mg01

My introduction to NT textual criticism leaned toward Q, but the more I looked on my own I saw Luke borrowing from Matthew.

What's everybody's take here?

Solitary Man

Q-based theory. Luke at times simply cannot borrow from Matthew, since he's the simpler of the two. I find places like that in Matthew sometimes, too, which is why I'm a Q-based theory.

Toto

I think that Luke knew Matthew, but I can't rule out the possibility that there was some document that they both knew.

patcleaver

Assuming MM could be mistaken that they are complete forgeries, I think these were evolving documents with lots of authors that were written over several generations. Whoever had possession of them made whatever changes suited them. Sometimes the authors of Matthew borrowed from Luke and sometimes the authors of Luke borrowed from Matthew.

The whole point of Q, was to claim that Luke and Matthew were independent testimonies. If there had been a Q, then we would probably have it or at least have heard of it.

andrewcriddle

IMO the original version of Luke did not borrow from Matthew however the current standard critical text of Luke has undergone later assimilation to Matthew, this is IMHO the explanation of many of the 'minor agreements' of Luke and Matthew against Mark.

Andrew Criddle

yalla

'm currently reading "Questioning Q" Eds. Mark Goodacre and [IIRC I'm away from home] N.Perrin.
I would recommend people read Mark Goodacre's material available on the net before making a pro-Q decision.

I consider the Q hypothesis very weak and refuted quite simply by proposing that either "Luke" copied "Matthew' or, possibly vice versa, with both of them copying "Mark'.

On my home computer I have an article by, I think, Ken Olson which studies how ancient authors used multiple sources. His conclusion is that an author typically followed 1 source for a major section and essentially interpolated other source material occasionally. He finds 'Luke's" use of "Matthew' as a secondary source to 'Mark' fits in well with the standard procedure of the time, contrary to other opinions on the subject which he disputes strongly.
The prima facie case when one reads 2 authors who have sections of identical or near identical material is to suggest one copied the other. As we have in the case of 'Luke' and 'Matthew' copying "Mark', presuming Markan priority.
Why should we presume otherwise in the case of 'Luke' re 'Matthew'?
It neatly and thoroughly explains all the occasions when 'Luke' has copied material that is not in "Mark', material that is original to "Matthew".
There are many cases where "Luke" has included material unique to "Matthew' and "Mark'
in his own material, cases I would suggest of 'Luke" simply conflating the two.
Here is a link to a thread I started recently which I believe shows how 'Luke' has amalagamated his 2 sources ["Mark" and "Matthew"]. Note the section is not considered to be a Q section.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...70#post5178170
In the past I have posted other examples usually in conversation with Ben Smith.

Now you can postulate that 'Luke" got his common material from an unknown, not extant, unreferenced by any contemporary source, anonymous source, important enough, allegedly, to significantly influence the authors of 2 gospels writing, presumably in 2 different places at 2 different times but ....well ... we just dont have it, its ...um...lost!

Solitary Man

And note that this happens in more than just Luke.

mg01

Does anyone know of verses within the Matthew/Luke spots where it looks as if Matthew may reason to think Matthew was drawing from Luke rather than the other way around?

I've been looking over the articles at NT Gateway and they all suggest Mark-->Matthew-->Luke with no need for Q. I tend to agree that if anything like Q existed we probably would have found it by now.

One thing that caught my attention was the openning verses in Luke even suggest that perhaps the author is aware of different traditions and has worked to reconcile the differences. One of the NT Gateway articles make note that Luke's style appears to be a more consistent and continous account vs the choppy episodes from Mark and Matthew.

The thing that catches my attention is this implies it may have been Matthew that added the virgin birth, (or it was added later as others tried to smooth out the differences). Matthew shows the most Jewish character which would seem uncharacteristic unless he was under pretty strong hellenistic influence.

I also note a couple things like themes and use of phrases that seem to show a "progression". Mark bluntly states there will be no signs. Matthew says the only sign will be the "sign of Jonah" (resurected after three days). Luke copies Matthews Jonah's statement and adds others. Then of course John is structured in parts around demonstrating the signs of Jesus. Matthew makes use of "large crowds" and "When Jesus had finished saying these things..." as transitions between stories, particularly when returning to Mark after one of his additions. Mark has "crowds" in places, but Luke adds them sometimes where Mark doesn't. Matthew also includes the "When Jesus had finished saying these things...", but not as often as Matthew used it.

I can't find anything that really argues Mark-->Luke-->Matthew.

andrewcriddle

Some would argue that Luke 6:20 "Blessed are you who are poor" is more primitive than Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit"

Similarly the original version of the Lord's prayer in Luke 11:2-4 is shorter and arguably more primitive than Matthew 6:9-13 (In this case later manuscripts assimilated Luke to Matthew.)

Andrew Criddle

John Kesler

Wouldn't another explanation be that Luke's change is intentional? His gospel displays great concern for the less fortunate:


I would also add, FWIW, that Gospel of Thomas agrees with the Lukan version of two the above passages: