The Basis for Luke Primacy
Refutation of the Farrer Hypothesis
Refutation of the Farrer Hypothesis

Refutation of the Farrer Hypothesis

Overview of the Farrer Theory

The Farrer hypothesis (also known as the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis) is the theory that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then the author of the Gospel of Luke used both Mark and Matthew as source material. This was advocated by English biblical scholars including Austin Farrer, who wrote On Dispensing With Q in 1955, and by other scholars including Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre.

Advocates of the Farrer theory argue that Luke used both the previous gospels (Mark and Matthew) based on a claim of editorial fatigue. This is refuted in the section below, which demonstrates a stronger case for the view of Lukan Priority (Luke is first of the Synoptics) and Matthean Posteriority (Matthew is written last of the Synoptics in view of both Luke and Mark). Luke is more abbreviated in most passages when compared to Mark and Matthew, and Luke also reflects a more primitive text. 

In the article below, “Lukan” is used pertaining to Luke, “Marcan” is used pertaining to Mark, and “Matthean” is used pertaining to Matthew. Lukan is sometimes spelled Lucan and Marcan is sometimes spelled Markan. The typical spelling is based on spelling exhibited on Wikipedia.

GPT.Bible Series / AI Critical New Testament publications available on Amazon (Affiliate partner, commissions earned from qualified purchases)

Now provided is a refutation of Mark Goodacre in his attempt to substantiate the Farrer hypothesis based on an appeal to editorial fatigue.

order of the gospels

Refutation of the Farrer Hypotheses and Mark Goodacre regarding Luke

One key aspect of the Farrer theory claim to Marcan priority is an argument based on editorial fatigue. Editorial fatigue is a phenomenon that occurs when a writer is dependent on another’s work. It happens when a writer makes changes that are not sustained throughout. Examples of fatigue are unconscious mistakes or small errors of detail that arise in reconstructing a narrative.  Below, we look at several passages that Mark Goodacre’s claims exhibit editorial fatigue. These are from his well-known paper “Fatigue in the Synoptics” which was originally published in New Testament Studies vol. 44 (1998), pp. 45-58

Herod King or Tetrarch

Goodacre starts with the commonly cited example of ‘fatigue’ given by G. M Styler in his notable article on Marcan priority. He draws attention to the comparison of Mark 6:14-29 regarding the death of John the Baptist. For Mark, Herod is always ‘king’, four times in the passage. Matthew, however, uses the term ‘tetrarch’ in various places but also calls Herod ‘the king’ halfway through the story in Matt 14:9, in agreement with Mark 6:26. Some claim that Matthew seems to be a change that is in compliance with the historian Josephus, who calls Herod Antipas ‘tetrarch’ (Ant. 17.188; 18.102, 100, and 122). Luke also typically calls Herod tetrarch  (Luke 3.1, Luke 3:19, and Luke 9:7), but also refers to Herod as king of Judea in Luke 1:5. 

The best explanation of this evidence is that it is appropriate to call Herod both ‘tetrarch’ and ‘king’. Luke refers to Herod as being the ‘king’ of Judea, which just implies being the ruler of Judea. Clearly, this is no accident, on account of the same author calling Herod ‘king’ in Acts 12:1. Thus, Luke’s use of the word King is no product of fatigue. This apparent fatigue can easily be explained from a Lukan priority perspective as follows:

  1. Mark sees Luke in which Herod is generally called ‘tetrarch’ but is called king with respect to Judea.’ Mark is biased toward the most embellished terminology, so he elects to use ‘king’ in all cases and doesn’t qualify his rulership in making reference to Judea regarding the term king
  2. Matthew sees both Luke and Mark. Matthew tends to favor Mark, but sometimes reverts to Lukan words and text. Thus, this isn’t a clear example of fatigue. It turns out this inconsistency isn’t that serious.

Styler does find a more serious inconsistency in Matthew’s version of the story of Herod’s decision to kill John the Baptist. Mark 6:18-19 indicates that Herod protected John and that it was Herod’s wife that wanted John killed. Matthew changes the story to indicate in Matt 14:5 that Herod, and not Herodias, wanted John killed. Both Mark 6:26 and Matthew 14:9 contain a statement that speaks of the king’s grief. According to Matthew, there is no reason for the King to be grieved if it was not his intent to kill John. So here we have an example of Matthew incorporating material from Mark and resulting in an inconsistency by incorporating contradictory details in the story. This appears to be a valid example of editorial fatigue, which points to Matthew’s use of Mark. However, this example only applies to Matthew and does not substantiate that Luke used Mark as Luke makes no mention of the king’s grief. 

 

The Cleansing of the Leper

The cleansing of the Leper in Luke 5:12-16, Mark 1:40-45, and Matt 8:1-4 is another passage often cited as an example of editorial fatigue. In Matthew, the author is returning to triple tradition material just after the Sermon on the Mount. He resets the scene by introducing ‘many crowds’ in Matt 8:1. Matthew like Mark has the injunction given by Jesus to the leper, “Tell no-one, but go, show yourself to the priest.” According to Matthew, the injunction makes no sense because the miracle is witnessed by the crowds. Unlike Matthew, Luke and Mark do not have crowds and the leper meets Jesus privately so the command of silence is coherent. This is another valid case of editorial fatigue. But this example is also compatible with the idea that Luke was written first, as Mark maintained a similar context as Luke, but Matthew changed the context in reference to crowds despite Luke and Mark. This example reflects negatively on Matthew, but not on Luke. 

The Story of Jesus’ Mother and brothers

The story of Jesus’ Mother and Brother is a third common example given of triple tradition material said to exhibit editorial fatigue. This corresponds to Luke 8:19-21, Mark 3:31-35, and Matthew 12:46-50. Mark 3:20 earlier makes reference to a house, whereas Matthew and Luke don’t. Some claim there is an incongruity in the progression from one pericope to the next because the most recent scene in Matthew was a departure from the synagogue. Matthew is also problematic because, unlike Luke, there is no mention of a crowd in the direct context of Jesus’ statement regarding his mother and brothers. 

