An SBL/AARdvent Calendar - Introduction

This year's annual meeting of the SBL/AAR sees an important development in the study of the Synoptic Problem: for the first time in a long time at SBL a 'new' solution to the Problem will come under the scrutiny of a major specialist scholar. Prof Mark Goodacre will present a paper: 'Why not Matthew's use of Luke?' (see abstract below).
 
To mark this occasion I've created a series of twenty-four blog posts - one for every day in the run-up to the session. If you plan to attend SBL I hope that this series, which will include contributions by Evan Powell (creator of the $1,000 Challenge), Rob MacEwen, Erik Aurelius and Richard Bauckham, will whet your appetite for what should be a lively session.  

If, like me, you are unable to attend this year's SBL, then I hope these posts will provide a means of keeping in touch with this potentially important debate.
​

​Why Not Matthew's Use of Luke?
Mark Goodacre
​
A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob MacEwen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of the Farrer Theory have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for Luke’s use of Matthew remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.