Peter Kirby

The first argument concerns Matthew 26:68 // Luke 22:64, which both have "tis estin ho paisas se;" ("Who is it that struck you?") after "Propheteuson." These words are not in the Markan parallel, which has only "Prophesy!"

Here's the second. Matthew 1:21 has: "kai kaleseis to onoma autou Iesoun." Luke 1:31 has, "kai kaleseis to onoma autou Iesoun." I would say that six identical Greek words is a strong sign of borrowing. This is a good argument that Luke knew Matthew, or that Matthew knew Luke. This can hardly be attributed to Q, and I don't believe that this was a saying in the oral tradition preserved by both.

And the third. Luke begins, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us." One of these narratives of the things that have been accomplished would be Mark. Q would not count because it is not a narrative. Since Luke assumes that there are multiple predecessors, one of the few options known to us would be the Gospel of Matthew. This is also an argument that Luke used Matthew instead of vice-versa.

I realize that these are elementary arguments, but it is probably best to begin with simple arguments.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

It sounds reasonable to me.

What are the arguments against Lukan-Matthean dependence? There are differing geneologies of Jesus, and other differences, but aLuke might have had his or her reasons to rewrite Matthew.

Peter Kirby

Here they are. :devil3: (advocatus diaboli) Actually, those arguments were put forward by me when I still thought that Q was the best hypothesis.

I suppose that the third argument may be made more complex:

Premises:
1. Three gospels or fewer (not considering Luke) were written in the first century. [This is a premise.]
2. Luke knew at least three Gospels. [Based on the prologue.]
3. Matthew was written in the first century. [This requires justification.]
4. If Luke knew a Gospel not written in the first century, Luke was written well into the second century. [Common sense that if a document relies on a second century document, it itself was written well into the second century.]
6. If Luke were written well into the second century and Matthew were written in the first century, Luke knew Matthew. [Based on the idea that Luke was well-read and Matthew wasn't 'hiding somewhere'.]

Proof:
7. ASSUME that Luke did not know Matthew.
8. If Luke did not know Matthew, Luke knew a Gospel that was not written in the first century. [From 1, 2, and 3. Must use arithmetic.]
9. Luke knew a Gospel that was not written in the first century. [From 7 and 8.]
10. Luke was written well into the second century. [From 4 and 9.]
11. Luke was written well into the second century, and Matthew was written in the first century. [From 10 and 3.]
12. Luke knew Matthew. [From 6 and 11.]
13. Luke knew Matthew, and Luke did not know Matthew. [From 7 and 12.]
14. Iit is false that Luke did not know Matthew. [Proof by Contradiction]
15. Luke knew Matthew. [14, Double Negation]

The premises that need the most justification are 1 and 3, I think. I have reasons for accepting 3 on my website, not least among them being that Ignatius knew the Gospel of Matthew. As for 1, we have to do some pondering.

The Gospel of Mark was written in the first century. Per the premise, so was Matthew. So that is two. The Gospel of John might, or might not, count. So might the Egerton Gospel or the Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Thomas does not count because of its genre as a list of sayings.

Basically, in order to have four or more first century Gospels (other than Luke), one would have to count Peter, Egerton, or an unknown Gospel along with Mark, Matthew, and John. This is questionable to begin with, but consider this.

We would have to say that, say, the Gospel of Luke was aware of the Gospel of John and the Egerton Gospel in addition to Mark. But why not just admit that the Gospel of Luke had knowledge of Matthew, with which it has so much more similarity than any other Gospel that can be put forward? The two most obvious candidates for Luke's "many" are the authors of Mark and Matthew.

best,
Peter Kirby

Roland

The nativity and post-resurrection accounts are also very different.

Matthew has the "holy family" moving to Nazareth after coming back from Egypt, while Luke has them already living in Nazareth.

Matthew has the disciples going to Galilee to see the risen Jesus, while Luke has them staying in Jerusalem.

As you say, there may be "reasons' why Luke would have changed all that, but then one could say that about any changes I guess.

Roland

How can we be sure that Luke's prologue wasn't added later?