In Luke 8:19 the direct context is that “his mother and brothers could not reach him because of the crowd.” So regarding Luke, the statement that “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you” clearly is with respect to the crowd and not a dwelling. That is, the crowd was obstructing their access to him, and they were “outside” of it. The Greek word for outside is ἔξω (exō), which has a general meaning of out (literally or figuratively) and can be translated as “out of”, “forth”, “outward”, or “away”. The use of this word does not necessarily indicate a reference to a home or dwelling. For example, Luke 11:19, “And when evening came they went out of the city,” and Luke 12:8, “and they… threw him out of the vineyard.” Thus, Luke is not problematic without reference to a home because it is the crowd that Jesus’ mother and brothers are outside. 

Mark 3:20-21 is also an addition that neither Luke nor Matthew exhibits. From the perspective of Lukan priority, the explanation of Mark 3:20-21 is that Mark wanted to spice up the story by adding the claims of the crowds being so out of control that they could not even eat—indicating his family being astonished by his fame. The reference to home in Mark 3:20 could be indicating Jesus’ hometown or city rather than his house or enclosed dwellings. The Greek word οἶκος (oikos) can mean house, household, family, whole clan, or tribe of people descended from, as well as property, possessions, or estate. So, Mark 3:20 isn’t necessarily indicting an enclosed structure but could be speaking of Jesus’ hometown or property. Furthermore, the reference to “home” in Mark 1:20 is not in the direct context of Mark 3:31-34. The immediate context in Mark 3:32 is the direct reference to the crowd (as in Luke). 

Thus, Mark is more consistent with Luke than Matthew is. What makes Matthew the most problematic is there is no reference to a crowd in the immediate context. Matthew modifies the Marcan text in a way that further departs from the Lukan text. Although it does appear that Matthew is problematic, there is really no issue with Luke. Rather than a case of editorial fatigue, the comparison of this parallel is evidence of Marcan and Matthean embellishments upon the more primitive text of Luke. The number of Greek words in the parallels is pertinent. Luke 8:19-21 is 54 words, Mark 3:31-35 is 79 words, and Matthew 12:46-50 is 90 words. This is an indication of increased embellishment from Luke (54) to Mark (79) to Matthew (90).

The Parable of the Sower and its Interpretation

This parable of the Sower has parallels in Luke 8:4-15, Mark 4:1-20 and Matt 13:1-23, and is another case where those who favor the theory of Marcan priority claim editorial fatigue with respect to Luke. They claim that on three occasions, Luke omits features of Mark’s Parable that are later mentioned in the interpretation.

  1. Mark 4:5 says that the seed that fell on rocky soil sprang up quickly because it had no depth of earth. This is in contrast to Luke 8:6 which doesn’t mention this but has the corresponding section in the Interpretation of Luke 8:14. 
  2. Luke 8:6 says the seed “withered for lack of moisture.” This is a different reason from the one in Mark 4:16 where it withers “because it had no root.” The explanation given in Luke 8:13 for the seed withering in the rocky soil is “and these have no root; they believe for a while.” Because the explanation of Luke 8:13 appears to be more consistent with Mark 4:16 rather than Luke 8:6, Goodacre claims Luke must have neglected to also incorporate the statement in the parable that matches the explanation.
  3. In Mark 4:6 the sun is the agent of the scorching, which is interpreted as “trouble” or persecution”. There is no sun in Mark 8:6, but ‘temptation’ is included in the explanation corresponding to Luke 8:13.  

The fact that Luke has fewer explanatory statements in the context of the parable itself, is an indication that it is conveying a more primitive tradition. An axiom in textual critical scholarship is that the more difficult the text is, the more likely it is the original. What Mark is doing as a reviser is providing more explanatory notes in the parable to make it less ambiguous. In fact, Mark is making the parable less of a parable because parables are meant to be somewhat ambiguous.

The above differences between Mark and Luke are anything but fine examples of editorial fatigue. Luke is not so blind and negligent that he would omit these details if they were in his source(s) to begin with. The author of Luke is more aware than the critics give him credit for.  The reason Luke lacks explanatory details in the parable is that they didn’t exist in the parable in the first place. Rather than being an example of Lukan fatigue, it is a prime example of Marcan revision. The argument that Luke 8:4-15 case of editorial fatigue is backwards. Luke is the more primitive tradition exactly because it is less self-explanatory. 

Again, let’s compare the Greek word count. Luke 8:4-15 is 251 Greek words, Mark 4:1-20 is 368 words, and Matthew 13:1-23 is 444 words. Here again, we see a process of expansion and embellishment from the most primitive text of Luke to Mark to Matthew 13:1-23. This is more evidence of Lukan priority.

Healing of the Paralytic

Goodacre gives as a second example of Lukan fatigue, the Healing of the Paralytic, which has close parallels in Luke 5:17-26 and Mark 2:1-12. Mark 2:1 mentions entry into a house. Mark 2:2 also includes the comment, “Many were gathered together so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door.” Unlike Mark, Luke does not mention entry into a house. Goodacre claims there are difficulties here in the continuity of Luke because he omits to mention the house. In Luke, men are ascending the roof of a house that was not previously entered. But this argument is based on a presumption that Luke knows of the Marcan text that proceeds the ascending through the roof that mentions the house.

It is not unreasonable that Luke would tell the story without first having to make reference to a house. It is sufficient that Luke 5:19 mentions “finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof.” Going up on the roof implies they are in a house. There is no need to make explicit mention of them being in a house for the story to be understandable.” Luke provides all the detail and more so.  Mark probably thought it was problematic that the primitive text exhibited in Luke had not explained the situation that they were in a house and that there was no room to enter the house, so to clarify Mark 2:1-2 was added to indicate that Jesus was at home and there “was no more room, not even at the door.” However, Luke is not so inept that he would neglect a preliminary framing of the story the way Mark does if it were part of the early tradition he is working with and also directly relevant to the story. Those who argue Lukan fatigue here affirm that Luke not only passed over the reference that Jesus was at home, but also Mark 2:2 that “many were gathered together so that there was no more room, not even at the door.” 

Approximately the same number of words (within 5%) are used in Mark 2:3-12, as compared to the close parallel in Luke 5:18-26. Here Mark is copying Luke with fewer changes than is typical of Mark. And interestingly, Mark 2:1-2 lacks other critical details that Luke 5:17 provides. But with especially the first introductory/transitional verse, there is a big divergence between Mark 12:1-2 with Luke 5:17 as shown below:

Luke 5:17-19 (ESV)

17 On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. 18 And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, 19 but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus.

Mark 2:1-4 (ESV)

1 And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay.

Luke introduces the story in reference to Pharisees and teachers of the Law being in present and Jesus having the power to heal. Both these factors are directly relevant to the story, as Jesus is later accused of blaspheming on account of saying your sins are forgiven to the paralytic. From the Lukan priority view, this could be argued as editorial fatigue on account of Mark for omitting such important details. This can just as much be argued to be a case of Marcan revision with the intent to clarify, as one could argue it is a Lukan revision exhibiting editorial fatigue. It is unconscionable that Luke would pass up on these details if it was exhibited in his sources. Rather, it is most likely that the framing of the story as Mark does is not part of the early tradition at all. Luke is not being negligent. Rather, it is Mark who plays fast and loose with his source material. For more on this, see Mark the Re-Write Man.

Goodacre makes a fallacious follow-up argument regarding this passage. He sees a problem with Luke 5:21, stating that the scribes and the Pharisees,  ‘began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies?”’ as being incongruent with what follows in Luke 5:22,  “When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, “Why do you question in your hearts?”” He thinks this is also an example of fatigue as if Luke 5:21 and Luke 5:22 are incompatible because Luke 5:22 matches Mark 2:8 but Luke 5:21 doesn’t match Mark 2:6-7.

Luke 5:21 could be interpreted as them saying to themselves (metaphorically speaking) or could have been them asking out loud. Jesus perceiving their thought could be understood as thoughts that go beyond the obvious implication of their questions. For instance, it can be understood as Jesus being able to perceive the motives behind the question.

Luke 5:22 reads, “When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them. The difference is Luke 5:22 doesn’t disqualify them from speaking out loud the way Mark 2:8 does, which reads“ and immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them.”  We can see that Mark 2:8 is a Marcan revision, as it exhibits the signature Marcan pickup word “immediately” that he added in so many places to maintain suspense throughout the Gospel. What Mark is doing is revising Luke to make the scene more explicitly a case of Jesus engaging in mind reading, with no hints given by verbal speech. According to the more primitive tradition of Luke, one might get the sense that Jesus is only using his intuition based on the words of the scribes and Pharisees. Mark is clearly spicing up the story and making it more action-packed by implying that Jesus knew their thought’s through psychic power alone. That is, Mark eliminates the possibility that Jesus could have inferred their thoughts from their verbal questions. Accordingly, Mark exhibits greater embellishment. 

Feeding of Five Thousand

Goodacre gives a final example of what he thinks is the best example of Lukan fatigue in the Feeding of the Five Thousand that has parallels in Luke 9:10-17, Mark 6:30-44 and Matt 14:13-21. Mark 6:31 says that the disciples go away with Jesus into a desert place. The verse of Luke 9:11 that precedes the scene states that he took the apostles, “and withdrew apart to a town called Beshaida.”  Goodacre reads this as indicating the context of the feeding of the five thousand is Beshsaida, and that is in contradiction with a “desolate place” in Luke 9:12. His conclusion based on this premise is that this causes all sorts of problems. However, there are a number of ways of interpreting Luke 9:10-11 that don’t cause a problem:

  1. Jesus and his apostles were on their way Bethsaida when the crowds followed him. The activity takes place outside of Bethsaida
  2. After Jesus had arrived at Bethsaida the crowds followed him out into the surrounding wilderness (within its jurisdiction).
  3. The desert place they retreated to was a place belonging to the city called Bethsaida. This desert place was the desert of Bethsaida that was a lonely, wild, uncultivated, and desolate place, not far from it. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible for Luke 9:10)
  4. The Geneva study Bile indicates the word Bethsaida signifies a desert, that it was not in the town Bethsaida, but part of the fields belonging to the town. 
  5. Bethsaida is possibly Bethsaida Julias, a small city named after the daughter of Augustus. Bethsaida, “house of fish” was the name attached to several of the fishing centers on the shores of the lake of Gennesaret. Not very far from Bethsaida Julias there is a secluded plain. (Pulpit Commentary) 
  6. Scholars dispute whether Bethsaida refers to the western shore or western shore of the Lake of Gennesaret (Meyer’s NT Commentary)
  7. There are also variant manuscripts of Luke 9:10. Several of the variants lack the word for “town” or “city” in reference to Beshadia. 

The idea that the Lukan passage presents a real problem is fake news. It is true that Luke may be seen as having a higher level of ambiguity than Mark or Matthew, but this is precisely because it is a more primitive tradition. Later writers made revisions and added interpolations for additional clarification or embellishment. The development of the story as it passes from Luke to Mark to Matthew is telling, for we see major embellishments in Mark and more slight refinements in Matthew. For instance, the number of Greek words in Luke 9:10-17 is 175 words (Matthew approximately the same) as compared to the parallel of Mark 6:30-44 which contains 252 words.

Here are a few examples of the embellishments of Mark in bold

  • Luke 9:11: When the crowds learned it, they followed him
  • Mark 6:33: Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them.
  • Luke 9:13-14: They said, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish—unless we are to go and buy food for all these people.” 
  • Mark 6:37: And they said to him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?” And he said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.” And when they had found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.”
  • Luke 9:14: And he said to his disciples, “Have them sit down in groups of about fifty each.”
  • Mark 6:39-40: Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass.  So they sat down in groups, by hundreds and by fifties
  • Luke 9:16-17: And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing over them. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd. And they all ate and were satisfied. And what was left over was picked up, twelve baskets of broken pieces.
  • Mark 6:41-44: And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven and said a blessing and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the people. And he divided the two fish among them all. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men.

Thus, there are more clear examples of Marcan and Matthean embellishment in this passage than there are of Lukan fatigue. Again, a theory that presupposes careless errors by the author of one of the most exceptional books in the New Testament is deeply flawed. The arguments put forward Goodacre are not compelling at all. The preponderance of the evidence points to Lukan priority with respect to both Matthew and Mark. 

