Gnats, Camels, and Matthew’s Use of Luke

Abstract

A striking feature of the current state of Synoptic Problem studies is the almost universal acceptance of Markan Priority. If Mark was indeed used by both Matthew and Luke, this reduces the number of simple solutions to the Synoptic Problem to just two: Luke used Matthew or Matthew used Luke. Studies promoting the latter option, the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH), have recently begun to attract wider critical attention. This article examines the three critical responses published sivnce 2017 and asks which of the problems so far identified presents the most serious problem for the MPH.

Gnats, Camels, and Peter in the Synoptic Gospels: Response to Alan Garrow’s “Matthew’s Use of Luke”

“…The objective of the Gundry-Garrow team, then, is to show that in the five cases discussed below Matthew's redaction "does not enhance Peter's status." 27 As we shall see, in these five places Matthew either removes Peter from the narrative or generalizes him to "disciples." The inference of the Gundry-Garrow argument appears to be that since these moves do not enhance Peter's status (and, in fact, in Gundry's opinion, lower it), retaining Peter in all five settings would enhance his status relative to what Matthew has done.…”

KΛINH / KΛINIΔION: A Note on Two Minor Agreements (Mt 9.2, 6 / Lk 5.18, 24)

“… 4 Currently, this platform is shared by the Two Source (Two Document) Hypothesis; Farrer Hypothesis; and Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis, of which the first two require little introduction. For the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (Matthew used Mark and Luke; no Q), see Adamczewski (2010); MacEwen (2015); and Garrow (2023). See the conclusion of this article for some implications of our discussion for each of these three theories. …”