Two comments here.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:45 pmto Kunigunde Kreuzerin,OK, but is it enough to say "Luke" copied the phrase from gMatthew? "Luke" used the phrase at the birth of Jesus but "Matthew" put it well before that.Mary ‘bore a son’ (έτεκεν υίόν, Mt. 1.25; Lk. 2.7).
If "Luke" knew gMatthew (1:25 ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα), she would have Jesus named by the angel well before Jesus was born. However, in Lk 2:21, Jesus is named (κληθὲν) by the angel prior to Joseph at the circumcision (ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα). So we have, as named by an angel "ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα" <=> "κληθὲν".Magi and shepherds close the scene by returning whence they had come; and Luke then notes that ‘his name was called Jesus’ at his circumcision, just as Matthew says that Joseph called his name Jesus (1.25).
Finally, "Luke" did not give a time slot for gMatthew having the threesome going to Egypt, staying there for a while and then coming back. It does not look here "Luke" knew about gMatthew.
Fist, Luke does have Jesus named by an angel before Jesus was born:
While Matthew has:Luke 1.31 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.
Luke 1.31 καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.
I believe that υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν is the longest verbatim agreement between Luke and Matthew in the Nativity stories.Matt 1.21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
Matt 1.21 1.21 τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.
Second, I'm not clear on what your (Bernard's) theoretical assumptions are. While I (and nearly everyone) would agree that close agreement in wording and sequence between two documents is evidence for literary dependence (direct or indirect), it does not follow that lack of agreement is proof of literary independence. Mark Goodacre discusses the 'plagiarist's charter' in Thomas and the Gospels, pp. 45-46, 54-56) in reference to GThomas, but the same principle holds here. Absence of agreements with Matthew in certain places in Luke is not proof of Luke's ignorance of Matthew as a whole.
There are a lot of passages in Luke that are broadly similar to passages in Matthew but contain few verbatim agreements and large differences in fact (to use the term broadly). These are found in the Infancy and Passion Narratives, in the M and L material, and even occasionally in Luke's Markan blocks. It has been common for scholars to suggest that Luke had a different version of the same passage from an otherwise unknown source in these places, simply because they believe that Luke would not have recast material in his source without some conflicting tradition that allowed him to do so.
I think this is a holdover from the period when the canonical gospels were considered to be historically accurate accounts of the life of Jesus (a theory still widely held among religious conservatives, but rare on this list). It's assumed that no historian would simply contradict his source and must always be following some source fairly closely for everything he writes. This is not a theory I accept (it's true of good historians, but not of bad historians or writers of fiction), and I think anyone who assumes it must provide justification for believing it.