Peter Kirby

Allow me just to respond to this for now.

No, I don't believe that it is a coincidence. There are alternate words that could be used, as well as alternate word order. Six consecutive words in Greek should, I think, indicate some kind of relationship.

There is a similar case between Luke and the Hebrew Bible. Luke 7:15 and 1 Kings 17:23 both have "kai edÅ?ken auton tÄ“ mÄ“tri autou." I would say that this is also a case of borrowing. As Steven Carr points out, this phrase is not found elsewhere in Greek literature. Likewise, we could do a search for "and you will call his name" to see how many times that shows up in Greek literature.

I did the search. Apparently this is a septuagintal phrase of sorts. This does make it somewhat possible that they are independent constructions in Matthew and Luke (both dependent on the septuagint).

Philo Judaeus Phil., Legum allegoriarum libri i-iii
Book 3, section 85, line 7
καταφάσκει καὶ á¼?πινεύει λέγων “Î?αί, ἰδοὺ ΣάÏ?Ï?α ἡ
γυνή σου τέξεταί σοι υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα α�τοῦ Ἰσαάκ, καὶ
στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου Ï€Ï?ὸς αá½?τὸν εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιονâ€? (ib. 19).

Philo Judaeus Phil., De fuga et inventione
Section 1, line 8
καὶ εἶπεν αá½?τῇ á½? ἄγγελος κυÏ?ίου· <ἰδοὺ> σὺ á¼?ν
γαστÏ?ὶ ἔχεις, καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αá½?τοῦ Ἰσμαήλ, ὅτι
á¼?πήκουσε κύÏ?ιος τῇ ταπεινώσει σου.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De fuga et inventione
Section 204, line 3
σημεῖον δέ· καὶ τὰ
κατὰ γαστÏ?ός, ἅπεÏ? ἄδηλα γενέσει, σαφῶς οἶδεν á¼?ν οἷς φησιν· “ἰδοὺ σὺ
á¼?ν γαστÏ?ὶ ἔχεις, καὶ τέξῃ παιδίον, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αá½?τοῦ Ἰσμαήλâ€?
(ibid. 11).

Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Matthaeum
Chapter 1, section 21, line 2
ταῦτα δὲ αá½?τοῦ á¼?νθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυÏ?ίου
κατ' ὄναÏ? á¼?φάνη αá½?Ï„á¿· λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ
φοβηθῇς παÏ?αλαβεῖν ΜαÏ?ιὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰÏ?
�ν α�τῇ γεννηθὲν �κ πνεύματός �στιν �γίου·
τέξεται
δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αá½?τοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αá½?τὸς γὰÏ?
σώσει τὸν λαὸν αá½?τοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν á¼?μαÏ?τιῶν αá½?τῶν.

Novum Testamentum, Evangelium secundum Lucam
Chapter 1, section 31, line 2
καὶ εἶπεν á½? ἄγγελος αá½?τῇ, Μὴ φοβοῦ, ΜαÏ?ιάμ,
εὗÏ?ες γὰÏ? χάÏ?ιν παÏ?á½° Ï„á¿· θεῷ·
καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ �ν
γαστÏ?ὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αá½?τοῦ
Ἰησοῦν.

Septuaginta, Genesis
Chapter 16, section 11, line 3
καὶ εἶπεν α�τῇ � ἄγ-
γελος κυÏ?ίου Ἰδοὺ σὺ á¼?ν γαστÏ?ὶ ἔχεις καὶ τέξῃ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις
τὸ ὄνομα αá½?τοῦ Ισμαηλ, ὅτι á¼?πήκουσεν κύÏ?ιος τῇ ταπεινώσει σου.

Septuaginta, Genesis
Chapter 17, section 19, line 3
εἶπεν δὲ � θεὸς τῷ
ΑβÏ?ααμ Î?αί· ἰδοὺ ΣαÏ?Ï?α ἡ γυνή σου τέξεταί σοι υἱόν, καὶ
καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα α�τοῦ Ισαακ, καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου
Ï€Ï?ὸς αá½?τὸν εἰς διαθήκην αἰώνιον καὶ Ï„á¿· σπέÏ?ματι αá½?τοῦ μετ'
α�τόν.

Septuaginta, Isaias
Chapter 7, section 14, line 3
διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύ-
Ï?ιος αá½?τὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παÏ?θένος á¼?ν γαστÏ?ὶ ἕξει καὶ Ï„á½³-
ξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα α�τοῦ Εμμανουηλ·
βούτυÏ?ον
καὶ μέλι φάγεται· Ï€Ï?ὶν á¼¢ γνῶναι αá½?τὸν á¼¢ Ï€Ï?οελέσθαι πονηÏ?á½° á¼?κ-
λέξεται τὸ ἀγαθόν·
διότι Ï€Ï?ὶν á¼¢ γνῶναι τὸ παιδίον ἀγαθὸν á¼¢
κακὸν ἀπειθεῖ πονηÏ?á½·á¾³ τοῦ á¼?κλέξασθαι τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ καταλειφθή-
σεται ἡ γῆ, ἣν σὺ φοβῇ ἀπὸ Ï€Ï?οσώπου τῶν δύο βασιλέων.

best,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

Mark may well have read ORGISThEIS 'being angry' (the Western reading) not SPLAGChNISThEIS.

