Wilke hypothesis

The Wilke hypothesis, named after Christian Gottlob Wilke, is a proposed solution to the 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.

The Wilke hypothesis holds that the Gospel of Mark was used as a source by the Luke and both for Matthew.

History

Storr, in his groundbreaking 1786 argument for Marcan priority,[1] asked, if Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke, how the latter two were then related. Storr proposed, among other possibilities, that canonical Greek Matthew was adapted from an earlier Aramaic Matthew (the logia spoken of by Papias) by following Mark primarily but also drawing from Luke,[2] although he later went on to oppose this.[3]

These ideas were little noticed until 1838, when C. G. Wilke[4] revived the hypothesis of Marcan priority and extensively developed the argument for Matthaean posteriority. Wilke's contemporary Weisse at the same time independently argued for Marcan priority but for Matthew and Luke independently using Mark and another 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.[5]

Wilke's hypothesis received little further attention until recent decades, when it was revived in 1992 by Huggins,[6] then Hengel,[7] then independently by Blair.[8] Additional recent supporters include Garrow[9] and Powell.[10]

Evidence

Most arguments for the Wilke hypothesis follow those of the Farrer hypothesis in accepting Marcan priority but rejecting 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 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

References
  1. Storr, Gottlob Christian (1786). Über den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  2. Storr (1786), pp. 270–307, 355–361, 369–370, 375-377.
  3. For a history of the hypothesis, see Adamczewski, Bartosz (2010). Q Or Not Q?: The So-called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels. pp. 173–184. ISBN 3631604920.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  4. Wilke, Christian Gottlob (1838). Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältniß der drei ersten Evangelien.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  5. Karl Kautsky Foundations of Christianity
  6. Huggins, Ronald V. (1992). "Matthean Posteriority: a Preliminary Proposal". Novum Testamentum. 34 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1163/156853692X00131. JSTOR 1561093.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Reprinted in Huggins, Ronald V. (1999). "Matthean Posteriority: a Preliminary Proposal". In Orton, David E. (ed.). The Synoptic Problem and Q: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. pp. 204–225. ISBN 9004113428.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  7. Hengel, Martin (2000). The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. pp. 169–207. ISBN 1563383004.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  8. Blair, George Alfred (2003). The Synoptic Gospels Compared. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity. 55. ISBN 0773468145.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  9. Garrow, Alan (2004). The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. Journal for the study of the New Testament: Supplement series. 254. pp. 225–237. ISBN 0826469779.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  10. Powell, Evan (2006). The Myth of the Lost Gospel. ISBN 0977048608.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.