The same argument which refutes Matthew’s use of Luke refutes Luke’s use of Matthew.
But it may be added, that upon either of these hypotheses it becomes impossible to explain the changes which appear to have been made by both Matthew and Luke in the material common to them, both in its wording and its order. If Matthew copied from Luke, he would naturally have followed his order, which he does not do. Or, deviating from that order for obvious reasons, he would naturally return to it when those reasons no longer prevailed, which he does not do. Or if Luke copied from Matthew, he could hardly have inserted a genealogical tree which is at variance with Matthew’s, in the unnatural place where it now is, as against the natural place in which he found it in Matthew. Nor could he, when he had the Sermon on the Mount before him in the form in which Matthew gives it, break it up into little pieces and scatter it up and down thruout his Gospel. Moreover, in the sayings common to Matthew and Luke it is now one and now the other who preserves what we must consider the most original reading; as when Matthew says, “Cleanse first the inside of the cup,” and Luke in place of this says, “Give alms of that which is within.” But again it is not Matthew but Luke who gives the more original form of a saying; as when Luke says “Blessed are ye poor,” and Matthew says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”
The phenomena of peculiar words, ninety-five characteristic of Matthew and one hundred and fifty-one characteristic of Luke, is also impossible of explanation upon the theory that either writer copied from the other. If either one were copying from the other, they would certainly agree against Mark in some really important matter, and not merely in an occasional word or phrase. If Luke were copying from Matthew, he would certainly have incorporated some one of those numerous additions which Matthew makes to the narratives of Mark.[70]
In addition to any of the more general considerations which have suggested the possible use of Matthew by Luke, a recent writer has evolved an ingenious and somewhat elaborate proof for this use, which it may be well to consider in some detail.
A RECENT ATTEMPT TO PROVE MATTHEW A SOURCE FOR LUKE
Mr. Robinson Smith[71] attempts to dispose both of Ur-Marcus and Q by maintaining that Luke copied from Matthew. His argument rests upon the deviations which Matthew and Luke make, respectively, in their common abbreviations of certain of Mark’s narratives. “Where a choice from two or more Marcan expressions has been made, the first choice falls to Matthew and the second to Luke.”
As examples of these first choices by Matthew and second choices by Luke, Mr. Smith instances (with the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke) Mk i, 32; iii, 7, 8; x, 29, 33, 34; xii, 3; xiv, 1, 12, 65; xv, 42. The argument seems to be that Luke having both Mark and Matthew before him, and seeing that in each of these instances Matthew has chosen a certain part of Mark’s phrase and rejected the rest, himself avoids using that part of the phrase which Matthew has chosen, restricting himself to the part which Matthew has left unused. We will take up first the particular instances, and see whether other, perhaps simpler, reasons suggest themselves for these deviations; after that we will consider the general argument.
Mk i, 32 (Mt viii, 16; Lk iv, 40): Mark’s phrase runs Ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης, ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος. Of this phrase, Matthew takes the first three words as they stand. Luke appropriates the remainder, changing into Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου. Mark’s phrase is here redundant, and Matthew and Luke (as usual) both reduce the redundancy. But Matthew has omitted the point of Mark’s phrase, since in Matthew’s account the events described did not happen on the Sabbath. Luke has retained the essential part of the phrase.[72]
Mk iii, 7, 8 (Mt iv, 25; Lk vi, 17): “Mark gives in order and by name six districts from which the multitudes came. Matthew mentions all save the last, Tyre and Sidon. Luke omits the first, fourth, and fifth, but does mention the last, Tyre and Sidon.” The changes in these lists seem to be more various than Mr. Smith suggests. Matthew adds Decapolis and omits Idumaea.[73] The thing hard to account for in Luke’s list is his omission of Galilee, not his inclusion of Tyre and Sidon. These latter regions would interest him especially, with his universalistic tendency; we should hardly have been surprised to find him adding them if he had not found them in Mark. A simple explanation of the changes made by both Matthew and Luke may perhaps be seen in Matthew’s Judaistic tendency, which led him to omit Tyre and Sidon, and in Luke’s universalistic tendency which made him include them. To make Mr. Smith’s argument hold in this case, Luke should certainly have come much closer than he does, to preserving the parts which Matthew rejects, and rejecting the parts which he retains. It appears that Luke has no great knowledge of nor interest in Palestinian geography, but Tyre and Sidon suited his purpose.
Mk x, 29 (Mt xix, 29; Lk xviii, 29): Mark here has ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Matthew has ἕνεκα τοῦ ἐμοῦ ὀνόματος, and Luke εἵνεκεν τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ. But Matthew’s “my name’s sake” is not the same as Mark’s “my sake,” and seems to bespeak Matthew’s later date of writing. Luke’s “for the sake of the kingdom of God” has a more primitive sound than the latter part of Mark’s phrase. It probably represents the original words of Jesus which Matthew has everywhere changed into the “kingdom of heaven.” Since all the passages in Mark where the word εὐαγγέλιον occurs are on independent grounds suspected of being later additions, it seems probable that the reading of Mark which Matthew and Luke had before them here was merely ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, that both Matthew and Luke changed this phrase as they would, and that the ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου of Mark is later than either Matthew or Luke. At all events, it does not seem to be true in this instance that Matthew takes the first part of Mark’s phrase and Luke the last.