Gnats, Camels, and Peter in the Synoptic Gospels: Response to Alan Garrow's "Matthew's Use of Luke".

This article critically examines Alan Garrow's 2023 defense of the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH), which posits that the Gospel of Matthew used Mark and Luke as sources, rejecting the Q hypothesis. The author engages Garrow's reliance on Robert H. Gundry's controversial thesis that Matthew's redaction sometimes diminishes Peter's status, analyzing five key Markan passages where Matthew either omits or generalizes Peter. The analysis finds Gundry's anti-Petrine interpretation largely unsubstantiated, showing instead that Matthew's editorial choices often enhance Peter's status or reflect ecclesial inclusivity. Applying these findings to MPH Matthew's use of Luke, the author argues that Garrow's explanations for Matthew's selective omissions and alterations of Lukan material are insufficient, revealing inconsistencies in MPH's account of Matthew's redactional tendencies, especially regarding Peter's role. The article concludes that unless MPH can account for these discrepancies, particularly Matthew's divergent treatment of Peter in Luke, the hypothesis faces significant challenges.