 In the beginning, scholars interested in the relationship between Luke and Matthew were confident of two things. First, Matthew could not have used Luke because Matthew is first generation and Luke second (an assumption that no longer holds). Second, Luke could not have used Matthew because this would require Luke to dismember Matthew's supreme achievement, the Sermon on the Mount.
In conversations I've had with semi-interested scholars and students over many years I’ve learned that the most common objection to the theory that Luke used Matthew (as proposed by the Farrer Hypothesis – FH), is the way if requires Luke to treat Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. This is a sticking point that sticks. The Sermon on the Mount is so well known that even relatively casual observers can register the problem. Why would Luke remove and scatter the innards of Matthew's Sermon, leaving behind the shorter, less memorable Sermon on the Plain? For Farrer theorists there must be a reason, since they are convinced, on other grounds, that Luke used Matthew. The problem can only lie, therefore, with the subjective halo that surrounds the Sermon on the Mount. If that bubble could be burst, then this prime reason for rejecting the FH could be overcome. Accordingly, FH supporters have, over the years, ventured pragmatic, aesthetic, procedural, theological and literary motivations for FH Luke's behaviour.[1] The problem with all these approaches, however, is that they end up placing FH Luke in a minority of one. Matthew’s is by far the most widely quoted Gospel from the second century onwards and, in the course of that time, no one has ever complained about his Sermon being too long, too rich in content, too comprehensive, insufficiently aesthetically pleasing, too theologically insubstantial, or too out of step with literary expectation. Rather, as Luke Timothy Johnson puts it: "In the history of Christian thought - indeed in the history of those observing Christianity - the Sermon on the Mount has been considered an epitome of the teaching of Jesus and therefore, for many, the essence of Christianity".[2] For nearly two millennia, therefore, Matthew 5-7 has been the go-to place for the ethical teaching of Jesus. If Farrer’s Luke thought his readers would prefer it if he scattered this resource amongst the unrelated content of Luke 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 16, then he was wrong. Comprehensively wrong. At this point I step back and return to the beginning. The Farrer theorists’ mistake, so far as I can see it, is that they absorbed the early assumption that Matthew could not have used Luke.[3] This caused them to equate good evidence of direct copying between Luke and Matthew with good evidence that Luke used Matthew. This then fuelled their conviction that, no matter how counterintuitive it may seem, Luke must have had a motive for dismantling Matthew’s Sermon. In consequence, they have engaged in ever more detailed explanations for what that reason might have been. But why keep pushing water up this hill? Why not go with the flow? Under the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH), in which Matthew used Luke, all the water runs in the same direction. Now, just as Matthew puts flesh on the skeleton provided by Mark’s Gospel to create his more popular Matthew’s Gospel, so he also puts flesh on the skeleton provided by Luke’s Sermon on the Plain to create his more popular Sermon on the Mount. With the most popular objection to the FH thus turned on its head, a new question arises. What could be the number one reason for rejecting the MPH?[4] [For a more detailed discussion of how FH Luke and MPH Matthew use one another's Sermons, see the video 'Did Matthew use Luke?'] [1] Austin Farrer began this process in, ‘On Dispensing with Q’, in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Blackwell, 1955) 65, where he defends Luke’s right to make of his ‘garden’ whatever he will, regardless of the aesthetic disapproval of onlookers. Michael Goulder, in Luke: A New Paradigm (Sheffield Academic Press,1989) 347, expresses the view that, ‘Matthew’s Sermon is far too long. Who can take in so much spiritual richness in a single gulp?’ Mark Matson, in, ‘Luke’s rewriting of the Sermon on the Mount’, in Questioning Q, (SPCK, 2004) 64, argues that Luke’s reordering has a “distinctive theology”. Mark Goodacre, in ‘Re-Walking the ‘Way of the Lord’: Luke’s Use of Mark and his Reaction to Matthew’, in, Luke’s Literary Creativity (Bloomsbury, 2016), suggests that Mark’s ‘Way of the Lord’ is the motif that guides the distribution of Luke’s source material. Joel Archer in, ‘Ancient Bioi and Luke’s Modification of Matthew’s Longer Discourses’, New Testament Studies (2022) 76-88, argues that Luke shortens Matthew’s long speeches to conform them to the standard set by other ancient biographies. [2] Luke Timothy Johnson, ‘The Sermon on the Mount’, in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (Oxford University Press, 2000) 654 - quoted by Joel Archer in the article noted above. [3] The absorption of this assumption also applies to proponents of the Two Document Hypothesis – in which Matthew and Luke independently used both Mark and Q. It was their lack of engagement with this option that caused Mark Goodacre similarly to disregard it. Thus, in The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (Continuum, 2001) 108, he states: "The theory that Matthew has read Luke ... is rarely put forward by sensible scholars and will not be considered here". [4] I set out to identify the biggest problem with the MPH in ‘Gnat’s Camels and Matthew’s use of Luke’
3 Comments
 I propose that, beneath the surface of the version of the Didache discovered by Bryennios, lie two previously separate documents that were spliced together and then overlaid with later material. A conference presentation summarising this idea is available here: BNTS 2023 An argument for thinking that one of these two documents is the Apostolic Decree (referred to in Acts 15), is that it resolves the Acts-Galatians conundrum. A conference presentation on this topic is available here: BNTS 2017 A further exploration of this topic is now available as part of a Brill collection of essays in honour of Clayton Jefford. Here is the opening section (pp. 120-121) of my essay: "Salvation by One Step or Two?: The Didache, Acts and the Background to Galatians". "Paul faced an extraordinary challenge. By some means, his opponents had persuaded the Galatians that their membership in the salvation group rested not on one step but two. These Christians had previously been so loyal that they would have plucked out their eyes for Paul’s sake (Gal 4:15), so how could his opponents have persuaded them that salvation required the extra step of full Torah observance, including circumcision? An indication of their method might perhaps be found in the fact that Paul describes the Galatians as foolish (3:1, 3) and as having been bewitched (3:1), persuaded (5:8), and confused (5:10) by his opponents. Paul apparently detects some element of deception. But what trick could have been used to convince these Christians to adopt a belief so utterly at odds with what Paul had previously taught? A clue might be found in the fact that Paul finds it necessary to urge the Galatians to reject the circumcision gospel even if it should appear that he himself is teaching it (1:8). This suggests that the circumcision party had somehow found a way to present their gospel as something that Paul himself endorsed. This would explain the otherwise inexplicable fact that Paul feels the need to provide specific evidence that he is not teaching circumcision: “why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision” (5:11).[1] But how could any of this have been possible? How could Paul’s opponents have perverted his gospel so convincingly that the whole community of Galatian Christians was taken in? As I attempt to answer this question, I begin by picking up a thread hinted at by Clayton Jefford in 1992: [I]t is quite probable that the Redactor [of the Didache] was intimately familiar with an early version of the [Apostolic] Decree that was known and circulated within the community at Antioch. This version, which would predate the form of the Decree that eventually was incorporated into Acts, actually may have been preserved in Didache 6 in a more pristine state than the version of the Decree that appears in Acts 15. [2] Jefford holds back from suggesting that the Didache is the Apostolic Decree, but he does go so far as to suggest that both Luke and the author of the Didache might have had access to the original Apostolic Decree—with the latter preserving that text more faithfully than did Luke. This essay pursues that suggestion further. In what follows I will attempt to show that the Didache, in its original form, preserves the text of the Apostolic Decree directly and in full—and that it was Paul’s endorsement of this Apostolic Decree that enabled his opponents to present him as preaching the additional necessity of circumcision even though, in reality, nothing could have been further from his intention. ... " [1] Hans Dieter Betz writes: “What the Apostle has precisely in mind [in 5:11] will in all likelihood always be hidden from our knowledge. Presumably, he refers to matters known to the Galatians as well as to himself, but unknown to us. … If the Galatians had been told by the opponents that Paul preached circumcision, how could they believe it?” (Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 268).