What Lukan Fatigue? The evidence points to Marcan revision

The Farrer Hypothesis promoted by Goodacre is not all that it is cracked up to be. Although some examples of the ‘fatigue’ argument might be valid with respect to Matthews’s use of Mark, we strongly believe this isn’t the case regarding Luke. There is much stronger evidence of Lukan priority with respect to both Mark and Matthew. Robert Lindsey of the Jerusalem school concurs: 

Rather than assuming that Luke used Mark as the basis of his Gospel, as is commonly held by most New Testament scholars, it appears that the opposite is true. Mark employed Luke’s Gospel, along with another early source, and the result is a Gospel that is almost as much annotation and comment as original story. Mark’s principal method was to replace about half of Luke’s earlier and more authentic wording with a variety of synonyms and expressions he culled from certain Old and New Testament books that, today, we can identify usually simply by consulting Greek and Hebrew concordances of the Bible… Like the rabbis, Mark loved to find linguistic parallels to the text he was copying in other, often unrelated, books, and then mix words and phrases taken from these parallels with others of his sources. This method resulted in an amplified text that many scholars had thought gave an authenticity to Mark’s work, but which, in reality, should be described as a fascinating but rather inauthentic dramatization of the Gospel story. Due to Mark’s quite normal midrashic and aggadic Jewish methods, his Gospel is the “first cartoon life of Christ.” Mark was a “re-write man.” (Robert L. Lindsey, “My Search for the Synoptic Problem’s Solution,” Jerusalem Perspective (2013))

Clearly, Luke is more primitive than Mark on double and triple traditional material shared with Luke and Mark. This is on account of Mark being an embellishment on Luke and Luke maintaining the Hebraic syntax of his source material, whereas Mark is essentially a remix. Halvor Ronning of the Jerusalem School sees Mark for what it is:

“In relation to … Jewish writers, we can judge that Luke was more steady and less innovative in relation to his sources. Even though we do not have copies of Luke’s sources we can observe how Luke preserved whole blocks of material that are more consistently easy to translate into Hebrew than the parallel material in Mark or Matthew. Luke does not share the same degree of erratic character with respect to Hebrew retroversion as does Mark. Like Luke, Matthew is also generally easier to revert to Hebrew than Mark, except where Matthew has a Markan parallel. Where Matthew has a Markan parallel, Matthew is just as difficult to revert to Hebrew as Mark. These observations are the origin of Lindsey’s insights regarding the dependence of Matthew on Mark, and the independence of Luke from either. Mark’s Gospel, on the other hand, exhibits the expansionist characteristics of a Jewish midrashic or targumistic storyteller. Like a targumist, Mark absolutely refused to replicate the wording of Luke… Mark’s editorial activity is not a matter of high theological interference with his sources. As a Jewish author, Mark simply followed in the footsteps of good targumic style: he dramatized his source by substituting synonyms, adding words from elsewhere, and rearranging and reversing word orders; anything to hold the reader’s attention and fascination. (Mark also demonstrates that he had an intensely active associative mind by recalling of words and phrases and ideas from the Septuagint and the writings of Paul and working these words and ideas into his paraphrase of Luke’s text. (Halvor Ronning, “A Statistical Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Part 4—Non-Linear Hypotheses,” Jerusalem Perspective (2016))

 

 

Due to this ‘targumic’ activity the stories Mark told are almost always (literally 80% of the time) longer than the parallel accounts in Luke and Matthew. Mark is the longest Gospel, not the shortest in terms of the actual stories he decided to incorporate. Mark is shortest only in terms of overall length, but that is only because of the stories and sayings he chose to omit. Mark’s expansionist style fits his character as a sophisticated targumic story teller. (H. Meijboom A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis 1835-1866 (trans. John J. Kiwiet; Macon: Mercer, 1993; Dutch 1866), 105-115.)  (Halvor Ronning, “A Statistical Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Part 4—Non-Linear Hypotheses,” Jerusalem Perspective (2016))

For comprehensive documentation of Mark’s editorial changes and embellishments, see Mark the Re-write ManEmbellishments of Mark, and List of Markan Stereotypes and Pick-ups

Claims of Lukan fatigue with respect to Matthew in the Double Tradition

Goodacre further gives three examples of what he thinks are examples of Lukan fatigue when using Matthew as his source. These examples are refuted below.

Jesus Sends Forth the Twelve for Ministry

Jesus gives instructions to his disciples for ministry. The parallel of these instructions is found in Luke 9:1-6, Mark 6.6-13, and Matthew 10:5-15.

Matthew 10:11-14 reads “And whatever town or village you enter, found out who is worthy in it, as stay with them until you depart. As you enter the house, salute it… And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, as you leave that house or town, shake off the dust from your feet.”

Luke 9:4-5 reads, “And into whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. And wherever they do not receive you, as you leave that town, shake the dust from your feet against them.”

The claim of fatigue here is that Luke had forgotten to mention entry into that town and mistakenly omitted it based on the presupposition that he was using Matthew. However, this is more likely the case of Matthew doing what he does all over the place, expanding on Luke and resolving any gaps or ambiguity where more clarification seems to be warranted. 

The clear progression of this tradition evolved is Luke->Mark->Matthew. This is also evident by comparing with Mark 6:6b, 10-11:

Mark 6:6b, 10-11 (ESV)

6b And he went about among the villages teaching….10 And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. 11 And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.”

Mark, as well as Luke, makes no mention of Jesus entering entry into that town. But Mark 6:6b exhibits an addition that functions as a transition and frames the context of Jesus’ instructions, with Jesus going “among the villages teaching.”  Mark rewrites the sayings and changes “town” to “place” since the place is more generic and can be understood as either the home the disciples entered or their town/village. In doing this, Mark introduces some additional ambiguity since it is unclear if “place” is referring to the town/village or home. Mathew expands the passage to indicate entering a town preceding to staying in someone’s home. In reference to them leaving, Matthew explicitly says, “the house or town”  to provide more completeness of options and resolve the ambiguity of what Mark might mean by “place.” Matthew expands Jesus’ words to “home or town” to leave both options open.  As a general principle of textual criticism, the more problematic text is usually the more primitive text. Thus, Luke appears to be the most primitive. Mark is in between, with some ambiguity that Matthew attempts to clarify by expanding the passage. Clearly, because the author of Matthew is the most expansive, it is the last and most developed of the three.

