, in his groundbreaking 1786 argument for Marcan priority, 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 by following Mark primarily but also drawing from Luke, although he later went on to oppose this. These ideas were little noticed until 1838, when C. G. Wilke 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. Wilke's hypothesis received little further attention until recent decades, when it was revived in 1992 by Huggins, then Hengel, then independently by Blair. Additional recent supporters include Garrow and Powell.
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.
Matthew contains passages that are conflations of elements drawn from Mark and Luke. 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, which makes better sense than Luke rearranging Matthew into scattered fragments.
In the double tradition, Matthew's language often retains characteristically Lucan features.
The frequentoccurrence of doublets in Matthew may indicate drawing from similar accounts in two different sources.