Peter Kirby

Such questions are feckless and their answers indulgent unless there is some independent evidence for the rewrite or interpolation.

Briefly, though, I would say that the person who wrote Luke 3:1 affected the same rhetorical style as the person who wrote the prologue, that they are the same person intending to give the Gospel a historical effect, and that since Luke 3:1 is integral to the narrative, that both are part of the fabric of the Gospel. But what I just said is unncessary, as indicated, when I should just fall back on the fact that there is no good reason for believing in a rewrite here.

best,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

There's a saying in U.S. copyright law that an accused infringer cannot avoid liability by pointing out all the places of the source he did not copy.

The different genealogies in Matt and Luke are not an argument against Luke's dependence on Matthew outside of the genealogies.

S.C.Carlson

Let's take a look at Luke 5:12-13, where Luke reproduces the same eighteen (18) words in Matthew verbatim at Matt 8:2-3, in triple tradition against Mark 1:40-41 (with the agreements of Matt and Luke against Mark are underlined): λέγων, κύÏ?ιε, á¼?ὰν θέλῃς, δύνασί με καθαÏ?ίσαι. καὶ * á¼?κτείνας τὴν χεῖÏ?α ἥψατο αá½?τοῦ λέγων, θέλω, καθαÏ?ίσθητι. καὶ εá½?θέως

The Markan text has: λέγων αá½?Ï„á¿· ὅτι, á¼?ὰν θέλῃς, δύνασί με καθαÏ?ίσαι. καὶ σπλαγχωισθεὶς á¼?κτείνας τὴν χεῖÏ?α αá½?τοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αá½?Ï„á¿·, θέλω, καθαÏ?ίσθητι. καὶ εá½?θὺς

A lot of present day research on detecting plagiarism assumes that 20-40 letters in a row is indicative of borrowing. This 18-word sequence shared between Matthew and Luke against Mark comprises an identical string of 96 letters.

To this stretch of verbatim agreement, Matt and Luke had to make the following changes to Mark:


1. Omit α�τῷ ὅτι after λέγων.
2. Add κύÏ?ιε before á¼?ὰν θέλῃς.
3. Omit σπλαγχνισθεὶς.*
4. Transpose α�τοῦ ἥψατο.
5. Replace καὶ λέγει α�τῷ with λέγων.
6. Replace ε�θὺς with ε�θέως.


This is in the healing of the leper, a narrative story that does not belong in Q as presently conceived. To get this 18-word, 96-letter, Matt and Luke had to agree together in making six (6) different changes to Mark. One or two of these minor agreements could be chalked to concidence (e.g. no. 6), but omitting that Jesus was filled with compassion (no. 3) is not the kind of coincidental redaction most people envision.

Diogenes the Cynic

What about the following possibilities (which I do not present as an intent to argue for Q, but just to inquire as to plausibility)?

1. Regarding the bits where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (Peter's first example and SCC's example) is it conceivable that Matt and Luke were using an earlier version of Mark which differs from the Canonical?

2. Regarding Peter's example from the Nativities, "....and you will call his name Jesus" seems to me to be an intuitive phrase that could naturally occur to two different authors in telling a story of Jesus' birth. Would it be out of the question for that to be a coincidence?

3. Why did Luke change the genealogy and elimininate Matthew's slaughter and flight to Egypt? I'm not asking this as a challenge to Luke knowing Matthew, I'm assuming he knew Matthew and just asking what kinds of speculations or theories exist as to why Luke would have changed those things. Did he not believe Matthew's narrative?

I realize even as I write this that those first two questions are ad hoc solutions and probably not the best ones but can they be ruled out with a comfortable degree of certainty?

Personally, I have always thought that there was enough similarity in the Nativities (birth in Bethlehem, Virgin mother, father named Joseph, Angelic messengers) to at least demand an explanation. I used to assume a common oral tradition but now I think that the VB and Bethlehem were Matthew's inventions. It just makes better sense to me. If the strongest case against Matthean dependancy in Luke is the altered Nativity then all we need is a plausible explanation as to why Luke would make those changes.

Dominus Paradoxum

Probably because it was as evident to Luke as it is to us that it is BS.