Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Gottlob Christian Storr, in his 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 the canonical Matthew (written in Greek) was translated from the original, which was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic (the logia spoken of by Papias) by following Mark primarily but also ...
In summary, the two-source hypothesis proposes that Matthew and Luke used Mark for its narrative material as well as for the basic structural outline of chronology of Jesus' life; and that Matthew and Luke use a second source, Q (from German Quelle, "source"), not extant, for the sayings (logia) found in both of them but not in Mark. [5]
A minority view holds that while Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary. A few ancient authorities seem to offer this interpretation. [64] Although the Greek text as it stands is plainly against it, it has been proposed that in the original text Matthew had one Joseph as Mary's father and another as her husband.
The four-document hypothesis or four-source hypothesis is an explanation for the relationship between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.It posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark and three lost sources (Q, M, and L).
The three-source hypothesis is a candidate solution to the synoptic problem.It combines aspects of the two-source hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis.It states that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark and a sayings collection as primary sources, but that the Gospel of Luke also used the Gospel of Matthew as a subsidiary source.
Salome (Mk 15:40, 16:1; Mt 27:55–56, 28:1; Lk 23:49, 24:10) The reverse situation of Matthew or Luke naming those unnamed in Mark never occurs. If, as Bauckham reasons, the reason for the omission of these names in Matthew and Luke is that these persons have since died, this phenomenon lends support to Mark being composed earliest.
Since Matthew was the primary source for Luke, and Matthew's gospel (the only published gospel at the time) would have been well known to Peter, he mostly would have preached on the contents of Matthew. Knowing Matthew better than Luke, Peter was more likely to mention details found in Matthew and not Luke than vice versa. This would explain ...
[11] [12] Matthew gives Jacob as Joseph's father and Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli. Attempts at explaining the differences between the genealogies have varied in nature. [13] [14] [15] Much of modern scholarship interprets them as literary inventions. [16] The Luke and Matthew accounts of the birth of Jesus have a number of points in ...