Fuchs, Albert2023-09-262023-09-262004Roczniki Teologiczne, 2004, T. 51, z. 1, s. 29-43.1233-1457http://theo-logos.pl/xmlui/handle/123456789/10987Tłumaczenie streszczenia / Translated by Tadeusz Karłowicz.On the example of the pericope about the greatest commandment (Mark 12, 28-34; Matt 22, 34-40; Luke 10, 25-28) the author tries to elucidate the “minor agreements” between the Gospels according to St Matthew and St Mark as opposed to St Mark and draw the consequences of this fact for the two sources hypothesis (Mark and Q). According to the author, simply repeating the hypothesis of two sources is a great mistake; on the contrary, existence should be accepted of the so-called deutero-Mark who re-wrote the text of St Mark’s Gospel in the changed historical situation after the year 70. This text by deutero-Mark was next used by Matt / Luke and is responsible for the presence of the so-called “minor agreements” between these two Gospels.plAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Polandhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pl/problem synoptycznyteoria dwóch źródełdeutero-Marekzgodności mniejszeMk 12Mt 22Łk 10Ewangelia według św. MarkaEwangelia według św. MateuszaEwangelia według św. ŁukaszaEwangeliaNowy TestamentPismo ŚwięteBibliaprzykazaniaegzegezaegzegeza biblijnakrytyka źródełsynoptic problemtwo sources hypothesisdeutero-Markminor agreementsGospel of LukeGospel of MatthewGospel of MarkgospelNew TestamentBiblecommandmentsexegesisbiblical exegesissource criticismArticle