Examples where Matthew is more primitive than Luke?

[DCHindley]

In Q theory I hear a lot about "alternating primitivity" but can hardly find any examples of Matthew being more "primitive" than, its always the other way around. Anyone know of several good examples?

You should check out E. P. Sanders' The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969).

My recollection is that there was about as much evidence of shortening of accounts as lengthening. Are we just looking at examples, regardless of whether we want them to be shortened or lengthened versions of some other account, that are all reversible? There are supposed to be literary clues to determine whether some account has been shortened or lengthened, but are they based on reality or wishful thinking?

The rest of this thread is here, including the TOC if you want to see how extensively he checks out the subject:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1781&p=39649&hilit= ... ies#p39649

Another thread that explores the book and provides some of Sander's conclusion begins here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5455&p=101140&hilit ... es#p101140

unt (term used to invite you to comment, KK)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5455&p=101140&hilit ... es#p101259

DCH

[rgprice]

thanks all

[mlinssen]

thanks all

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7714 is one you might like, as Matthew has several attempts at the same logion, alternating between Mark and Luke

[schillingklaus]

Matthew is more primitive than Mark and Luke in many places.

For example, when Peter joins the valets of the priests in the night of the trial of Jesus, Matthew has no fire, whereas Luke has a fire kindled by the valets and used by Peter for warming. Mark is the most corrupted due to mentioning Peter warming himself but forgetting the valets kindling the fire.