Did Luke have access to the complete Matthew?

[JohnClay]

This is what @Sanoy was writing
Can the Christmas stories be reconciled?

....Matthew and Luke are around 15 years apart. Why would Luke make up a genealogy for Joseph when Josephs genealogy was already established by Matthew '15 years ago?...

....When I say first and second genealogical book, I am moving between Matthew which came first and Luke which came after Matthew.....

Can the Christmas stories be reconciled?

...the first genealogy [Matthew] being known for a long time.....It's inexplicable why they [Luke] would invent genealogical names when a messianic genealogy was already made several decades ago [Matthew].

It seems I'm unable to convince @Sanoy that he is mistaken about his beliefs so I was seeing if I can get Christians here to back me up.

My belief is that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and maybe Q. I don't think Luke had access to the complete book of Matthew.

I thought it would be better to start a new topic about this.

 

[HardHead]

Personally, I don't think the Q idea holds all that much water since a Q was never found (from what I know).

I think the authors of the synoptic gospels just read each-others work, or they discussed the topics and wrote accordingly to make sure they were all on the same page so to speak. I think of it as a team meeting of sorts (or perhaps in church terms a synod).

A discussion (e.g. Galatians 2:1-2) is easier for me to fathom than a text that we have no copies of given how much attention that even the smallest fragments get today from researchers.

 

[JohnClay]

Personally, I don't think the Q idea holds all that much water since a Q was never found (from what I know).

There seems to be a source that Matthew and Luke have in common: (maybe just oral)
The Bible's two Christmas stories told in parallel
They both mention Bethlehem, Nazareth, David, Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel, and that Mary was betrothed to marry Joseph.

I think the authors of the synoptic gospels just read each-others work, or they discussed the topics and wrote accordingly to make sure they were all on the same page so to speak. I think of it as a team meeting of sorts (or perhaps in church terms a synod).

Apparently a lot of Matthew and Luke is word-for-word from Mark and Mark is believed to have been written about 15 years before.

 

[HardHead]

There seems to be a source that Matthew and Luke have in common: (maybe just oral)

I know. I just don't think there is a Q book out there anywhere.

A conversation during a team meeting is more likely in my view.

My point is that they probably aimed to get the stories/accounts the same and to be on-point. The similarities are not accidental.

 

[JohnClay]

I know. I just don't think there is a Q book out there anywhere. A conversation during a team meeting is more likely in my view.

So are you saying that Matthew and Luke personally met up with each other?

Like Sanoy is saying,
"....It's inexplicable why they [Luke] would invent genealogical names when a messianic genealogy was already made several decades ago [Matthew]...." (I added the parts in brackets)

If Matthew and Luke knew about each other's genealogies, why are they so different? I guess Sanoy would say that this proves that one genealogy is for Joseph and one is for Mary...

 

[HardHead]

You may find this interesting. Its not bad.

https://www.amazon.com/Synopsis-Gos...MF7QE2G3R3T&psc=1&refRID=AP09BCHK6MF7QE2G3R3T

 

[JohnClay]

@HardHead do you have any evidence (preferably online, not a physical book) that Matthew and Luke had team meetings?

 

[HardHead]

So are you saying that Matthew and Luke personally met up with each other?

Either that, or that they looked at each-other's writings in some way. At the very least, some church people met and reviewed what was to be written.

Regarding genealogies, look at some historical accounts of these ideas in general, not just biblical ones. Questioning the reliability of these things is always a consideration.

Regarding the rest, I am only speaking for myself and not making comments regarding a conversation I had no part in.

You may also consider that Mark is viewed by some people as the writer of Peter's gospel (i.e. The Gospel According to Mark) since Mark followed Peter around so to speak. See Acts, I think, for this collaboration, etc.

Introduction to the Gospel of Mark - Study Resources

 

[HardHead]

@HardHead do you have any evidence (preferably online, not a physical book) that Matthew and Luke had team meetings?

No, but I gave you an example where Paul met with Cephas (i.e. Peter) to review preaching materials (see my Galatians reference). To me, this suggests that the apostles did this in general.

 

[JohnClay]

....My point is that they probably aimed to get the stories/accounts the same and to be on-point.....

Well that was a failure - the genealogies are pretty much completely different except for the prophecies they fulfil (Jesus would be a descendent of Abraham, King David, and governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel)

 

[hedrick]

I don't think Q necessarily has to be a book. Scholars generally think so, but really, a shared tradition would do the same thing. I don't think that really changes much.

It doesn't seem that the Christmas stories are from Q.

 

[HardHead]

Exactly.

 

[HardHead]

the genealogies are pretty much completely different except for the prophecies they fulfil

Except for the key part?

 

[JohnClay]

A web page that looks at the issue:
So Luke did not know Matthew after all?

 

[JohnClay]

....It doesn't seem that the Christmas stories are from Q.

If it isn't Q then there is some source that the Christmas stories have in common see:
The Bible's two Christmas stories told in parallel
A virgin will give birth to the Messiah, Mary was betrothed to marry Joseph, etc

 

[hedrick]

If it isn't Q then there is some source that the Christmas stories have in common see:
The Bible's two Christmas stories told in parallel
A virgin will give birth to the Messiah, Mary was betrothed to marry Joseph, etc

I agree that it's unlikely Matthew and Luke came up with this idea individually. Quite likely there was a common source or tradition. I guess you could call it Q. But generally Q is a sayings source, not a narrative, and generally it appears with nearly or actually the same wording. (That's why scholars typically think it was written. However that culture was probably capable of transmitting sacred tradition verbally with great accuracy.) It would seem odd for Matthew and Luke to take just the general concept of the virgin birth but show virtually no verbal similarity, whereas for Jesus' teachings the wording of Q is used.

 

[redleghunter]

Both gospel accounts were written in the life time of the apostles and witnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ. That is why they are similar.

 

[joshua 1 9]

My belief is that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and maybe Q.

Mark was the son of the women that owned the upper room. This is where the disciples stayed when they were in Jerusalem. Mark loved to be a part of what was going on. He loved to sit in on the teaching of Jesus. Still Mark was very young and he did not travel with Jesus the way Matthew did. It is absurd to suggest that Matthew copied from Mark. Matthew would have been the tutor and Mark the student. Just like in a college today where the lower class man learn from the upper class men. Even this upper class and lower class label permeates society as a whole.

 

[hedrick]

Both gospel accounts were written in the life time of the apostles and witnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ. That is why they are similar.

That would be a common tradition.

 

[JohnClay]

....... It is absurd to suggest that Matthew copied from Mark.....

I think many verses in Matthew have the same wording as Mark (or at least I've heard this is the case with Luke and Mark)