather, category A objections (inclusion) be explained
>by the redactional decision of Luke to include Matthean material, and
>that category B objections (omission) be explained by the redactional
>decision of Luke to omit this material.
Being new to the list, you may be unaware that a modified form of the AH
gives cause for this editorial behavior on the part of the author of Luke
(ALk). In this modified form, the writers of the gospels, in addition to
appearing on the scene too late to have been the persons to whom the gospels
are attributed, are allowed to have human motivations for their actions,
even if these motivations include ethical values not quite up to today's
standards. It includes ALk having had some later access to the proto-Matthew
document out of which AMt formed Matthew, taken to be the Logia known to
Papias, written in Aramaic; ALk was one of the others who "interpreted" (or
translated) it as best he could. ALk then included within his gospel the few
things that AMt omitted, in addition to a lot from Matthew that Mark omitted.
Going over your list from Bock, we have:
>1. Luke has unique infancy material, and shows no knowledge ofThis material (Lk 2:1-7 at least) then was omitted by AMt but picked up by
>Matthew's infancy account.
ALk. AMt had omitted it because its A.D. 6 time frame did not fit his desire
to portray Herod the Great as the slayer of infants, etc. On the other hand,
ALk did not mind contradicting Matthew, and so felt free to include it. More
on this later.
However, I place Lk 1:5a as stemming from Matthew -- Mt 2:1. Yet the decree
from Caesar presumably occurred in 6 A.D., with this census being in the
days of the rebellion of Judas the Galilean (as in Acts 5:37), as was
Quirinius's becoming governor or legate of Syria.
>2. Luke is required to have hacked up the aesthetic order of MatthewThe motivation for ALk having written his gospel is seen to have been to
>and scattered it around the Travel Narrative.
correct Matthew for being anti-gentile (as did AMk) but also to correct Mark
for having been pro-gentile at the exclusion of so much Judaistic material
from Matthew, and for having portrayed the Jewish disciples in a poor light.
However, ALk is seen as being as disgusted with AMt for his anti-gentile
barbs as was AMk, and so he displayed his feelings on this by his editorial
behavior slanted against Matthew. This was no small deal -- being
anti-gentile at a time when the church's expansion was occurring most
rapidly into gentile lands.
>"...why should so literary an artist as Luke want to destroy theSame explanation. Matthew's anti-gentilism, which went so far as to reserve
>Mathean masterpiece of the Sermon on the Mount?" However one wants to
>explain the Lukan travel account, it is hardly likely that he quarried
>the material for it from Matthews sermons." (Fitzmyer, 74)
discipleship just for the lost sheep of Israel, was totally unacceptable to
most by late first century and early 2nd century.
>3. Luke is required to have recast several Matthean parables andSame explanation. ALk could show his disgust for Matthew and its
>Sayings (Pounds, Lost Sheep, Great Banquet, Unfaithful Steward,
>Beatitudes, Lord's Prayer).
anti-gentilism largely in this manner, while yet including most of the
Matthean material that Mark omits in order to fulfill a key reason why he
felt obliged to write yet another gospel.
>4. Luke never has the Matthean 'additions' to the triple tradition.Here again, ALk preferred Mark's pro-gentile stance to Matthew's
>"...it is difficult to discern why Luke would have preferred the
>simpler Marcan form, when he was supposed to have the Matthew form
>before him." (Fitzmyer, 74)
anti-gentile stance, and so preferred Mark over Matthew. He had Mark in
front of him in Greek, the gentile tongue, while Matthew was in Hebrew or
mixed Hebrew-Aramaic; so this could have been a further reason for his
preference for Mark.
In addition, the AH has to have Hebraic Matthew be translated into Greek at
some stage, and in this modified form this happens only after the other
Gospels are written. Certain Matthean "additions" and alterations occurred
by the translator at this somewhat later stage, including the addition of
the pro-gentile verses Mt 28:17-20, and probably also Mt 12:17-22.
>5. With two exceptions (3:7-9 & 4:2b-13) Luke never has material fromSame explanation as for 2. & 3.
>Matthew in the same Marcan context.
>"The frequent disagreement with the Matthean order in this regard isThis suggestion is based upon the consideration to overlook the present
>crucial to any judgement about Luke's dependence of Matthew; indeed it
>suggests that he does not depend on him at all.." (Fitzmyer, 75)
arguments as being theologically unacceptable.
>6. Any such theory (as the FH) denies Luke 1:1-4 in which Luke saysPlacing Luke 3rd, and having it depend a bit upon the content of Papias's
>he used 'many' sources. Mark and Matthew do not equate to 'many'.
Logia, equates to three sources, which comes closer to being "many" than it
does for other hypotheses.
>In addition to these difficulties, we may note the following:If ALk only grudgingly included from Matthew what AMk had omitted, it seems
>7. Luke's omissions of M material in the triple tradition are
>duplicated in the double tradition, where numerous small Matthean
>aspects are not included. These are particularly seen in the
>Beatitudes and the Lord's prayer. Fitzmyer, 74 provides a helpful
plausible that he would not have been so meticulous as to have included all
>8. There are occasions when Matthew and other occasions when LukeI'm not sure of the truth of this, and would go along with the discussion
>appear to be providing the 'original' setting of a certain story.
>This is best explained by use of a common source. Streeter writes:
you gave it.
My apologies to others on the list whom I have already familiarized with
these aspects of the modified AH.
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm