Argument Summary: If Luke used Matthew directly, why does he lack so many Matthean additions to the triple tradition? [Stein 99]

The argument here admits four major exceptions -- there are additions found in Matt and Luke (but not Mark) to the baptism account, the Tempation narrative, the Beelzebub incident, and the mission charge. But as a whole the parallels are lacking. Thus it is proposed that a Q document is the best alternative.

But once again, raw amounts of material can be deceiving. The Matthean material Luke lacks falls into certain categories that are quite intelligible as left out within our thesis that Luke had Ur-Matthew at his disposal (which Stein does not consider):

• OT fulfillment quotations. Possibly, Luke would leave these out as being less intelligible or of less use to his Roman reader; but it is also possible, and within our thesis, that Matthew's fulfillment quotes Luke omits are part of his later, more didactic edition and were not part of Ur-Matthew.
• Further didactic material. Matthew contains longer expositions that would also have appeared perhaps only in his later, didactic version.
• On the birth narratives, which also may not have been part of Ur-Matthew, there are even so intelligible political reasons for Luke to ignore Matthew's; see here

This point of course works in with those who DO identify Q with the Aramaic version of Matthew, and so is not a particularly radical notion. It could be noted in support that the sort of explanatory material we refer to above is also the sort of material that we would expect upon further reflection (whether by Jesus or by Matthew) and which would be used in didactic settings (though not necessarily not in public confrontations, i.e., OT spitting contests, with the Pharisees). As Stein notes, these Matthean additions are all typical Matthean material in terms of theme and content, and this fits in with them as didactic additions to an Ur-Matthean core.