No, that’s not quite what I would propose, but it’s sort of close to it. I think Mark was the Gospel with which Luke was familiar and the one used in Luke’s church. When he became aware of Matthew, he saw how Matthew had rewritten and expanded Mark. He also probably foresaw that Matthew might well replace Mark as the Gospel used by the church. There were things he liked about Matthew, but also things to which he objected, and he thought he could do a better job of rewriting and expanding Mark than Matthew did.Given that the Farrer theory proposes the Lucan writers had a copy of Mt, Ken, why would they have used Mk at all, when Mt had double the content and in better Greek?
Would you propose something like, "well, first they only had Mk and worked on it, then a copy of Mt came along, so they pilfered from it"? I find that implausible, given the conflicts between Mt and Lk which I believe are simpler to understand if the two schools had similar sources, ie the Two Sources plus what they uniquely bring to them.
Luke decided to keep most of the content of Mark and keep it in largely in the Markan order. B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (1924) notes that Marcan and non-Marcan material alternates in great blocks (p. 167). He identifies the Marcan blocks are 3.41-6.19, 8.4-9.50, 18.15-43, and 19.28-22.13. After 22.13, Streeter thought Luke followed both Mark and another source. I think it more likely Mark was his only written source, by which I mean written source he had in front of him and used at length (there are a few touches form Matthew).
Luke’s Markan blocks provide the framework within which Matthean material is included. Luke famously, or notoriously, seems to agree with Matthew only after Mark begins in 1.1 and before Mark ends in 16.8. Even within that space, he does not keep Matthew’s larger structures (no Five Discourses). This is probably for two reasons. First, Mark is the original gospel (for Luke), and Matthew is a Johnny come lately, so (1) Luke follows the Markan order in general, and it would be difficult to follow both where Matthew changes Mark’s order in the first half of his gospel and (2) while Luke sees some value in some of Matthew’s material, he has no desire to actually promote Matthew and chops him into little pieces.
In the Infancy and Post-Resurrection material, it appears that Luke is effectively getting to the same place as Matthew, but by deliberately different means:
An angel announces the birth to a parent, but the parent differs (Joseph vs Mary)
Visitors at the Nativity - Magi from the East or simple local shepherds
Born in Bethlehem, but grew up in Nazareth, but for different reasons
Davidic lineage, but traced from different sons of David
‘You shall call his name Jesus’ (Matt 1.21, Luke 1.31) is the longest verbatim agreement between the two in the infancy narrative.
I’m going to skip Luke’s treatment of John the Baptist (and his inclusion in the Infancy Narrative) which I’ve discussed elsewhere on this forum)
In the Resurrection narrative, Luke appears again to be getting the same general result as Matthew, but by distinct means.
Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke) instead of Galilee (Matt); in Matthew’s final sentences Jesus initiate a mission to the Gentiles (Matt 28.19-20) from a mountain in Galilee. Luke writes and entire book about the mission to the Gentiles. The narrative of Luke’s gospel begins (with Zechariah) and ends in the temple. Acts begins in the temple and ends in Rome.
Best,
Ken
PS I owe some of these ideas, and a sharpening of my own ideas, to a recent online conversation with Jeff Cate.
Statistics: Posted by Ken Olson — Tue Apr 30, 2024 6:45 pm