What then of a deutero-Markus? Could the idea that Matthew and Luke used a revised edition of Mark explain the Minor Agreements?
Q: If Luke used Matthew, how do you explain his spoiling Matthew’s order? ‘Matthew’s order’ is precisely that, Matthew’s order and it is straightforward to see why Luke would have wanted to alter it. Whereas Matthew’s order is more wooden, with its five great edifices (5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25), Luke has a plausible, sequential narrative. In the words of Luke Johnson, his narrative is ‘essentially linear, moving the reader from one event to another . . . Instead of inserting great blocks of discourse into the narrative, Luke more subtly interweaves deeds and sayings’ (Anchor Bible Dictionary IV, 405- 6). The more that scholars appreciate Luke’s literary ability, the less necessary Q will become. Q: How can you explain Luke’s having spoilt Matthew’s wonderful Sermon on the Mount? Luke does not like excessively long discourses, and he cuts them down by omitting some parts and redistributing the rest. One can see this clearly from Luke’s treatment of Mark 4.1-34, some of which remains (Sowe
