Page 1 of 1
Matthew's use of Luke
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:15 pm
by rgprice
In re-reading Goodacre's Case Against Q I notices that he presents arguments for and against Luke's use of Matthew, but never the other way around -- Matthew's use of Luke. Why do Goodacre/Goulder not consider Matthew's use of Luke?
I've also seen arguments for overall Lucan priority, but not for Mark > Luke > Matthew. So what are the arguments AGAINST Matthew's use of Luke?
Re: Matthew's use of Luke
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:47 am
by mlinssen
rgprice wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:15 pm
In re-reading Goodacre's
Case Against Q I notices that he presents arguments for and against Luke's use of Matthew, but never the other way around -- Matthew's use of Luke. Why do Goodacre/Goulder not consider Matthew's use of Luke?
I've also seen arguments for overall Lucan priority, but not for Mark > Luke > Matthew. So what are the arguments AGAINST Matthew's use of Luke?
They couldn't possibly put their poster child in the back of the room, could they?
I don't have arguments against Matthew using Luke, in fact I have 16 cases for precisely that order
Then again I'm not religious, and certainly not Christian
Re: Matthew's use of Luke
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:47 am
by gryan
When Mark Goodacre asked, “Why Not Matthew's Use of Luke?”
https://www.logos.com/grow/when-mark-go ... ws-use-of-
Did Matthew Use Luke or Did Luke Use Matthew? - Dr. Mark Goodacre Versus Dr. Robert K. MacEwe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE5UOisT8AY
Re: Matthew's use of Luke
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:10 pm
by schillingklaus
Neither did Mt use Lk nor vice versa, but they all depend on pre-synoptic common gospel narratives.
Re: Matthew's use of Luke
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:19 pm
by rgprice
Thanks gyran.
Interestingly:
Goodacre set out features of Luke that he feels support dating it later than Matthew. These include Luke’s reference to earlier writings about Jesus (Luke 1:1), his use of the first person (Luke 1:1-4 and the “we” passages in Acts)—characteristic of later Gospels, and the historical references he has in common with Josephus.
This of course fails to address the scenario in which Luke 1-2 & the end of 24 were later appended to Luke 3-23.5 by the person who wrote Acts.
So the scenario I'm arguing for is that Matthew used Luke 3-23.5 in response to Marcion, whose Gospel was also derived from Luke 3-23.5.
But Matthew did not derive his Gospel from Marcion. He knew that Marcion's Gospel was a redaction of the original Luke (now retained in Luke 3-23.5) and so Matthew went back to the "original source" and worked from that in conjunction with Mark, which Matthew knew were two Gospels that predated Marcion's Gospel. Thus, what Matthew really is a harmonization and expansion of of what he considered to be to the two Gospels that pre-dated, and thus trumped, Marcion's Gospel.
As for Goodacre's other arguments, about Luke supposedly using "Matthean language", these are entirely unconvincing. If Matthew is copying from Luke, then it is Matthew adopting Luke's language, not the other way around.
Re: Matthew's use of Luke
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:42 pm
by gryan
@ rgprice, I appreciate your comments.
My explanation vis Marcion is more conventional. My working hypothesis is that Mk, Lk, and Matt, in that order, all preceded Marcion, (who popularized and funded the distribution of a redacted form of canon akin to P46, except with Lk instead of Hebrews). Tertullian opposed Marcion's Gospel using arguments that were informed by GMatt, which was written as a supposed improvement on Luke (in part by including some parts of Mk that Lk left out such as the names of Jesus' blood brothers, and deleting some stories that were not in Mk such as the Good Samaritan).