Alan Garrow's Blog

Matthew makes up for Luke's lack?

1/4/2024

One of the most frustrating passages in Luke's Gospel occurs in the story of the Road to Emmaus:

Luke 24.26-27
Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

If only Cleopas, or his companion, had taken notes of Jesus' tour through Scripture.
Something similarly frustrating occurs early on in Mark's Gospel.

Mark 1.21-22
They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.

When Matthew encounters this omission in Mark he responds with the Sermon on the Mount (inserted into the space between Mark 1.21 (combined with other scene-setting verses) and Mark 1.22).

If Matthew used Luke, as proponents of the MPH propose, then maybe he had a similar reaction in response to Luke 24.26-27? Could this be why Matthew presents virtually every major event in Jesus' life as a fulfilment of Scripture?

1 Comment

Richard Fellows link

9/6/2024 11:20:02 pm

Hi Alan. I could not find a search button on your blog, so my comments will be somewhat off-topic. I too have been wondering whether Luke preceded Matthew. Your History Valley discussion is clear and engaging, as always. I have not studied the synoptic problem in detail, but suspect that there were many early gospels, most of which have not survived in their original form. If so, this would mean Ocam's razor is not a powerful tool for solving the synoptic problem, and the likely messiness is unlikely to be recoverable. However, I do think that we can show that Acts was written by a companion of Paul, called Luke/Lucius (Rom 16:21). My own work on textual variants, pseudonymity, and the named characters in Paul shows that early egalitarianism in the church gave way to patriarchy before the end of the first century. I am therefore interested in your point that Matthew is more patriarchal than Luke. If so, it could be a data point for relative dating. A counter-argument, of course, is that Matthew has a higher view of the Law.

I see that you are still interested in Galatians. Did you ever read my 2018 Biblica article on the circumcision of Titus-Timothy, and the confusion in Galatia?

Your idea of an easier version of Luke is interesting. I would argue that additions tended to spread, and that large additions tended to spread more widely than small additions. This means that it is a weak argument to say that the lack of shorter versions of Luke shows that there was not an earlier shorter version.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

the problem page

Matthew makes up for Luke's lack?

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories