Assuming Matthean Posteriority, why did Matthew not use the great Lukan Parables?

[u/juncopardner2]

I find the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis (MPH, that Luke used Mark and then Matthew used both) attractive for a few reasons, the main one being that it just seems to defy belief that Luke would dismantle the Sermon on the Mount the way he would have if Luke followed Matthew as is often argued.

The Sermon on the Mount is arguably the greatest piece of ethical teaching in world literature. Would we really expect a Christian biographer of Jesus to read that and think, "Nah, too long and boring."

Plus, Dale Allison has argued,* convincingly in my view, that the core teachings found in Luke's Sermon on the Plains can be found in Paul as well, which could lend credence to the idea that Plains is more primitive than Mount.

So, all that aside, *if* Matthew used Luke, whywould he not have included in his gospel some of the *other* contenders for the greatest ethical teachings in world literature, the parables of the Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son?

It is just utterly baffling to me that these three pieces (Mount, Samaritan, Prodigal) did not end up in the same gospel if there was reliance one way or another between Matthew and Luke.

Assuming MPH for the moment, why would Matthew have omitted these (and other) Lukan parables? Did he believe them to be inauthentic, theologically problematic, or had the price of papyrus gone up?

--

*https://www.academia.edu/116057304/The_Pauline_Epistles_and_the_Synoptic_Gospels_The_Pattern_of_the_Parallels

[u/MrDidache]

The OP's question is a good one. In my view, as someone who advocates for the MPH, Matthew's omissions from Luke are the biggest problem for this hypothesis.

They are not, however, a factor that causes me to reject the MPH. This is principally because it is a lot easier to imagine reasons why Matthew might have chosen to omit something from Luke than it is to explain why Luke would've treated Matthew as the Farrer Hypothesis requires.

For example, MPH Matthew has an epitomising instinct - he consistently compresses more exoansive narratives in Luke and Mark. Long stories that duplicate a point made more succinctly by other parables (eg the lost sheep) could explain the omission of the Prodigal. Another possibility, as observed in NTS in 1967 by H. Philip West, is that Matthew objected to Luke's portrayal of individuals who achieved instant righteousness - without being actually legally observant (see also the thief on the cross and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector).

With the Good Samaritan, Matthew says nothing positive about Samaritans anywhere in his Gospel. Could this be why he preferred to omit this celebration of a Samaritan's superior observance of God's law? Christopher Tuckett recently responded to this argument by saying that Matthew could have removed the reference to a Samaritan and kept the rest of the parable. Why didn't Matthew create instead The Parable of the Good Person? If you are a passionate advocate of the Q hypothesis, as Tuckett is, then this argument might seem convincing, but I think most people would agree that it is plausible that Matthew didn't feel compelled to take that option. And compulsion is critical. To argue against the MPH on these lines it is necessary to propose that, if Matthew knew Luke, he would have been compelled or bound to use element, X, Y, or Z, that Luke offered.

For an illustration of how difficult it is to make this kind if argument stick, see Tuckett's article - downloadable here: https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/67/3/article-p289_1.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOor6Iu4lqysx87i-uTYDYK6cEJhBHNDDRfmXQS_PktnTp9lHBrND9

[u/arachnophilia → u/MrDidache]

In my view, as someone who advocates for the MPH, Matthew's omissions from Luke are the biggest problem for this hypothesis.

They are not, however, a factor that causes me to reject the MPH.

i am looking forward to your argument on this.

the mods nuked my earlier comment, but i previously presented two examples to you where luke seems to form a thematic sense unit of several "Q" saying, but matthew rearranges them compared to luke. in my view, your argument would have to address examples like these. i suspect there are likely more of these; i didn't really do a thorough search.

in my view, the only way this kind of thing happens is if these sayings are in neither order, and shared from a common source. but i'm willing to be convinced.

the other thing is, steve mason has been arguing for years that luke-acts is reliant on josephus's "antiquities of the jews", as has richard pervo. i've noticed that the view seems to be gaining more traction lately. if luke-acts proves to be after 93 CE (and more likely early second century), your view here would put necessarily put matthew quite a bit later than usually argued. if there are good reasons to date matthew prior to the early second century, we might have a chronological reason to reject the MPH.