Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis, also known as the Wilke hypothesis 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.
In 1894 Goldscheider extended the intensive theory, proposing that each tactile nerve fiber can evoke three distinct qualities of sensation – tickle, touch and pain – the quality depending on the intensity of stimulation; and extended Naunyn's summation idea, proposing that, over time, activity from peripheral fibers may accumulate in the ...
In contrast, Matthew 21:18–22 [47] interprets the incident as a miracle that shows the power of faith. [48] Marcan posteriority faces the harder task of accounting for these as Marcan changes, but does so by appealing to Mark's fondness for vivid detail and for starkly contrasting Jesus' teachings with the attitudes of those around him.
Griesbach's main support for his thesis lies in passages where Matthew and Luke agree over and against Mark (e.g. Matthew 26:68; Luke 22:64; Mark 14:65), the so-called Minor Agreements. A related theory has Luke drawing not directly from Matthew, but from a common source, seen as a proto-Matthew.
The Matthew effect, sometimes called the Matthew principle, is the tendency of individuals to accrue social or economic success in proportion to their initial level of popularity, friends, and wealth.
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.
Matthew contains a number of doublets (two tellings of the same story) which is presumably the result of Matthew taking one from Q and one from Mark. Sometimes the version Matthew takes from Q meets the criteria for primitivity against Mark's and appear to have even served as a source for Mark's version.
Matthew and Luke, however, also share large sections of text which are not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed the Q. [1] This two-source hypothesis speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called Q.