The Synoptic Problem and the Formation of the Gospels...
From Proto-Luke to the Four Gospels and Acts (Chapters 15-25)
Chapters 15-25 outline how the process of transforming continued. Proto-Luke, and the transforming of Proto-Luke, provide an entry to the other gospels and Acts (Argument 3).
Chapters 15-18: The gospel that is most immediately indebted to Proto-Luke is Mark. Mark obviously has it own distinct sources, genre, and theology. But is also draws heavily on Proto-Luke and on Proto-Luke’s sources. Instead of two parts centred on an assumption into heaven, Mark gives a text that is centered on a transfiguration. Instead of a second part that is largely concerned with the disciples (much of Acts 1:1-15:35), Mark reshapes the Acts episodes concerning the disciples, and places them in the life of Jesus (there are abundant connecting details). Instead of using the Elijah-Elisha narrative as a basis for a form of historiography, he uses it for a genre that is closer to biography (again there are numerous connections). And there are indications of Mark’s use of at least one epistle (1 Peter).
Chapters 19-23: Matthew expanded Mark, partly by using Mark’s sources, including Proto-Luke, but especially by deuteronomizing Mark—by using Deuteronomy and its discourses as a model for a new form of gospel. The influence of the Mosaic book is extensive. Canonical Matthew also incorporated the Logia, and used at least one epistle (Romans).
Chapter 24: Matthew’s discourses in turn provided a partial model for John, and John also used Matthew’s sources, especially Mark.
Chapter 25: Finally, canonical Luke-Acts expanded Proto-Luke in a way that developed and synthesized earlier accounts of Jesus. In the course of this synthesizing, canonical Luke-Acts reshaped the Sermon on the Mount into the Sermon on the Plain—a bold act, but perfectly understandable in the context of ancient intertextuality. The relationship between Matthew and Luke—Matthew adapted Proto-Luke, and Matthew in turn was reshaped by canonical Luke—explains most of the similarities that give rise to the theory of Q.
The Appendices consider other aspects of NT intertextuality, especially in the epistles.
Overall Summary and Conclusion (Chapter 26)
The volume does not deal with issues of history and theology, not even with trying to decide whether the author of Luke-Acts is also the author of Proto-Luke. Such issues are important, but they would need a whole other volume. It is not practical to attempt to discuss them fully now. The only thing given here, in the overall summary and conclusion (Chapter 26), is a minuscule sketch of some of the possible categories of response to the intertextual nature of the NT.
The key background scriptural texts—Deuteronomy and the Elijah-Elisha narrative—are themselves complementary. Deuteronomy consists of the climactic discourses of the greatest prophet. The Elijah-Elisha narrative tells of prophets who sometimes echoed Moses. Within the Bible’s foundational narrative (Genesis-Kings), Deuteronomy and Elijah-Elisha constitute respectively the centre and the final prophetic interlude. Deuteronomy, at the centre, is like the peak of a pyramid (David N. Freedman, 1991), and the use of Deuteronomy opens the way to the incorporation of material from the whole corpus of Genesis-2 Kings.