Evan Powell, in his book The Myth of the Lost Gospel, devotes the third chapter to showing how Matthew attempts to provide clarification in areas where Luke and Mark might be ambiguous. The opening paragraph is as follows:

One of the curious features of the Gospels of Mark and Luke is that they contain stories which, if left on their own without explanation, had the potential to create theological confusion or historical skepticism. These may be viewed as the “loose ends” of the traditions. An editorial objective of Matthew was to tie up these loose ends by resolving tensions which were left standing in the earlier Gospels, and providing new solutions to puzzling questions. The existence of this unique explanatory material in Matthew constitutes more evidence that Matthew was the last of the Synoptic Gospels to have been composed. (Evan Powell, The Myth of the Lost Gospel (2006), p. 69)

See Chapter 3 of Powell’s book for numerous examples of Matthean revisions intended to resolve questions or add clarification. 

Parable of the Talents / Pounds (Minas)

As a second example of double tradition, Goodacre points to the parable of the talents/pounds (minas) that has parallels in Luke 19:11-27 and Matthew 25:14-30 but no parallel in Mark. Goodacre sees the Matthean version to be more coherent and easier to follow. Matthew states there are three servants; one receives five talents, one two and the other one. In Matthew, the first makes five more talents and is rewarded, the second makes two more and is rewarded; the other hides his and is punished.

According to the version in Luke, there are ten servants and all receive one pound (mina). When the nobleman returns and summons the servants, Luke 19:16 mentions the first, Luke 19:18 mentions the second, and Luke 19:20 the other. Because only three are mentioned, it appears Luke has three servants in mind and not ten. In Luke 19:17-19, the two good servants receive ‘cities’ as their reward, the first servant ten and the second servant five, compared to Matthew where they are “put in charge of much.” The end of the parable in Matt 25:28 matches more closely with Luke 19:24 wherein the currency is taken from the one who hid his and is given to the one who has ten. The objection to the version of the parable in Luke is that it lacks cohesion and does not hold together well. Let’s take a look at the entire parable in Luke:

Luke 19:11-27 (ESV)

11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ 15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ 19 And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ 24 And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ 25 And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ 26 ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

The error in Goodacre’s critique of Luke is that he expects Luke to be more precise in his accounting. This is based on Goodacre’s assumption that Luke is borrowing from Matthew. In Luke the parable makes reasonable sense on its own. 

  1.  “Calling ten of his servants”
    With respect to the rewards and punishment, Luke does not need to mention all ten servants to illustrate the principle of rewarding those who are good servants and punishment the bad. The parable is a metaphor for those who are expected to serve. The mention of the ten simply corresponds to the idea that he had many servants. But the parable only needs to give a few examples of reward and discipline. It is not a problem that ten servants are mentioned initially and only a few subsequently. However in an indirect sense the parable in Luke does appear to later makes reference to the other servants. Luke 19:24-25, notes that the nobleman “said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’” 
  2. “Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.”
    The account in Luke doesn’t need to be a precise accounting. With respect to the bad servant being commanded to give to the good servant who has ten, the reader can understand it to be referring to the one who made ten (in addition to the one mina he started out with). Just because Matthew is more precise in accounting doesn’t mean that the account in Luke has to be. The reader understands the servant who is being referred to is the servant who was given ten minas without making reference to Matthew.

Now let’s take a look at the version of the parable in Matthew:

Matthew 25:14-30 (ESV)

14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

As compared to the theory of Lukan revision, there is stronger evidence that the parable in Matthew is a revision of Luke:

  1. A mina (which some older translations render as a pound) is a Greek coin worth 1/10 of a talent. We see in Matthean the value of the money given to the servants is actually inflated to 50x, 20x, and 10x what it is in Luke. Since inflation tends to occur over time, Matthew is likely written later and increased the value given to the servants in a way that was more fitting for a later period. 
  2. According to Matthew the servants are given different amounts including the first servant given 5 talents (50 minas), the second servant given 2 talents (20 minas), and the third servant given 1 talent (10 minas). In Luke, they are each given 1 mina (1/10 of a talent). Matthew presents the parable with a higher level of sophistication since they are all given different amounts. The greater complexity of Matthew is an indication that it was a later revision of the parable.
  3.  In Matthew 25:24, the bad servant says, “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed” but nothing is said of the king being harsh or difficult. A similar statement is made in Luke 19:21but Luke 19:14 gives some context of the master being described as a harsh ruler, “But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’” This context is missing from Matthew. Thus, it can be argued that here is a case of Matthean fatigue in omitting key information about the ruler which provides context for why the bad servant made the comments he did. Matthew looks more like a case of fatigue with respect to Luke.
  4. Matthew 25:29-30 is embellished compared to Luke 19:25-27, where Matthew adds to Matt 25:29, “and he will have an abundance” and in Matt 25:30, “And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place, there will be weeping and nashing of teeth.” The reference to the outer darkness is to the final judgement of God. which is a repeated theme in Matthew. The statement doesn’t fit with the parable because the master would, in the context of the parable, not be in a position to eternally condemn his servants in the outer darkness. Luke 19:27 exhibits the more sensible ending “but as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” 

Thus, with respect to the parable of the minas / talens, the evidence is stronger that Matthew is a revision of Luke than Luke is a revision of Matthew. 

Small Examples

Goodacre gives a few final examples of what he believes is editorial fatigue exhibited by Luke in reference to Matthew. 

The first of these is regarding details about the Centurion’s boy that has parallels in Luke 7:1-10 and Matt 8:5-13. Luke begins by describing the Centurion’s boy with the Greek word doulos in Luke 8:2-3 but continues with pais in Luke 7:7. Matthew calls him pais throughout in Matt 8:6, 8, and 13). This could be explained by Matthew cleaning things up so that the same word is used exclusively. 

The second of these is the Parallel between Luke 10:23-24 and Matthew 13:16-17. Luke 10:23 lacks “and your ears because they hear” but includes, in the next verse, “I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” This is really not a problem at all. There is no necessity to reference hearing in the prior verse. The passage in Luke is fully comprehensible as it is. Just because it is not as expansive as Matthew doesn’t mean it is deficient. This is only more evidence that Matthew is revisionist. 

Final Example: “These little ones,” Luke 17 vs. Matthew 18

The last of Goodacre’s examples is the parallel between Luke 17:1-2, Mark 9:33-42 and Matt 18:1-6, in reference to “these little ones”. Let’s first look at what Luke says:

Luke 17:1-2 (ESV)

1 And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.

In Luke 17:1, the word in Greek (pros) translated “to” literally means towards.  Jesus is speaking toward his disciples and then says in Luke 17:2 regarding one who causes one to sin, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” The implication is that he is referring to his disciples as “these little ones.” It might seem problematic when looking at Luke anachronistically in reference to Mark and Matthew, but it is perfectly reasonable that Jesus could have been referring to his disciples as “little ones.” There is no reason to postulate that this was unintentional on Luke’s part. The only problem is understanding in what sense Jesus would have identified his disciples as “little ones.” However, Jesus’ teaching fit perfectly with the idea that his disciples should be as little ones. His disciples should be is meek and humble. Little ones have unquestioning faith and are willing to trust and submit more than older people. 

Another reasonable explanation is that it could be assumed that there is a child in the scene, regardless of an explicit mention of one. The crowds and children were drawn to Jesus. Thus, Luke is comprehensible, although the explication may not be so obvious to some.

Goodacre argues because there is no mention of a little child preceding the reference to “these little ones” in Luke, he must have mistakenly dropped the reference to the little child. Here again, we see an anachronistic presumption by Goodacre that Luke should have incorporated into the text an expansion of Matthew that he actually didn’t predate Luke.  What we actually see is a development of the tradition from Luke to Mark to Matthew, with Luke being the most primitive of the three. 

To resolve the ambiguity of Luke having no literal child being mentioned, Mark remixed Luke so that the story an actual child that Jesus puts “in the midst of them” is in the direct context (Mark 9:36). When the author of Matthew got around to his revision, he maintains the child in the story that Jesus “puts in the midst of them” (Matt 18:2) while at the same time adding the additional content of Matt 18:3-4 that corresponds to the implication of Luke. The Matthean addition is an acknowledgment of what is implied previously by Luke. According to Matthew Jesus says, “unless you become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of God” and “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”:

Matthew 18:3-4 (ESV)

3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:3-4 is a capitulation to Luke’s implication of calling his disciples “these little ones.” That is, Mathew integrates and combines the explicit reference to a child “in the midst of them” from Mark with the additional implication of Luke that the disciples are to be like “little ones”. Thus, Matthew embodies a harmonization of individual elements of both Mark and Luke in a more lengthy and polished narrative. This passage actually serves as a proof test that demonstrates Matthew is a revisionist work that incorporates and expands on his source material. Beyond this the author of Matthew further expands and makes additional references to “these little ones” in Matt 18:10 and Matt 18:14 by also framing the parable of the lost sheep in the context of “these little ones.”

Matthew 18:10-14 (ESV) 

  10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

In this context as well, Mathew indicates that “these little ones” are not necessarily literal children, but disciples who have gone astray. It is no accident that the corresponding parable in Luke 15:3-7 makes no reference to “these little ones” since, in the more primitive tradition, the parable of the lost sheep is not even in the same context that Matthew puts it in.   

The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Luke is the most primitive form of the tradition, Mark is a revision of Luke, and Matthew a revision of both Luke and Mark that sometimes harmonizes the two together. A great example of this is Matthew combining elements of Mark 6:8 forbidding the disciples to bring copper and Luke 9:3 forbidding silver.  According to Matthew 10:9-10, Jesus forbid bringing gold, silver, and copper—thus incorporating Luke’s reference to silver and Mark’s reference to copper and adding gold. Here we have another proof text for Matthean Posteriority, showing Matthew’s tendency to combine and harmonize!

 

Comparison of Mark and Luke as his Source

Let’s look at how Matthew 18:1-22 came together by seeing how Mark remixed Luke, and how Matthew incorporated from Mark and Matthew. First, let’s look at the verses from Luke that correspond to Mark 9:33-42. Below we can see how Mark expands on Luke or rephrases things, so there is less ambiguity. Significant Marcan revisions and expansions are in bold.

Luke 9:46-48 (ESV)

46 An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 47 But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side 48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

Mark 9:33-37 (ESV) 

  33 And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. 35 And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.36 And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

Luke 9:49-50 (ESV)

49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

Mark 9:38-41 (ESV) 

8 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

Luke 17:1-2 (ESV)

1 And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.

Mark 9:42 (ESV)

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

Comparison of Matthew and his sources

Now let’s look at verses from Luke and Mark that correspond to Matthew 18:1-22. We see below that Matthew is the most polished and developed, implementing elements from both Luke and Mark. Matthew is not always as expansionist as Mark, but often greatly expands on Luke. Significant Matthean revisions and additions are highlighted in bold. 

Mark 9:33-37 (ESV) 

  33 And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. 35 And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” 36 And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

Matthew 18:1-5 (ESV)

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me,

Mark 9:42 (ESV) / Luke 17:2

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

Matthew 18:6 (ESV) 

6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Luke 17:1 (ESV)

​1 And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 


Matthew 18:7 (ESV)

7Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!

Mark 9:43-48 (ESV)

43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Matthew 18:8-9 (ESV)

8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Luke 15:3-7 (ESV) 

  3 So he told them this parable: 4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Matthew 18:10-14 (ESV)

10See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

Luke 17:3 (ESV)

3 Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,

Matthew 18:15-20 (ESV) 

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Luke 17:4 (ESV)

4 and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

Matthew 18:21-22 (ESV)

21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Examples of Matthean Conflation

Matthew contains much material from Mark or Luke or a combination of the two. The above example shows that in using these two as primary sources, his objective was to conflate them along with additional material into a more comprehensive Gospel. To achieve this, Matthew often combined fragments from both Mark and Luke in the process of forming his own narrative. Let’s look at two additional examples Evan Powell gives in his book, The Myth of the Lost Gospel (pp. 95-97)

The Calling of the Twelve

A principal example of Matthean conflation is the Calling of the Twelve of Matthew 9:35-10:4. This single passage in Matthew of eight verses is compiled from material found in two chapters of Mark and 6 chapters of Luke. That is, elements from six different chapters in Mark and Luke are stringed together in eight consecutive verses in Matthew. 
  • Mark 6:6b
  • Luke 8:1
  • Mark 6:34
  • Luke 10:2
  • Luke 9:1b
  • Mark 3:14-19
  • Luke 6:13-16

Let’s look at the parallels with Matt 9:35-38 more closely:

Mark 6:6 (NRSV)

6 And he was amazed at their unbelief. Then he went about among the villages teaching.

Luke 8:1 (NRSV)

1 Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him,

Mark 6:34 (NRSV)

34 As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.

Luke 10:2 (NRSV)

2 He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.

Matthew 9:35-38 (NRSV)

35 Then Jesus went about 

all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. 

36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 

37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”

The Beelzebul Controversy

In this passage that has parallels in Luke 11:14-23, Mark 3:22-27 and Matt 12:22-30, there is a minimal verbatim agreement between Mark and Luke. However, Matthew’s text has been assembled from near verbatim duplications from both Mark and Luke, as can be seen from the parallels below. 

Evan Powell sum up these results in the following statement

The key point to be made… is this: The fact that Matthean texts exist that are conflations of material found in Mark and Luke is a phenomenon unique to Matthew. There is no similar array of texts in Luke that appear to have been composed from elements in Mark and Matthew. Yet if Luke had used Mark and Matthew, as Griesbach and Farrer-Goulder advocates maintain, we should be able to detect a similar pattern in Luke, at least to the degree that it is present in Matthew. Furthermore, if Matthew and Luke and independently drawn upon Mark and Q, it is a mystery how Matthew could routinely generate texts that appear to be conflations of Mark and Luke, while Luke could routinely avoid any indication of having conflated Mark and Matthew. The presence of this textural pattern in Matthew, and its corollary absence from Luke, lends additional weight to the theory of Matthean Posteriority, and poses difficulties for all competing solutions to the Synoptic Problem (Evan Powell, The Myth of the Lost Gospel (p.102)

An example of Matthean Fatigue using Luke

One might postulate that if Matthew was written last in view of Luke, there would be at least one example of Matthean fatigue using Luke. Although the text regarding the talents / minas above can be argued to have hints of Matthean fatigue, a more clear example is the scene of John the Baptist preaching having the parallels of Luke 3:7-16 and Matthew 3:7-11 shown below. Often, Matthew expands on Luke, but in this case, Matthew redacts much of the Lukan material and changes the subjects whom John the Baptist is addressing. The changes result in the problematic implication that John is telling the Pharisees and Sadducees that they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. 

Luke 3:7-16 (ESV) 

7 He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
10 And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” 11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
15 As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, 16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew 3:7-11 (ESV)

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Matthew revises the text to direct the rebuke to the Pharisees and Sadducees (religious elite), not the crowds (multitudes at large).  Another key difference is that the crowds of Luke 3:7 are those who “came out to be baptized by him.” That is, they desired repentance. Matthew 3:7 only indicates that John “saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism” (not that they actually came out to be baptized). The revisionist Matthew apparently felt the rage of the Baptist was more appropriately directed at the Pharisees and Sadducees who weren’t necessarily committed to being baptized. Moreover, the author of Matthew also chooses to omit Luke 3:10-15, including the reference to “the people” of Luke 3:11 “who were in expectation.” In removing the context of the crowds who “came to be baptized,” and the people “who were in expectation,” Matthew makes the baptists’ words a specific message to the Pharisees and Sadducees who would be poor candidates for receiving repentance and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The problem with the Matthean text is that those who are the least eligible are being told they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. It is much more logical that this would be a general statement to repentant and faith-filled believers than Pharisees and Sadducees who are just bystanders.

Additional Arguments against the Farrer Hypothesis

Additional arguments that demonstrate the Farrer Hypothesis is not the best solution to the Synoptic Problem include statistical analysis and taking a look at the problematic implications of assuming the Farrer Hypothesis is correct. 

Statistical validation of Lukan Priority

On this site, the article Statistical Validation of Lukan Priority demonstrates how the Jerusalem School Hypothesis of Lukan Priority and Matthean Posteriority results in an almost exact statistical match between theoretical and actual results. The statistical analysis includes evaluating all the possible sequences of the gospels. The scenario pertaining to the Farrer Hypothesis of Mark>Matthew>Luke is a model that does not fit theoretical data as well as compared to the Jerusalem School Hypothesis of Luke>Mark>Matthew.

Robert MacEwen, in Chapter 2 of his book, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem, starting on page 50, also demonstrates statistical evidence, based on strings of verbal agreement (SVA) in support of Matthean Posteriority. He defines SVA as strings of words that are identical in two Gospels, having four or more words that are in the same form. MacEwen summarizes the findings as it relates to the Farrer Hypothesis (FH) on pages 66-77.

On the MPH (Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis), Matthew can be seen as behaving consistently in copying from his two sources Mark and Luke—he generally copies from both rather conservatively. In contrast, on the FH (Farrer Hypothesis), Luke appears rather inconsistent in copying from his two sources Mark and Matthew-he generally copies from Matthew quite conservatively but is more periphrastic in taking over material from Mark….Key evidence for Matthew’s relative consistency in utilizing his sources on the MPH versus Luke’s relative inconsistency in utilizing his sources on the FH can be seen… [According to MPH] the difference in Matthew’s use of SVAs≥4 in his Markan material and in his Lukan material is 1.7%. [According to FH]  the difference in Luke’s use of SVAs≥4 in his Matthean material and his Markan material is 6.0%. (Robert MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem, London : Bloomsburry T & T Clark (2015), pp. 66-67)

MacEwen sums this up by stating that “clearly” the Matthew corresponding to the presumption of the MPH appears to be more consistent, in terms of behavior in taking over material from his sources, than does Luke according to the presumptions of the FH. (p. 67)

Problematic implications of Presuming the Farrer Hypothesis

Additionally, the implications of assuming the Farrer Hypothesis result in some striking difficulties. On pages 170-176 in the same book, MacEwen sums up the difficult implications of the Farrer Hypothesis in a section entitled, “Evaluation of the Farrer Hypothesis in Light of Luke’s Procedures on this Hypothesis.” This is an assessment of Luke’s procedures on the assumption that this hypothesis is true.  

