Does Matthew use Luke? (Bartosz Adamczewski)

Bartosz argues/assumes that gMatthew:

• Uses Acts
• Uses gLuke
• Uses gMark
• Uses Dead Sea Scrolls

Matthew using Mark

• Modern scholars generally agree that the Gospel of Matthew is a reworking of the Gospel of Mark.
• However, a close analysis of the composition of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ reveals that this text was not primarily concerned with the sources of the material which is contained in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Otherwise, it would refer to the origin of all four canonical Gospels, and not just two of them. In fact, the bipartite structure of this patristic text reveals that it was only aimed at explaining the differences between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, as well as the striking features of the Matthean Gospel. The author of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ rightly perceived the Gospel of Matthew as having two apparently contradictory features.

• Hitherto given scholarly explanations of this fact in terms of, for example, Matthew’s composition of three sections with three miracle stories and words of Jesus in each of them in Mt 8–118 or the use of two overlapping Marcan sequences in Mt 8–99 are only partly satisfactory because they do not explain numerous other relocations and modifications of the Marcan (and Lucan) material in the Matthean Gospel (e.g. Mk 5:24 in Mt 8:1; Mk 10:46-52 in Mt 9:27-31; Mk 6:34 in Mt 9:36; Mk 13:9 in Mt 10:17; Mk 3:22.25 in Mt 10:25; Mk 9:41 in Mt 10:42; Mk 9:22 in Mt 17:15; Mk 11:22-23 in Mt 17:20; Mk 10:15 in Mt 18:3; Mk 12:34 in Mt 22:46; Mk 9:34-35 and Mk 10:43 in Mt 23:11). Consequently, the complex pattern of the Matthean relocations and modifications of the Marcan (and Lucan) material remains an oddity,10 unless the likewise complex pattern of the Matthean reworking of the Lucan bipartite work is taken into due consideration.

Response to Luke using Matthew

His arguments for Matthew using Luke

• Paul N. Tarazi has argued that Matthew borrowed numerous fragments from the Gospel of Luke in order to illustrate various Pauline ideas. Thus, he closed the canon of the New Testament writings.
• James R. Edwards in his work on the Hebrew proto-Gospel has argued that because the Lucan special material apparently contains more Semitisms than does the Gospel of Matthew, then the latter Gospel should be considered posterior to the Lucan one.
• Moreover, according to the American scholar, in comparison to the Lucan Gospel the order and formulas of the Gospel of Matthew are more balanced and proportional, its Greek style is more clean and consistent, and its christology is more developed.

• David L. Mealand has carried out a stylometric analysis of various fragments of the Matthean Gospel and has come to the conclusion that ‘M samples were distinct from those attributed to Mark and Q, and the latter from each other’.
• This result can be used against the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of direct literary dependence (in which both Q and M fragments are attributed to Matthew), but it favours not only the Two-Source hypothesis, but also the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct literary dependence (in which Q is attributed to Luke, so it can be stylistically distinct from both Mark and M).
• Robert K. MacEwen has recently published a monograph devoted to the ‘Matthean posteriority hypothesis’, which postulates Matthew’s use of both Mark and Luke (who in his turn had also used Mark) as a solution to the synoptic problem. In the presentation of his own arguments in favour of the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, MacEwen convincingly argues that the Matthean posteriority hypothesis best explains the presence of the Aramaic word μαμωνᾶς once in Mt 6:24 and 3 times in Lk 16:9.11.13, which is surrounded by Lucan Sondergut (Lk 15:8- 16:12; 16:14-15). Luke generally avoided Aramaisms, so Luke’s combination of sources (Q 16:13 with much Lucan Sondergut on the Two-Source hypothesis) or the reverse direction of borrowing (on the Farrer hypothesis) would be here rather implausible. Likewise, MacEwen convincingly argues that the word εἰρήνη in Mt 10:13 par. is generally Lucan and non-Matthean, which favours the Matthean posteriority hypothesis.49 Similarly, he persuasively argues that the Matthean saying concerning care for one sheep on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11), which is inserted into the Marcan story Mk 3:1-6, was borrowed from Lk 14:5, which is an integral part of the story Lk 14:1-6, and consequently the reverse direction of borrowing (on the Farrer hypothesis) or the existence of an isolated saying Q 14:5 (on the Two-Source hypothesis) would be highly implausible.

• MacEwen rightly argues that on the Matthean posteriority hypothesis Matthew was rather consistent in his reworking of both Mark and Luke with roughly the same, high level of verbal agreement.
• In order to strengthen his arguments, MacEwen also deals with various challenges to the Matthean posteriority hypothesis. The first of them is the alleged greater primitiveness of some Matthean formulations in the Mt-Lk material. As concerns this problem, the scholar rightly argues that the case of Matthew’s ‘debts’ against Luke’s ‘sins’ in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:12 par. Lk 11:4) is in fact dubious, mainly due to Matthew’s known redactional tendency to strengthen parallelism. The same may refer to Matthew’s ‘good things’ against Luke’s ‘Holy Spirit’ in Mt 7:11 par. Lk 11:13, although in this case MacEwen favours greater primitiveness of the Lucan version. Matthew’s reluctance to include exhortations to preach before Mt 10 (cf. also Mt 9:1 diff. Mk 5:18-20; Lk 8:38-39) could indeed explain his shorter version in Mt 8:22 diff. Lk 9:60. Likewise, Matthew’s reference to ‘sword’ (Mt 10:34) could indeed have resulted from the placing of Luke’s less harsh saying concerning ‘division’ (Lk 12:51) in the context of the warnings concerning persecutions and death (Mt 10:17-31). Accordingly, the scholar rightly argues that the examples of Matthew’s alleged greater primitiveness against Luke are in fact not as numerous as it is often assumed.

