mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:18 pm
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:47 pm
But yes, Matthew's style is recognizable (except, of course where it shows up in Luk
).
Why isn't that a sign of Matthean redaction of Luke?
What I had in mind when I wrote that is the 17 instances of striking expressions found in multiple times in Matthew and occasionally in Luke that Goulder enumerated in 'Self Contradiction in the IQP' JBL 118 (1999) 506-517. Goulder gives counts for how often they occur in Matt/Mark/Q (i.e., Luke)/the rest of the NT. For each expression, in all the cases Matthew has multiple uses and Luke has it fewer times and only in contexts where Matt had it (i.e., he never has it elsewhere, only in contexts where Matthew has it), while Matthew has it several time in other contexts. Also, the expression does not occur elsewhere in the NT (including Mark). These expressions include 'wailing and gnashing of teeth', 'brood of vipers', and 'little faith.'
In the abstract, this could have been due to Matthew and Luke taking these expressions from Q and Matthew, liking them and using them additional times elsewhere in his gospel, while Luke took only some of them from Q and never added them elsewhere in other contexts (as the IQP suggests). That's not impossible. It could also be due to Luke copying them from Matthew (as Goulder proposes). Luke doesn't copy all of them, but picks up a few of them as he copies and reworks Matthean material. Goulder's point in the article is not that what the IQP claims is impossible, but that once you say that much of Matthew's redactional vocabulary is made up of expressions that occurred once or only a few times in Q which Matt liked and repeated multiple times, you cannot reconstruct Q by claiming Luke likely has the original version because Matthew's version is in Matthew's style (because you've just claimed that Matthew's style is taken from Q in a multitude of instances).
The same phenomenon could also be due Matthew having redacted Luke, as you suggest, or a later editor redacting both, or a number of other ways. Why isn't this possibility just as likely?
The answer has to do with intentionality and explicability. The possibility that Goulder advocates, that Luke took over one or a few of each instance of favorite Matthean expressions is something that is very likely to occur when an author is using a source and following its wording fairly closely, even without the author intending specifically to preserve instances of his sources favored expressions.
If Matthew redacted Luke, on he other hand, he must have decided he was going to add his favorite expressions to Luke, but in only a few cases, not all of them, and that he was never going to add these favorite expressions in other places where he had not used them in his own gospel. It's not at all obvious why he would intentionally set about to do that, and in such a way as to create the same effect as would have happened unintentionally in the course of Luke's use of Matthew.
As as an analogy, the Griesbach hypothesis postulates that Mark must have intentionally tried to base his version of the pericopes on the common wording of Matthew and Luke for the pericopes they had in common sequence (he discards the pericopes that are not in common sequence, even though many of them have extensive agreements in wording). This is not impossible, but we don't know of any other ancient writers trying to do this and it seems arbitrary (i.e. it's hard to supply a good rationale for what Mark decided to include and exclude).
The theory of Markan priority, on the other hand, can explain the same effect (why Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke in many pericopes) as something that is very likely to occur (i.e., it's very unlikely *not* to occur) as they rewrote Mark making their choices of what to use and what not to use independently of each other. That is to say, they had no intention to make Mark as the middle term, that it is something that is a necessary byproduct of the fact that they are both rewriting Mark
Best,
Ken