Observations that MacEwen makes is that according to FH

Luke is often pleased with the sayings that Matthew has added to Markan contexts, but is usually not content to leave such sayings in those contexts; it is as if something compels him to remove them and put them elsewhere… Perhaps the strongest example of Luke’s compulsion, on the FH, to remove Matthean material from Markan contexts, is the Eschatological Discourses (Matt 24-25//Mark 14//Luke 21). In the handling of this section, Luke seems to have taken careful note of all the material Matthew added to Mark’s version, deleted some of it, and moved the rest to earlier contexts in his own Gospel…

Another, related observation about Luke’s procedure on the FH is that Luke does a massive amount of rearrangement of small units of sayings material, often for the sake of constructing fairly small units of discourse. For example, a short speech to the disciples on the need to fear God rather than people (Luke 12:1-12) draws on material from three different contexts in Matthew (Matt 16:6, Matt 10:19 and Matt 12:32). (Robert MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem, London : Bloomsburry T & T Clark (2015), pp. 170-171)

MacEwen gives many other similar examples and finely sums this up by saying…

The large-scale rearrangement of Matthew’s sayings material that Luke, on the FH, carried out, would appear to have been an extraordinarily complex and time-consuming endeavor. The complexity of Luke’s procedure added to the impression that Luke’s recontextualizations often do not seem to achieve obvious improvements on Matthew’s arrangements and contexts, would seem to call the validity of the FH into question.  (Robert MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem, (2015), p. 172)

When comparing Matthew and Luke, many have noted that Matthew presents a more liturgically refined embodiment of major traditions such as The Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, and the Great Commission, than versions found in Luke. This pattern suggests that a significant amount of time had elapsed between the composition of Luke and Matthew, as Matthew contains more sophisticated forms of parallel traditions. 

Evan Powell presents another theory that eliminates reliance on Q yet affirms Matthean Posterity with respect to Luke. In his book ‘The Myth of the Lost Gospel, Powell extensively documents how the author of Matthew is a revisionist.  In his analysis, Powell identifies seven categories of tradition that shows Matthew is much more expansionist as compared to Luke. Although Luke is 107% as long as Matthew, in all seven categories of tradition, Matthew contains the highest concentration of material. The result as reported on page 41 are not coincidental:

  1. Supernatural Events: Luke has 77% as many references as those in Matthew
  2. Eschatological content: Luke has 71% as much as Matthew
  3. Ethical sayings: Luke has 73% as many references as those in Matthew
  4. Jesus as Christ: Luke has 75% as many references as those in Matthew
  5. Jesus as Son of man: Luke has 83% as many references as those in Matthew
  6. Kingdom of God: Luke has 75% as many references as those in Matthew
  7. God as Father: Luke has 36% as many references as those in Matthew

Powell sums up these results as follows:

We find that the community that produced Matthew developed a more refined and expansive interpretation of Jesus’ traditions across the entire spectrum of thought. Not only are the Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes and the Great Commission presented in more evolved form in Matthew, but the content of Jesus’ ethical message is richer, the visions of the end-time events are more extreme, supernatural mythology is more diverse, and the concept of the intimate fatherhood of God is more developed. Collectively, Matthew contains an enrichment of all prominent aspects of the Jesus story, surpassing the material found in Luke, while Luke contains virtual subsets of the material found in Matthew. 

Therefore, Matthew presents a more mature expression of the Church’s interpretation of Jesus. The statistical distribution of materials between Luke and Matthew, as well as the qualitative enhancements of Matthew over Luke, are consistent with the proposition that Matthew was composed some time after Luke. Moreover, there was an interval of time between the two that would allow for all facets of the Jesus tradition to have evolved into the more sophisticated form that are documented in the Gospel of Matthew…

 

[Some] theories argue that Luke was dependent on Matthew. Yet, the date we have just reviewed is difficult to explain under such a scenario. We must imagine that Luke, in using Matthew as a source, managed to diminish its traditions across the board both qualitatively and quantitatively, while at the same time producing a Gospel that was longer than Matthew by 7%. In the process he eviscerated the Lord’s prayer and the Beatitudes; he dismantled the Sermon on the Mount and reformulated it as a more anemic Sermon on the Plain; he diminished the ethical vision of Jesus; he removed most of Matthew’s references to the intimate fatherhood of God; and finally, he eliminated the decisive command from Matthew’s Great Commission to “go therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and replaced it with a statement that repentance and forgiveness should be preached to all nations, but that the disciples should wait in the city until further notice.

 

It is difficult to imagine what Luke would have had in mind to have used Matthew in this manner. Yet, as we shall ultimately discover, these are just the first of many editorial eccentricities of which Luke would be guilty were he to have used Matthew as a source.
(Evan Powell, The Myth of the Lost Gospel (2006), pp. 42-43)

Conclusion: Matthew is the Revisionist, Further evidence for Matthean Posteriority

A careful review of the above shows again that Matthew is more polished and developed than Luke and Mark, and that he combines elements from both as sources. This is further evidence that Matthew was written last, in sight of both Luke and Mark. Moreover, we have demonstrated that claims of Lukan editorial fatigue according to the assumptions of the proponents of the Farrer Hypothesis, such as Mark Goodacre, are not well-supported. We have refuted the Farrer theory. Rather, the evidence is better explained by Lukan Priority and Matthean Posterity. Much evidence For Matthean Posteriority is provided in the article Revisionist Matthew: Matthean Posteriority, which also serves to refute the Farrer Hypothesis.

Proponents of the Farrer Hypothesis, such as Goodacre, make the argument of editorial fatigue in claiming Lukan Posteriority. However, the evidence they claim is uncompelling as compared to the evidence for Matthean Posteriority. Luke deserves an apology from the likes of Farrer, Goulder, and Goodacre for smearing his reputation as an error-prone composer who frequently neglects to add key details from his sources. Rather, we owe the author a debt of gratitude for providing a trustworthy and authoritative document that preserves the most primitive tradition of all the canonical gospels. Others tried to expand and improve his work. But Luke-Acts remains the standard for documenting the truth concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.