Matthew's Use of Luke? [duplicate]

Question

Does anyone know of any critical scholars who argue for Matthew's use of Luke? I think I recall Hengel once argued this, but I do not know where. This is an option that hardly anyone even considers in Synoptic problem literature. Any source citations would be greatly appreciated.

Answer 1

The Synoptic Problem website is your friend here. They have:

• A. Büsching Die vier Evangelisten mit ihren eigenen Worten zusammengesetzt und mit Erklärungen versehen (Hamburg, 1766) who suggests Matthew used Luke and Mark used both Matthew and Luke.
• W. Lockton "The Origin of the Gospels," Church Quarterly Review (July, 1922) who says Mark used Luke and Matthew used Luke and Mark.

Neither of those gained much traction at all. But if you allow Matthew used proto-Luke then there's more modern work:

• P. Parker, "A Second Look at The Gospel Before Mark," JBL 100 (1980): 389-413; P. Parker, "The Posteriority of Mark" in W. R. Farmer, ed., New Synoptic Studies (Macon, Ga.: Mercer UP, 1983): 65-142;

There's also the Jerusalem School with various versions of Lukan primacy, but I think in those ones Matthew gets its Lukan material via Mark so it doesn't involve Matthew knowing Luke.

The argument for Markan priority is very strong, so none of these positions are very compelling, but at least those references should tell you where to start looking for proposals in this direction. You may also find interesting Mark Goodacre's response to a proposal in this direction.