• MacEwen also deals with the problem of Matthew’s omission, on the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, of at least 14 parables which are present in the Gospel of Luke. The scholar argues that such Matthean omissions could be explained in terms of avoiding doublets with the Marcan version (Lk 7:41-43; 13:6-9), omitting material concerning Samaritans (Lk 10:29-37), avoiding material which was hard to understand and morally ambiguous (Lk 11:5-8; 16:1-12; 18:1-8), omitting negative references to wealth (Lk 12:13-21; 14:28-33; 16:19-31), avoiding unspecified references to community morality (Lk 15:8-10), reworking the Lucan material (Lk 15:11-32 cf. Mt 21:28-32), and maybe also avoiding excessive antinomianism (Lk 17:7-10; 18:9-14).
• The third challenge to the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, which is discussed by MacEwen, consists in the presence of discordant passages in the Mt-Lk nonMarcan material. According to the scholar, the Matthean infancy narrative shows numerous structural and literary similarities to the Lucan infancy narrative, but Luke’s use of Matthew is here slightly more unlikely that Matthew’s reworking of Luke. MacEwen argues that Matthew’s differences from Luke could have resulted from Matthew’s use of other, non-Lucan traditions.

Allan Garrow has also argued for this:

1. Date of composition

Bartosz states that the Gospel of Matthew was probably written c. ce 130–150, most likely c.e 145–150.

Parallels/Use of DSS

In fact, the artificial scheme of 3 times 14 generations (Mt 1:17) betrays Matthew’s use of the Lucan heptadic chronological scheme, which was borrowed from the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’ (4Q212; 1 En. 93:3–10; 91:10–11).

Matthew did not follow the Lucan allusion to the halachic argument contained in CD 11:13-14a.16-17a (cf. also 4Q265 6:6-7), but he surprisingly substituted it with the relocated Lucan motif of a man having, losing, and saving one sheep.

Adamczewski rejects as ‘questionable’ several criteria that other scholars have used for determining directions of dependence between the Synoptic Gospels, proposes his own preferred criteria, and then applies his criteria to a section of Mark (1.14–2.28) and its parallels in Matthew and Luke. Adamczewski consistently discerns a Mark ĺ Luke ĺ Matthew ‘order of direct, sequential literary dependence’.115 MAs are always understood to provide evidence for Matthew’s use of Luke. Adamczewski goes into detail on his views about the sources of the Synoptic Gospels, devoting a chapter each to Mark, Luke, and Matthew in turn. Adamczewski emphasizes his preferred approach to discerning the sources behind the Gospels—‘the method of critical-intertextual research’.117 In this method, Adamczewski discerns allusions to and echoes of multiple works—pagan, Jewish, and early Christian—hidden beneath the surface of the Gospels’ apparently (but to him deceptively) straightforward narratives, and argues that these various works should be viewed as the Gospels’ literary sources. For example, Adamczewski views Mark’s (6.14-29) account of the death of John the Baptist as alluding to Gal 2.6-14, with the conÀict between John and Herod Antipas representing the conÀict between Paul and Peter in Antioch.118 John’s rebuke of Antipas for marrying his brother’s wife alludes to ‘Paul’s disparaging remarks concerning Cephas’ “sister-wife” (1 Cor 9:5)’ and Paul’s prohibitions against incest and remarriage (1 Cor 5.1-13; 7.10-11). Mark’s ascription of the title ‘king’ to Antipas refers to Peter’s status as a pillar apostle (Gal 2.6-9).120 The dancing girl refers to ‘the “play-actor” Barnabas (Gal 2:9.13)’ and the ‘motif of the platter (Mk 6:25.28) reinforces the allusion to the controversy over table fellowship (Gal 2:12)’.121 In addition to Galatians and 1 Corinthians, Adamczewski believes that Mark drew on 1 Kgs 18.4–21.25 and Josephus, Ant. 18.109-116, for his composition of this pericope.122 Adamczewski thinks that Mark was written ca. AD 100–110 for a church that ‘struggled for de¿nition and defence of its Pauline identity against…Jewish Christian currents of early Christianity’. Mark’s sources included most of the undisputed letters of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians), the Septuagint, and the works of Josephus and Homer. According to Adamczewski, Luke’s Gospel was written between AD 110 and 120 to bolster ‘the position of Pauline Christianity in Asia against the ideas that were presumably widespread there and that still challenged the legitimacy of the Gentile mission’. Thus, the ideology and methodology of Luke were similar to those of Mark—Luke wrote with dual ‘intended level[s] of meaning’, writing about Paul as much as about Jesus. According to Adamczewski, in addition to Mark, Luke’s sources included the undisputed letters of Paul, several books of the Septuagint, Josephus, Herodotus, and certain writings of the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls.