The literary relationship (if any) between Matthew and Luke continues to be debated, and so the relationship between the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain continues to be debated (with implications for how one reads both Matthew and Luke). This essay argues that the confluence of several facts – (1) obviously Matthean redaction is missing from Luke 6:21–49; (2) the more we subtract Matthean features from Matthew 5–7, the closer we get to the Sermon on the Plain; (3) 1 Clement 13:2, which seems to be independent of the synoptics, is closer at points to Luke 6:27–42 than it is to the Matthean parallels; (4) intertextual ties to Leviticus 19 are clustered in Luke 6:27–42 but separated in Matthew 5 and 7; and (5) in a number of instances, words and expressions in Luke 6:21–47 seem, by the standard tools of our trade, to be more original than their Matthean counterparts – adds up to a strong case that the Sermon on the Mount was not the source for the Sermon on the Plain. Luke is not a reader or an interpreter of Matthew’s Gospel. The data rather support the Q hypothesis or the theory that Matthew was a reader of Luke.

In his Gospel Writing, Francis Watson argues that certain fragments from the so-called Egerton Papyrus that appear to have clear counterparts in the Gospel of John belong to a gospel that precedes John. This essay argues that while Watson seems right in his diagnosis of the historical sequence, he is also methodologically wrong in the manner he treats the later gospel as part of and a result of his argument. In two particular respects he mistreats John: (1) John’s use of the Egerton Gospel is no less logical than the Egerton gospel itself (though at a much more sophisticated level), and (2) John’s use of the Egerton Gospel does not allow for the discovery of “strata” within or behind John itself. In both respects, one must stick to a methodological rule that is of universal import within New Testament scholarship and directly relevant to “gospel reading”: in principle, the text that we have has priority over any attempts at reconstructing its origins.

A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of what Francis Watson calls the “L/M Theory” have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for seeing Luke as a reading of Matthew rather than Matthew as a reading of Luke remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double-tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.

This essay will examine readings of an influential gospel motif over the first two Christian centuries. Should Christian generosity be extended to all, without condition, and should that “all” include even those who are hostile? If so, why? The chapter starts with the materials that had reached written form by the end of the first century (in Matthew 5, Luke 6, and Didache 1), focusing on the malleability of this tradition, in its various forms and with its various rationales. As a second step, it examines the pragmatics of these instructions. Starting from these three texts, but pursuing their themes into later (second-century) materials, it notes the practical difficulties regarding (a) whether this generosity is too easily abused, and (b) whether, or for how long, such generosity can be sustained. The significance of this material for the outward momentum (mission) of the church will be highlighted. As a third step, it examines the theological interpretation of these instructions, and the various ways they are connected to the character of God, or the achievement of Christ, including the ways they become integral to the “gospel.” Finally, it indicates the value of crossing the canonical boundary, the importance of reception as an active and creative phenomenon, and the theological aspects of interpretation.