On the Markan priority, the portrayal and development of the Twelve belong to the most iconic improvements of Matthew and Luke over Mark’s gospel. Going back to the 19th century, proponents of Matthew’s and Luke’s independence have pointed out Luke’s non-use of Matthean additions to Mark, including such passages as Matthew 9:9; 14:28-31; 16:17-19; 17:24-27. In recent decades, defenders of the Farrer hypothesis (Luke’s use of Matthew) have attempted to explain Luke’s failure to take over Matthew’s changes of Mark in these instances with a range of proposals. This article takes up the debate, responding to the arguments of the Farrer scholars and engaging the recently resurgent Matthean Posteriority hypothesis (Matthew’s use of Luke) which, it will be suggested, faces a similar set of issues.

The hypothetical phenomenon known as Luke’s ‘unpicking’ of some of Matthew’s Markan material has occupied the attention of synoptic problem specialists since the seminal article by F. Gerald Downing (1965). The discussion has received a number of contributions in recent years, first with an exchange between Christopher M. Tuckett and Francis Watson (both essays published in 2018) and now with a separate analysis by Eric Eve (2021). A comprehensive tabulation of the phenomenon, however, is still lacking, with the authors selectively focusing on some of the data. Eve concludes his discussion by suggesting that he has explained the phenomenon for the Farrer Hypothesis. However, Eve’s analysis does not include a number of the instances tabulated just a few years earlier by Watson. Moreover, Watson’s tabulation itself is need of an update, being unnecessarily narrow. In this article, I analyze Watson’s contribution to the discussion, developing his recognition of the phenomenon of unpicking and adjusting several aspects of his analysis. Assessment of the procedure’s difficulty does not belong to the article’s scope. Rather, this article aims to provide a comprehensive tabulation of Farrer Luke’s unpicking that can be utilized by synoptic specialists on all sides of the current discussion.

lugubrious build-up to Nazism, clarifying the way that a cult of the heroic dead became foundational for its indoctrination of the populace. All of this suggests that while there is some significant pushback against excesses in Girard's theory of sacrifice, there is also plenty of agreement that his readings of the scapegoating mechanism provide enlightening analyses of human behaviour under certain conditions of social arrangement.Overall, this volume provides a concise and manageable diversity of approaches to the question of how to appropriate Girard's legacy today.In several ways, it confirms the analytic power and fecundity of mimetic theory, even as it also shows its limits and its potential for misreading the plurality of cultural deposits. Queries regarding whether Girard's theories of sacrifice and scapegoating are truly 'universalisable' have been pointed out for decades already, as seen in some of John Milbank's theological deconstruction from the 1990s, as well as Jan Bremmer's scholarship from even earlier. So indeed these questions are not completely new, but the real benefit of this book is that it shows how a range of approaches can illuminate the benefits of mimetic theory, as well as showing where its explanatory capacity becomes less persuasive-particularly here as regards the theme of sacrifice. I think that after reading this book, one can no longer make simplistic inducements or allusions to Girard regarding how the moral problems of 'sacrificial' language outweigh its continued viability, and that therefore such terminology should be discarded as the product of a somewhat more benighted age. This volume shows, once again, the importance and continued relevancy of sacrificial practices in human societies, and that rather than being inherently repressive or destructive may form an outlet for renewed forms of cooperation and mutuality, the ceding of possessive individualism towards experiments in the common good.

No abstract

No abstract

In 1965, F. Gerald Downing first outlined the phenomenon that subsequently became known as Luke’s “unpicking” of his Matthean source—a frequent procedure whereby Luke, under the Farrer Hypothesis, appears to excise some of Matthew’s Markan material when copying Matthew’s non-Markan text. In the ensuing decades, Downing’s observations were seconded by a number of scholars supporting the Two-Document Hypothesis. Recently, Ken Olson (2004) and Eric Eve (2021) have responded to Downing from the position of the Farrer Hypothesis, with Eve asserting that his argument dismisses the phenomenon. We believe, however, that Downing’s discussion is more accurately in need of an update. In this article, we revisit two of Downing’s original (1965) test cases—the Beelzebul accusation and the appearance of John in the Synoptic Gospels—engaging Olson’s and Eve’s discussion of these two test cases and offering new observations. We conclude by providing an extensive tabulation of the phenomenon of unpicking to facilitate future discussion.

No abstract

No abstract