[2] Clayton N. Jefford, “Tradition and Witness in Antioch: Acts 15 and Didache 6,” in Perspectives on Contemporary New Testament Questions: Essays in Honor of T. C. Smith, ed. Edgar V. McKnight (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1992), 75–89, here 88 … . See also Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, VCSup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 96–97. One of the most frustrating passages in Luke's Gospel occurs in the story of the Road to Emmaus: Luke 24.26-27 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 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?
A few days ago I tried asking a related question in an AMA with Bart Ehrman: Robert Derrenbacker recently wrote: Bart's full answer can be found in the clip posted above. The original context is Reddit/AcademicBiblical/BartEhrman-MatthewAMA
The arresting thing about this answer is that (after explaining the Q Theory) Bart offers a reason why he thinks Luke did not use Matthew. What he does not do is offer a comparable reason why Matthew could not have used Luke. This is, however, not surprising. The mechanics of Matthew's use of Luke are a lot like the mechanics of Matthew's use of Q - (which explains the initial quote from Robert Derrenbacker, an established Q scholar). Bart does not have a problem with the way Matthew is required to use Q, so it is understandably difficult for him to offer this type of reason why Matthew could not have used Luke. So far my questioning of Bart Ehrman has produced bold and confident statements that Matthew could not have used Luke, but without an explanation of the basis for that confidence. "Nobody thinks that", is not enough. And, without a rational basis for believing that Matthew could not have used Luke, Bart has no rational basis for believing in Q - a hypothetical entity in which he, nevertheless, continues to have faith. See also: Swinging big and swinging blind: Bart's extra gamble [1] Robert Derrenbacker Jr., '"Unfinished" Mark "Replaced" by Matthew and Luke? Some Recent Studies and their Implications for the Synoptic Problem', in The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference, Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri, Joseph Verheyden (eds) (BiTS 44, Peeters, 2023) page 193.
Abstract:
On the one hand, the discovery of the Didache is commonly regarded as one of the great manuscript finds of the nineteenth century. On the other, its discovery has had remarkably little impact on how scholars think and talk about early Christianity. The reason for this disconnect is not merely that the Didache makes little sense alongside the other texts available to us but also because it fails to make sense on its own terms: simple, practical instructions in one part are sometimes directly contradicted by instructions in another. In response to this puzzle, this paper proposes that the Didache is not one document but two, which have been spliced together and overlaid with further additions. When this process is reversed, two Didaches emerge. Initial indications suggest that these are: the Complete Apostolic Decree (cf. Acts 15) and the Missing Epistle of John (cf. 3 John 9). The Didache Discoveries booklet serves as a handout for this session. Further conference videos are also available.  The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference, eds Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J. Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri and Joseph Verheyden (BiTS 44, Leuven: Peeters, 2023) includes seven contributions by six MPHers including: Ron Huggins, Chakrita Saulina, Rob MacEwen, Edmondo Lupieri and Jeff Tripp.
My contribution, ''Frame and Fill' and Matthew's use of Luke', 227-298, is available Open Access. This chapter looks at how Plutarch, Josephus, Tatian, Ammonius of Alexandria and Eusebius combined (or aligned) multiple versions of the same narrative. It concludes that Matthew using Luke runs with the grain of that practice, while Luke using Matthew does the opposite.  Rob MacEwen's Matthean Posteriority: was published on the 29th January 2015 - the same day (and in the same series) as John Poirier and Jeffery Peterson's edited volume Marcan Priority without Q. The MPH received no attention in the latter volume other than in the Introduction. Here it is noted in passing that the term 'Marcan Priorty without Q' might also apply to the theory espoused by Ron Huggins, Martin Hengel, and others. Fast-forward six years to 11th May 2023 and the publication of Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J. Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri and Joseph Verheyden (eds). The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference (Leuven, Peeters, 2023). Here the editors' Introduction includes the MPH at a very different level: In hindsight, it now seems clear that the emergence of the MPH will be cited as one of, if not the defining feature of the 2010s as far as the synoptic studies are concerned. … With the highest number of pro- and MPH-leaning contributions published by various authors in one place to date (Garrow, Huggins, Lupieri, MacEwen, Saulina, Tripp), this volume will likely be remembered as the moment the MPH crossed into the mainstream of synoptic studies. Thereby its theorists have made good on the momentum the MPH somewhat unexpectedly generated in the 2010s. Several factors have contributed to this transformation, critically important of course has been the publication of Rob MacEwen's book. Also high on that list, however, must come the contribution of Olegs Andrejevs (pictured). While also a staunch supporter of the Two Document Hypothesis, Olegs has created space for MPH-inclusive debate at SBL as well as in the Loyola Conference volume. Thank you Olegs for your part in increasing the MPH.
