{{Short description|Proposed solution to the synoptic problem}} {{Infobox synoptic hypothesis | name = Matthean Posteriority hypothesis | image = Synoptic Wilke Theory Mk-Lk en.svg | other_name = Wilke hypothesis | order = [[Marcan priority]] <br/ > Luke <br/ > Matt | additional_sources = No additional sources | Matthew = Mark, Luke | Mark = | Luke = Mark | originator = [[Gottlob Christian Storr]] | originating_work = | origination_date = 1786 | proponents = [[Christian Gottlob Wilke]], [[Karl Kautsky]] | opponents = }}
The '''Matthean Posteriority hypothesis''', also known as the '''Wilke hypothesis''' after [[Christian Gottlob Wilke]], is a proposed solution to the [[Synoptic_Gospels#Synoptic_problem|synoptic problem]], holding that the [[Gospel of Mark]] was used as a source by the [[Gospel of Luke]], then both of these were used as sources by the [[Gospel of Matthew]]. Thus, it posits [[Marcan priority]] and Matthaean posteriority.
Wilke's hypothesis received little attention until recent decades, but a resurgence of support for Matthean Posteriority has been one of the defining trends of Synoptic studies during the 2010s, and the theory has entered the mainstream of scholarship.<ref name="TSP2022">{{Cite book |title=The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference |publisher=Peeters Pub and Booksellers |year=2023 |isbn=9789042950344 |pages=5}}</ref>
==History== [[Gottlob Christian Storr]], in his 1786 argument for [[Marcan priority]],<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O4dAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP5 | title=Über den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis | last=Storr | first=Gottlob Christian | authorlink=Gottlob Christian Storr | year=1786 }}</ref> asked, if Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke, how the latter two were then related. Storr proposed, among other possibilities, that the canonical Matthew (written in Greek) was translated from the original, which was written in [[Hebrew Gospel hypothesis|either Hebrew or Aramaic]] (the ''[[Logia#Papias_of_Hierapolis|logia]]'' spoken of by [[Papias of Hierapolis|Papias]]) by following Mark primarily but also drawing from Luke,{{sfnp|Storr|1786|pp=270–307, 355–361, 369–370, 375-377}} although he later went on to oppose this.<ref>For a history of the hypothesis, see {{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2IlMGQAOgw8C&pg=PA173 | title=Q Or Not Q?: The So-called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels | year=2010 | pages=173–184 | isbn=978-3631604922 | last=Adamczewski | first=Bartosz | publisher=Peter Lang }}</ref>
These ideas were little noticed until 1838, when [[Christian Gottlob Wilke]]<ref name=Wilke1838>{{cite book|last=Wilke|first=Christian Gottlob|authorlink=Christian Gottlob Wilke|title=Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältniß der drei ersten Evangelien|publisher=Verlag von Gerhard Fleischer|location=Leipzig|year=1838|url=https://archive.org/details/derurevangelist00wilkgoog|language=German}}</ref> revived the hypothesis of Marcan priority and extensively developed the argument for Matthaean posteriority. Wilke's contemporary [[Christian Hermann Weisse]]<ref name=Weisse1838>{{cite book|last=Weisse|first=Christian Hermann|authorlink=Christian Hermann Weisse|title=Die evangelische geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet|publisher=Breitkopf und Hartel|location=Leipzig|year=1838|url=https://archive.org/details/dieevangelische02weisgoog|language=German}}</ref> at the same time independently argued for Marcan priority but for Matthew and Luke independently using Mark and another source [[Q source|Q]]—the [[two-source hypothesis]]. A few other German scholars supported Wilke's hypothesis in the nineteenth century, but in time most came to accept the two-source hypothesis, which remains the dominant theory to this day. Wilke's hypothesis was accepted by [[Karl Kautsky]] in his ''Foundations of Christianity''.<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/ch02.htm Karl Kautsky ''Foundations of Christianity'']</ref>
Wilke's hypothesis received little further attention until recent decades, when it was revived in 1992 by Huggins,<ref>{{cite journal | title=Matthean Posteriority: a Preliminary Proposal | journal=Novum Testamentum | year=1992 | volume=34 | issue=1 | pages=1–22 | doi=10.1163/156853692X00131 | jstor=1561093 | last=Huggins | first=Ronald V. }} Reprinted in {{cite book | title=The Synoptic Problem and Q: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum | year=1999 | pages=204–225 | isbn=9004113428 | editor-last=Orton | editor-first=David E. | chapter=Matthean Posteriority: a Preliminary Proposal | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jFVh51jLIrYC&pg=PA204 | last=Huggins | first=Ronald V. | publisher=BRILL }}</ref> then [[Martin Hengel|Hengel]],<ref>{{cite book | title=The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ | authorlink=Martin Hengel | year=2000 | pages=169–207 | isbn=1563383004 | last=Hengel | first=Martin | publisher=Bloomsbury Academic }}</ref> then independently by Blair.<ref>{{cite book | title=The Synoptic Gospels Compared | year=2003 | isbn=0773468145 | series=Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity | volume=55 | last=Blair | first=George Alfred }}</ref> The resurgence of support for Matthean Posteriority is represented by the works of Alan Garrow,<ref>{{cite book | title=The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache | year=2004 | pages=225–237 | isbn=0826469779 | last=Garrow | first=Alan | series=Journal for the study of the New Testament: Supplement series | volume=254}}</ref> Evan Powell, and most importantly Robert MacEwen.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Gospel Reading and Reception in Early Christian Literature |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2022 |isbn=9781316514467 |pages=72}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Powell |first=Evan |title=The Myth of the Lost Gospel |publisher=Symposium Press |year=2006 |isbn=0977048608}}</ref> The rise of the Matthaean posteriority hypothesis has been one of the defining trends of Synoptic studies during the 2010s, and the theory has entered the mainstream of scholarship.<ref name=TSP2022 />
==Evidence== Most arguments for the Wilke hypothesis follow those of the [[Farrer hypothesis]] in accepting [[Marcan priority]] but rejecting [[Q source|Q]]. The difference, then, is in the direction of dependence between Matthew and Luke.
Arguments advanced in favor of Matthaean posteriority include:
* Matthew's version of the [[Synoptic Gospels#The double tradition|double tradition]] appears more developed in wording and structure than Luke's, which appears more primitive. (The same observation is made by supporters of the [[two-source hypothesis]], who regard Luke adhering better to the original Q.) * Matthew contains passages that are conflations of elements drawn from Mark and Luke (e.g. Matt 9:14-17, 9:35-10,12:22-30, 12:31-32, 19:23-30, 24:23-28). This phenomenon is unique to Matthew, for there is no similar array of passages in Luke that are composed of elements drawn from Mark and Matthew. * Matthew seems to have deliberately rearranged his sources to collecting teachings into five large blocks (e.g., the [[Sermon on the Mount]]), which makes better sense than Luke rearranging Matthew into scattered fragments. * In the double tradition, Matthew's language often retains characteristically Lucan features. * The frequent occurrence of doublets in Matthew may indicate drawing from similar accounts in two different sources.
==See also== {{Portal|Bible}} <!--do not include any terms already appearing in the article--> * [[Two-source hypothesis]] * [[Farrer hypothesis]] * [[Three-source hypothesis]] * [[Four-document hypothesis]]
==References== {{reflist}}
==External links== * [http://synoptic-problem.com/ The Synoptic Problem and the Non-existence of Q, by Evan Powell] * [https://www.alangarrow.com/mch.html/ Matthew Conflator Hypothesis, by Alan Garrow] {{Gospel of Matthew}} {{Synoptic problem}} [[Category:Synoptic problem]] [[Category:Hypotheses]]