The argument is based upon part of the Matthean mission discourse. The following table shows the relevant sayings in Matthew and then also the position of those same sayings in Luke:
Block | Saying | Matthew | Luke | Other Parallels |
A | Disciple and master. | 10.24-25 | 6.40 | — |
B1 | Fear not. | 10.26-31 | 12.2-7 | Mark 4.22 = Luke 8.17 |
B2 | Before my father. | 10.32-33 | 12.8-9 | Matthew 16.27 = Mark 8.38 = Luke 9.26 |
C1 | No peace on earth. | 10.34 | 12.50 | — |
C2 | The divided family. | 10.35-36 | 12.51-52 | Mark 13.12 = Luke 21.16 |
D1 | Loving family more. | 10.37 | 14.26 | — |
D2 | Following after me. | 10.38 | 14.27 | Matthew 16.24 = Mark 8.34 = Luke 9.23 |
E | Finding and losing. | 10.39 | 17.33 | Matthew 16.25 = Mark 8.35 = Luke 9.24 |
The five blocks (A, B, C, D, E) correspond to the Lucan grouping of these sayings, since Matthew groups them all into this single catena instead of scattering them like Luke does. What is interesting to note is that Luke, if he is copying from something like Matthew, not only scatters this catena across his gospel but also leaves the five blocks in the same relative order as in Matthew. That Luke would break this catena up into blocks and remove the blocks to different contexts is not a problem, but how likely is it that he would also make certain to keep the blocks in the same relative order? This would seem an arbitrary procedure, and I feel like Streeter would then have a point about Luke being a crank.
Kloppenborg, presuming Q (instead of dependence of Matthew upon Luke), comments on page 89, "Matthew reproduces the sayings in Lukan order, as if he had scanned Q, collecting sayings that he thought were related and might fit together well." And that is the crux of the argument. If Matthew is copying either from something like Luke or from a Q document whose sayings Luke has retained in their original order, so far as this particular set is concerned, then there is nothing to explain. Matthew's procedure is obvious: he scanned through his source (Q or Luke) from start to finish for sayings to compile into this set. If, however, we suppose that it is Luke who copied from something like Matthew 10.24-39, then we may still have some explaining to do. Why make sure that the sayings remain in their Matthean order if they are all being moved to very different contexts anyway?
One obvious answer to this question is that Luke did not actually make sure they remained so: it is just a coincidence that they happened to turn out that way. What I would like to know, then, is how much of a coincidence that is. I have broken the Matthean catena up into logical sayings, but I have assigned letters to each saying or pair of sayings based solely upon how they fall in Luke; that is, any sayings with the same letter (A, B, C, D, E) appear together in Luke as well as in Matthew. I have done this in order to minimize bias in determining the odds of a coincidence. If we were to count each saying separately (determining what constitutes a saying just by our own wits), then we have 8 separate sayings (by my reckoning, and yours may differ from mine) which Luke, if he is copying from Matthew, has managed to keep in relative order despite scattering them. If we used individual words or phrases, we would have dozens. But to divide the catena up like that involves a serious element of the arbitrary, which is why I feel we must divide it up in exactly the same way as we find it divided up in Luke.
Thus we have 5 nonarbitrary blocks of material in the same order in Luke as in Matthew, despite them being widely separated in Luke. How much of a coincidence is that? I asked this question on the old FRDB/IIDB back in the day, and S. C. Carlson responded, and we debated it for a while. Neither of us could come up with a logical equation to use to decide the matter. We both agreed that we would have to know how many blocks Matthew and Luke share overall, but beyond that, once we have a number in mind, how do we figure out the odds of any 5 contiguous blocks from the whole winding up in the same order but also separated from each other? If it were only 2 blocks, I think we could easily claim coincidence. If it were 20 blocks, I think the coincidence explanation would seem pretty strained. But what about 5?
The matter of how many overall blocks we should count is not very easy, either. Obviously we cannot just count pericopes, since what constitutes a pericope can be arbitrary at times, and many of them may comprise longer blocks which both Matthew and Luke retain in the same order (for example, both authors feature information about John the Baptist followed by a sample of his preaching; this would have to be one block, not two or more). And should we count blocks which, on our preferred solution to the synoptic problem, we feel are following the shared order of Mark (for example)?
At any rate, I hope the main issue is clear enough. If Matthew copied from something like Luke, then his procedure was clear and not at all arbitrary: he simply scrolled or paginated through his source and picked up the sayings one at a time in order. If, however, Luke copied from something like Matthew, his procedure of scattering them across his text, while not an issue in and of itself, may become an issue in conjunction with his having kept them in the same relative order. To have done such a thing deliberately would be weird, and I think that, on balance, it would then have to be considered more likely that Matthew is the one doing the copying here (that is, it is more likely that Matthew followed a perfectly cogent and simple procedure than that Luke followed a weird and arbitrary one). The most obvious way out of Lucan priority and Matthean posteriority, then, is coincidence. (If there is another, my mind is wide open.) And that is what I need feedback on. How can we determine how much of a coincidence we are dealing with?
Any takers?
Ben.
PS: It also occurs to me that, depending on how things shake out, we may not need an exact count of Matthean and Lucan blocks of shared material. It may be the case that (A) there is an equation or an algorithm which could be used which would allow us to plug in whatever number we wish to test on that account, just to see how likely or unlikely 5 blocks retained in order would be if that were the total number of blocks, and that (B) the results are telling already without knowing the true number; for example, if we needed more than 100 such blocks overall before the coincidence started to seem likely, then that would be valuable information, since there are almost certainly not 100 such blocks to be had between Matthew and Luke.