My master's thesis, "How Luke Was Written," is available here:
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handl ... sAllowed=y
It's basically the same thing as "Unpicking on the Farrer Theory," but there are a few differences.
You support your theory with a lot of appeals to authority to scholars who hold the 2DH who think Luke seems more primitive than Matthew. For people who accept that premise, it would make sense to argue that Matthew used Luke. What I'm wondering is, can Luke's greater originality to Matthew be demonstrated for people who don't take it for granted. You cite Dennis MacDonald's opinion that "It is easier to explain why the anthropomorphism" finger of God” in Luke would have become “the Spirit of God” in Matthew than the other way around (criterion A).142" (MacDonald 2008, 270). MacDonald provides no supporting evidence except footnote 142, which reads: "So also CEQ but not Fleddermann." So the Critical Edition of Q agrees, but Harry Fleddermann doesn't. If we look at the Critical Edition of Q, it does indeed reconstruct Q with Luke's wording "finger of God." But it provides no supporting argument. So your support is MacDonald whose support is the Critical Edition of Q which doesn't give arguments. Now I'm not claiming the scholars who think Luke's wording is earlier have never made arguments, but we've got to look at those. Appeals to authority are unhelpful even if the authorities are plentiful.
Burkett's argument that Luke has added "Spirit" elsewhere, so he would not have removed it here is actually dealing with data, but it's a non sequitur. Luke is quite capable of using or even adding words/ideas in one place and omitting them in another. (See my Lord;s Prayer paper below and Stephen Carlson's paper on the Lukan non-aversion principle in the same volume).
The argument that the anthropomorphisms are a red herring because they're from the Infancy and Acts is stronger as it is dealing with data. But at present, I'm not persuaded that Marcion is earlier than Luke or that Matthew knew Marcion. For the moment, I still hold that Luke-Acts is the work of a single author and we don't need to posit a proto-Luke.
Klinghardt's 2008 article is a methodological nightmare. (Parenthetically, I think Beduhn is much stronger).
On page 3, Klinghardt says the Minor Agreemnts are a good argument against the traditional 2DH and rejects the argument for Luke's secondary dependence on Matthew in addition to Q.
Then Klingardt gives his reasons for rejecting the Farrer Theory that Luke used Matthew (AKA MwQH) on p. 4:This excludes the evasive solution that, although basically independent from one another, Luke knew and used Matthew in certain instances.8 Methodologically, it is not permissible to develop a theory on a certain assumption and then abandon this very assumption in order to get rid of some left over problems the theory could not sufficiently explain.
But when Klinghardt gets around to describing his own theory that the author of Luke used Marcion, he also allows for secondary influence from Matthew (see the chart on page 21). On p. 22 he writes:On the other hand, there are serious objections against Luke’s assumed
dependence on Matthew. Predictably, the criticism of the MwQH concentrates
on three observations: (1) Luke betrays no knowledge of either the
special Matthean material (“M”) or of the Matthean additions to the triple
tradition, e.g. Pilate’s wife and her dream (Matt. 27:19) or Peter’s confession
and beatitude (Matt. 16:16-19). (2) Then there is the problem of
alternating priority: Although in some instances Luke’s version of double
tradition material seems to presuppose Matthew, there are a number of
striking counter-examples, among which Luke’s wording of the Lord’s
prayer or the first beatitude rank highest. (3) In some cases, the arrangement
of double tradition material does not make any sense at all if Luke
made use of Matthew as it becomes particularly apparent with the material
of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and its Lukan counterparts.
So Klinghardt holds the author of Luke actually does know Matthew in addition to Marcion. He seems to contradict his statement about the "evasive solution" of Luke's secondary use of Matthew and seriously undermine his points (1) and (3) from page 4 above. Apparently Luke does know Matthew's gospel, and therefore knew Matthew's special material and additions to the triple tradition and chose not to use them. He also knew Matthew' arrangement of the discourses and chose not to follow it but to follow another arrangement that, for whatever reasons, he thought was better.3. The dashed arrows (a, b) indicate an additional but minor influence
of Mcn on Matthew and on Luke. In some respect, (a) and (b) most clearly
show the advancement of this “Markan priority with Mcn” hypothesis:
with respect to the far-reaching conformity between Mcn and Luke, the
dashed arrows (a, b) indicate a bi-directional influence within the double
tradition: there are elements running from Mcn to Matthew and others
from Matthew to Luke’s re-edition of Mcn.
This leaves Klinghardt's point (2) that Luke's gospel is more primitive than Matthew in places. He doesn't argue for that in this paper, but suggests the Lord's Prayer and the first Beatitude are the best cases. I haven't addressed the Beatitude anywhere yet, but I have published on the Lord's Prayer. In the interest of saving time, I'll just quote the comment I left on your blog back on October 22:
That'll have to do for now.I have a recently published paper advocating Goulder’s theory that Luke abbreviated Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer [Ken Olson, “Luke 11.2-4: The Lord’s Prayer (Abridged Edition)”, in Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis, edited by John C. Poirier and Jeffrey Peterson (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015) 101-118]. I argue that the principle that liturgical texts become longer in transmission cannot be applied to the Lord’s Prayer, both because there are notable counterexamples (the Hebrew and Syriac versions of Apocryphal Psalm 151.1-2 is perhaps the clearest case) and also because Luke is not a copyist of a liturgical text, he is an author composing a narrative comprised of episodes in a sequence. Luke’s abbreviations can readily be explained on the basis of his redactional tendency to abbreviate his sources by eliminating repetition. He eliminates the further identification of the Father as the one in heaven, having already identified him as “Lord of Heaven and Earth” in Luke 10.21 (every subsequent address to the Father in Luke has simply “Father”). He omits “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” because it restates the content of “thy kingdom come” which immediately precedes it, and “deliver us from evil” because it restates positively what “lead us not into temptation” has said in the negative. Luke has omitted unnecessary repetitions but has retained each separate thought from Matthew’s prayer.
Best,
Ken