Talk:Matthean Posteriority hypothesis
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Ignocrates in topic Comments
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Comments
editI am not an expert on these matters but I would make a couple of points. I think I came across this idea before, mentioned briefly in a work which may have depended on Karl Kautsky's views on Christianity. As it does appear to me to solve some problems with both the Q theory and the Farrer theory, have there been any arguments against it? PatGallacher (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Matthean posteriority barely gets a mention in passing in modern reviews. Imo, the main reasons are that the hypothesis contradicts external attestation (Papias and church tradition) and the supposed improbability that Matthew, editing last, would omit Luke's L source material such as the parable of the Good Samaritan. Ignocrates (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)