Assuming Matthean Posteriority, why did Matthew not use the great Lukan Parables?
I find the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis (MPH, that Luke used Mark and then Matthew used both) attractive for a few reasons, the main one being that it just seems to defy belief that Luke would dismantle the Sermon on the Mount the way he would have if Luke followed Matthew as is often argued.
The Sermon on the Mount is arguably the greatest piece of ethical teaching in world literature. Would we really expect a Christian biographer of Jesus to read that and think, "Nah, too long and boring."
Plus, Dale Allison has argued,* convincingly in my view, that the core teachings found in Luke's Sermon on the Plains can be found in Paul as well, which could lend credence to the idea that Plains is more primitive than Mount.
So, all that aside, *if* Matthew used Luke, whywould he not have included in his gospel some of the *other* contenders for the greatest ethical teachings in world literature, the parables of the Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son?
It is just utterly baffling to me that these three pieces (Mount, Samaritan, Prodigal) did not end up in the same gospel if there was reliance one way or another between Matthew and Luke.
Assuming MPH for the moment, why would Matthew have omitted these (and other) Lukan parables? Did he believe them to be inauthentic, theologically problematic, or had the price of papyrus gone up?
--