Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Why not Matthew's use of Luke?
A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of the Farrer Theory have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for Luke’s use of Matthew remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.

Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 1:09 pm Some interesting stuff. Mark Goodacre has a paper against 'Matthean Posteriority', i.e. the theory that Matthew used gLuke (instead of the other way around, according to the Farrer Hypothesis).

Why not Matthew's use of Luke?
A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of the Farrer Theory have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for Luke’s use of Matthew remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.

Jax wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:59 pm

Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 1:09 pm Some interesting stuff. Mark Goodacre has a paper against 'Matthean Posteriority', i.e. the theory that Matthew used gLuke (instead of the other way around, according to the Farrer Hypothesis).

Why not Matthew's use of Luke?
A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of the Farrer Theory have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for Luke’s use of Matthew remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.

Is there any way to get a link to that paper? I would love to read it. Also, I read Alan Garrow's thesis but am unfamiliar with Rob Macewen and his arguments. Are there any links to this material?

Thank you

Λῆν

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:43 pm Here's a link to Robert MacEwen's book on Amazon (with preview feature)

shorturl.at/ekQ59

https://www.amazon.com/Matthean-Posteri ... dpSrc=srch

I think it's a good book, probably the best book on the subject, though it didn't by any means convince me of the thesis of Matthew's dependence on Luke. MacEwen does a good job of surveying the issue and tries to keep his descriptions of the data and his evaluation of how the data supports one theory or another separate. He doesn't resort to parodying the opposing case. It's a more even-handed approach than one often finds in work on the synoptic problem.