An elegant parallel.
It is entirely possible that [Matthew]
never expected his readers to recognize Mark or Q or anyone
else's hand in his work, or that it never occurred to him that
Im suspicious of models necessitating early Christian players (here
Matthew, but including Jesus) dumber than me.
Ive wondered whether Anicetus, Marks successor, who would have known
Mk by heart, recognized what had happened when Mt appeared. Maybe not.
In the first place, that different reports of the same event are as
discrepant as they are found in court to be is counterintuitive. What
you get in the synoptics is what one would naively expect, the same
stories with slight variations. Anicetus might have read Mt as
independent corroboration of Mk. Or, again, maybe not; he would have
known Matthew had attended the readings. This particular relic, unlike
others, was kept under guard (Clement) for the same reason
Shakespeares scripts were locked up in a trunk backstage and
distributed to the players only piecemeal.
But also there was the Holy Spirit, a sort of parallel access to the
events. Maybe the synoptic textual relation is what one would expect
from pneumatic action.
While each writer has his own agenda, they do not
seem to be playing their own version off against the prior
version, but rather see the difference in emphasis as entirely
Luke goes to great pains to differentiate his version from Mt but
doesnt worry about plagiarizing Mk, which was not [c. 85] in
932 E. 2nd St. #27
Long Beach CA 90802