Does Matthew use Luke? (Robert K. MacEwen)

Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

A Brief Overview of Matthean Posterioritists
Gottlob Christian Storr:

Johann Gottfried Herder:

Christian Gottlob Wilke:

(1), he argues that Matthew’s Gospel has seams that show that Matthew oriented his DT material on the basis of Luke.

(2), he argues that Matthew gives evidence of having changed DT material as a result of moving it from its more original Lukan contexts.

(3), he argues that Matthew uses words that are characteristic of Luke.

(4), he argues that the DT material reveals its Lukan origins through the evidence it contains of Luke’s redactional interests. As for the question of why the author of the Gospel of Matthew followed the order of Mark but not the order of Luke, Wilke suggests that the author used Mark as his template, supplementing it with material from Luke, either because he had known Mark for some time before he knew Luke or because he knew Mark to be the earlier Gospel.

Gustav Schläger:

William Lockton:

(1) differences in the Synoptic Gospels are often best explained by an order of development in traditions that goes from Luke to Mark to Matthew;

(2) Matthew appears to have the most developed and artificial structure of the three Synoptics;

(3) Matthew’s and Luke’s Infancy Narratives contain such ‘considerable agreement’ that they ‘can scarcely be independent’;

** (4)** in Lockton’s view, the vocabulary of the DT is more characteristic of Luke than of Matthew, suggesting to him that Luke was Matthew’s source for this material.

Ernst von Dobschutz:

Dobschütz believes that Matthew’s use of Luke is more likely than the reverse because Matthew generally seems more developed than Luke in the DT in terms of arrangement and expansions of the material and the construction of discourses.

In addition, Dobschütz ¿nds historical grounds for dating Matthew later than the other two Synoptics: Matthew’s rabbinical and catechetical style indicates that his Gospel was ‘a catholicizing type’ of document (like James, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Shepherd of Hermas) and therefore should be dated to ‘about A.D. 100’.

H. Philip West Jr:

Ronald V. Huggins:

Martin Hengel:

Hengel argues that Matthew was written later than Luke, primarily on the grounds that Luke appears to be closer (in terms of both emotion and description) than Matthew to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and that Matthew’s treatment of Jesus’ opponents reÀects the time, ca. AD 90, when Palestinian Judaism had become dominated by ‘scribes in the Pharisaic tradition’.

Luke generally appears more original than Matthew in both ‘order’ and ‘linguistic form’ supports Matthean posteriority.

He also claims that Matthew’s theological tendencies can explain many of his differences from Luke in the DT and many of his omissions of Luke’s Sondergut.

Alan J.P. Garrow:

His arguments:

**(1) **The generally high degree of word-for-word agreement between Matthew and Luke in the DT, similar to the agreement between Matthew and Mark, is best explained by Matthew’s direct use of Luke.

(2) Instances of low verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke in the DT

(3) alternating primitiveness in the DT are to be explained as places where Matthew has conÀated the wording of Luke and ‘Q’.

**(4) **Matthew’s ‘[c]omplex scribal operations’ on the MCH are explained by Matthew having possessed the Gospels of Mark and Luke in codex form, making it easier to rearrange his sources’ orders of material than if he had accessed them in scroll form.

(5) The fact that Matthew and Luke seldom have their DT material in the same location relative to Mark is explained by Matthew’s and Luke’s differing strategies for using their sources—Luke tends to keep his Markan and non-Markan material in separate blocks while Matthew rearranges his source material according to his own topical plan.

(6) The so-called Mark-Q overlaps can be explained as passages in which Matthew conflates Mark and Luke.

(7) The MAs are explained as Matthew choosing ‘to supplement Mark’ with ‘distinctive Lukan phrases or details’.

(8) Matthew’s omission of Luke’s Sondergut can be explained by Matthew’s desire for brevity, his redactional aims, occasional preference for material from another source, hard-to-reconcile differences between sources, and, simply, his lack of a compulsion to include all the material that was available to him.

Arguments for Matthean Posteriority

(a) Matthew’s Reordering of Markan Material as an Analogy for His Use of Luke

(b) Mammon

A rare Aramaic loanword is discovered in both Q and Luke’s Sondergut. Luke 16 features a three-fold use of Ä¸ÄÑÅÜË, a word that, in the NT, is found only in Luke 16.9, 11, 13 and Matt 6.24 (par. Luke 16.13). In light of the fact that Luke’s only three uses of this word are in such close proximity, it might seem reasonable to suppose that Luke 16.13 comes from the same source as Luke 16.9 and 11,9 notwithstanding the scholarly tendencies to assign the origin of Luke 16.13 to Q on the 2DH.

(c) Do Not Store Up Treasures on Earth

In contrast, the MPH can explain the similarity between the two passages in terms of Matthew’s dependence on Luke. Matthew 6.19-34 is a section of Matthew’s sermon that deals with commitment to God and his kingdom versus concern for money and possessions. In composing this section, Matthew draws on material from Luke 11 and 16, but primarily from Luke 12.13-34, a section of Luke’s Gospel that deals with a preoccupation with possessions versus trust in God. Matthew selects from and rearranges this material to suit his purposes.

(d) Resolving Luke’s Apparent Contradiction about the Law

(e) Greetings and Peace

(f) Beelzebul

(g) Care for Animals on the Sabbath

(h) Copper, Silver, and Gold

(i) Summary of Evidence

(1) Luke’s uncharacteristic, three-fold use of an Aramaic word in Luke 16.9, 11, 13, suggests that Luke took over all three uses from a single source and that Matthew used the word in dependence on Luke (Matt 6.24//Luke 16.13).

(2) Matthew’s use of the verb ¿¾Ê¸ÍÉţ½Ñ in the pericope Treasures in Heaven (Matt 6.19-20//Luke 12.33), where Luke does not use the word, is most simply explained by Matthew’s having seen the word used in a similar way in Luke 12.21, a verse unique to Luke.

(3) Matthew 5.17-20 (On the Law and the Prophets) can be seen as Matthew’s attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction he saw in Luke 16.16-17, which seems to teach both that the era of the law concluded with John the Baptist (v. 16) and that the law has ongoing, permanent validity (v. 17).

(4) In Matt 10.10b-13//Luke 10.4b-7 (Instructions for Mission) Matthew displays a more developed (less Semitic) style than Luke, yet appears to have been inÀuenced by Luke’s wording (i.e.).

(5) Matthew’s unanticipated reference to Beelzebul in 10.25 and his doublet of 9.32-34 and 12.22-24 (par. Luke 11.14-15) are more easily explained by Matthew’s redactional expansion of Lukan material (or Luke-like Q material) than by Luke’s conÀation of Matthean material.

(6) Matthew’s redactional addition, about a sheep in a pit (Matt 12.11-12), to a Markan Sabbath-healing story (Matt 12.9-14//Mark 3.1- 6//Luke 6.6-11) can be seen as evidence of Matthew’s knowledge of similar sayings found in similar stories in Luke’s Sondergut (Luke 13.15- 16; 14.5).

(7) In the parallel Matt 10.9-10a//Mark 6.8-9//Luke 9.3 (from the Twelve Sent to Preach and Heal), Matthew seems to have the most developed reading; his ‘gold nor silver nor copper’ looks like a conÀation of, and expansion on, the readings of Mark and Luke.