MATTHEAN POSTERIORITY

An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem

Robert K. MacEwen

Bloomsbury T&T Clark

An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

BLOOMSBURY

london · new delhi · new york · sydney

Bloomsbury T&T Clark

An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Imprint previously known as T&T Clark

50 Bedford Square

1385 Broadway

London

New York

WC1B 3DP

NY 10018

UK

USA

www.bloomsbury.com

BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2015

© Robert K. MacEwen, 2015

Robert K. MacEwen has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN:

HB:

978-0-56736-434-0

ePDF:

978-0-56701-356-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

MacEwen, Robert K.

Matthean posteriority : an exploration of Matthew’s use of Mark and Luke as a solution to the synoptic problem / by Robert K. MacEwen. -- 1 [edition].

pages cm. -- (Library of New Testament studies; 501)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-567-36434-0 (hardback)

1. Bible. Matthew--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Synoptic problem. I. Title.

BS2575.52.M24 2015

226.2′066--dc23

2014030900

Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 501

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

501

Formerly Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor

Chris Keith

Editorial Board

Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

To Lisa, my beautiful, beloved wife.

她的价值远胜过珍珠。

Contents

Acknowlegments

Permissions

Abbreviations

List of Tables and Figures

Chapter 1

Introduction

I. Need for This Study

II. Purpose of This Study

III. Procedure of This Study

IV. Limitations of This Study

V. A Brief Survey of the Works of Key Matthean Posterioritists

a. Gottlob Christian Storr

b. Johann Gottfried Herder

c. Christian Gottlob Wilke

d. Gustav Schläger

e. William Lockton

f. Ernst von Dobschütz

g. H. Philip West Jr.

h. Ronald V. Huggins

i. Evan Powell

j. Martin Hengel

k. George A. Blair

l. Alan J. P. Garrow

m. James R. Edwards

n. Bartosz Adamczewski

o. Summary Evaluation of the Works of Key Matthean Posterioritists

Chapter 2

Further Arguments for Matthean ...

Content not shown in limited preview…
MP:EMUMLSSP

About Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem

This book explores the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH), a largely neglected solution to the Synoptic Problem, which holds that the author of the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source, and that the author of the Gospel of Matthew used both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke as sources.

The study begins with a survey of the scholars who have defended various forms of the MPH. Chapter 2 discusses two lines of evidence in support of the MPH. The first line of evidence is textual-demonstrating that Matthew knew the contents of Luke’s Gospel beyond merely the double tradition material. The second line of evidence, involving a study of strings of verbatim agreements in the Gospels, supports the view that Matthew depended directly on Luke. This chapter also includes a discussion of Luke’s Sondergut parables. Chapter 3 explores evidence and arguments which can be seen as problematic for the MPH. The book concludes that the MPH has been neither definitely proved nor disproved, and deserves further scholarly scrutiny.

Support Info

mtthnpstrrprblm

Table of Contents