If so omission by both Matthew and Luke would be quite plausible.

Andrew Criddle

Marxist

I think David Strauss answered this one for me.

In Luke the events are more fantastic. A 'skeptic' might read Matthew and come away thinking they made the angel up, while this explanation isn't as likely with Luke's version of events (cause how would they 'explain' the angel?). And in fact, Christians carried this trend even further after Luke, with all kinds of nonsense about Mary and Joseph.

It doesn't appear to me that Luke changes Matthew willy-nilly. He has some sort of theological purpose in mind, usually. The Q hypothesis is just an invention of liberal scholarship.

Barefoot Bree

I'm a raw day-one newbie when it comes to BC&H, so correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) - but one thing struck me about your argument.

You are placing a lot of emphasis on Luke's "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us."

I can think of two possible alternative meanings to that phrase:

1) He could mean several people he knows tried to write it and gave up - and nothing remains of their efforts.

2) He could just be engaging in a bit of argument by (fake) popularity - throwing in a phrase to make the whole thing more plausible to his readers.

Neither of these argue directly against a Luke-Matthew dependence (or even familiarity) - but there may not necessarily have been any others, either.

*stands bravely waiting for the rotten tomatoes*

andrewcriddle

Although there is IMO no major problem with the original text of Matthew and Luke here the text of Mark is another matter

Minor agreement 1/ the Western text of Mark agrees with Matthew and Luke with some Caesarean support.

Minor agreement 2/ the Caesarean text of Mark agrees with Matthew and Luke.

Minor agreement 3/ See previous post. (there is a genuine agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark here but it may have a good explanation.)

Minor agreement 4/ the Byzantine text of Mark agrees with Matthew and Luke with some Caesarean support.

Minor agreement 5/ the only textual issue here is that the Byzantine text of Luke reads EIPWN not LEGWN

Minor agreement 6/ the Western and Byzantine text of Mark agree with Matthew and Luke with some Caesarean support.

IMO the NA text is correct in all 3 gospels in cases 2/ 4/ and 5/. (although some major critical texts have followed the Byzantine reading in Luke in case 5/) However cases 1/ 3/ and 6/ are much more doubtful. Case 2/ is a very plausible agreement by coincidence and if the original in Mark read 'being angry' this would apply to case 3/ as well.

Whether the agreement of Mathew and Luke against Mark at 4/ + 5/ is in itself strong evidence for Lukan knowledge of Matthew is IMO doubtful.

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

In the context of the third argument above. It is not the only argument (nor are the three the only three).

Some things are more possible, or probable, than others.

While Luke does seem to think that the earlier writers had met with some sort of failure, it did not lie in failing to set out the things accomplished, but rather in failing to investigate everything in order (as he claims to do in his prologue).

Luke doesn't mount such an argument, nor have I ever heard Luke's prologue interpreted so as to make such an argument.

best,
Peter Kirby

Julian

It seems strange to me that Luke would, Matthew in hand, write an entirely different, and completely contradictory, birthdate for Jesus. He may have had his own agenda for writing what he did but he must have known that people would be familiar with Matthew and that his contradictions would not stand up. Or was he counting on the his readership not being familiar with history?

Also, if this did start as a philosophical movement, would it not be possible that several anecdotes would exist rather than long gospel-like narratives. These anecdotes could have circualted both verbally and in written form and incorporated into both GLk and GMt. They also be some of the writings that Luke refers to in the intro. When he says 'narrative' what is the greek word he uses? (I don't have a koine version handy)

Julian

John A. Broussard

My impression of the Eastern Mediterranean circa 100 CE was that literacy was the exception rather than the rule, that a few scribes could handle most of the need for written correspondence and that traditions were far more apt to be transmitted orally rather than in written form. If my impression is correct, Matthew, Mark and Luke were simply trying to put together a coherent narrative from the memories of some of their contemporaries along with a few scraps (letters, perhaps) of written material. Then, of course, since their original writings have long ago disappeared, we have the added complication of later interpolations, redactions or what have you. That doesn't make the current discussion futile, but it would sure make it difficult to arrive at anything approaching a definitive conclusion.

Peter Kirby

Not at all. Luke contradicts himself on the birthdate of Jesus. He places it during the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:2), but he also places it during the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5). That suggests that one of his traditions was from an earlier source. Matthew is an obvious candidate.

best,
Peter Kirby

MortalWombat

OK, let me see if I got this right if Luke used Matthew.

1. Mark wrote his Gospel first.

2. Matt copied nearly all of Mark, corrected the grammar a bit, and added what we call Q material, whether it was made up by him or was part of some other otherwise lost written or oral tradition.

3. Luke, having read Matt, decided that he needed to set things completely straight. He left in most of Matt's "Q" material and kept some other parts, like the passion, death, and resurrection, relatively intact, but changed a few other things like the birth narrative, maybe because it differed from the tradition that he was taught.

Do I have this right if we are considering that Luke used Matt?