 It is now possible to register for the SBL Global Virtual Meeting to held 27-31 March 2023, which features a panel discussion of the forthcoming Olegs Andrejevs, Simon J Joseph, Edmondo Lupieri and Joseph Verheyden (eds), The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference (Leuven, Peeters, April 2023), The session will take place online at 15:00 New York, 21:00 Brussels, 6:00 Melbourne on Thursday 30th March (31st in Melbourne).
The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH) has begun to attract critical attention. After an earlier response by Gerald Downing in 2017, 2022 saw the publication of two essays that specifically challenge the idea that Matthew used Luke. My response, 'Gnats, Camels and Matthew's use of Luke', JSNT (2023), asks which of these criticisms is most telling.
To celebrate the fifth anniversary of the $1,000 Challenge to Bart Ehrman (in December 2017) here is the story of a student who was considering similar questions at roughly the same time.  Hendry Ongkowidjojo is a senior pastor at G.K.A. Elyon, Surabaya, and a New Testament lecturer at STT Reformed-Injili International, Jakarta. He first became interested in the possibility of Matthew using Mark and Luke, while working on a proposal for his dissertation at Trinity Theological College, Singapore (completed in 2017). Here is his story:
“Before applying to the doctoral program, the area of New Testament that I studied was Paul. My thesis at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinois, deals with the History of the Interpretation of Romans 9. In fact, initially I planned to do a dissertation on Paul use of Isaiah. Everything changed when I read John Kloppenborg's, Excavating Q. I became interested in the Synoptic Problem for the very first time. Previously, Robert Stein's The Synoptic Problem had convinced me that Q was the best explanation to the Synoptic Problem. Since then I had never questioned Q, and had even promoted Q to the students I teach. But after I read Kloppenborg, who is actually one of the main proponents of Q, it dawned on me that things weren't that simple. My interest in these issues was strengthened by dozens of years of experience serving in Indonesia. As a servant of God living in the largest Muslim country in the world, I often receive questions about Christ and his history. And the differences found in the Synoptic Gospels are often used as ammunition to question Christianity. Kloppenborg's book therefore made me want to understand more about the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. As I prepared my research proposal I became aware that the possibility of Matthew using Mark and Luke was barely mentioned in the literature. I read a lot about Q, Farrer, Griesbach, and even other much more complicated theories, but very rarely did anyone even mention, let alone propose, that Matthew might have used Mark and Luke. As a novice, I wondered if this was because the experts all knew a reason why Matthew could not have used Mark and Luke that was so obvious that no further discussion as needed. But then I discovered that, towards the end of his career, Martin Hengel proposed that Matthew used Luke. This was interesting to me. On the one hand, if Hengel supported this theory, why was it not more popular? On the other, surely Hengel would not have gone against the grain without good reason. Furthermore, given the impasse in the debate between Q and Farrer supporters, it seemed sensible to study the only "simple" possibility that had been overlooked - the idea that Matthew used Mark and Luke. The more I study, the more I see the explanatory power of the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH). I find that it is particularly helpful in understanding and applying Matthew's Gospel, both academically and pastorally. More recently, I was overjoyed to discover that there are now many more New Testament scholars who hold the MPH. I do believe that reading Matthew's Gospel with the perspective that Matthew knows Luke and Mark is very promising in both solving the Synoptic Problem and in helping us to understand and apply Matthew's Gospel.” |
AuthorAlan Garrow is Vicar of St Peter's Harrogate and a member of SCIBS at the University of Sheffield. Archives
August 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed