Talk:Matthean Posteriority hypothesis

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Christianity: Bible Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Bible portal This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as Low-importance).

Comments[edit]

I 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)[reply]

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)[reply]