Markan vs Matthean Priority

[Petergee]

Right. I don’t see this as a debate amongst Scripture scholars in the Church at all.

The fact that you choose not to see something does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

Matthew was most widespread at the time the Canon was set, I believe, and that’s why it’s first in the list, not because of age.

On what do you base this? Several different ancient sources testify that Matthew was written first.

 

[Petergee]

Okay, let’s get the facts straight.
…

OK, to correct myself, the theory was first invented in the 1700s by certain protestant writers but remained unknown to all but a tiny group of scholars until in th 1800s atheists took it up as an argument against the truth of Christianity.

I note you omitted to mention the theory which is by far the simplest explantion of the synoptic primacy theory (it is not a “problem”) and the only one in accordance with the testimony of ancient sources: Matthew wrote first, then Luke (who no doubt had access to Matthew as well as other sources such as the BVM’s recollections), then Mark was written as the record of a series of sermons which St Peter gave in Rome, quoting both Matthew and Luke (as a way of approving the use of Luke in the West) and adding a few oof his own reminiscences and remarks, with the final chapter of Mark being written in Alexandria after St Peter’s death at about the time of which St Mark moved to Alexandria as its first bishop (presumably having been sent there by St peter both to spread the faith and to ensure orthjodoxy and to avoid his suffereing the same fate as Sts Peter and Pauil as Nero’s persecution raged in Rome).

In fact the earliest Bibles and collections of the Gospels have them in the order Matthew, Luke, Mark, John. It was only later Mark was placed ahead of Luke.

 

[patrick457]

OK, to correct myself, the theory was first invented in the 1700s by certain protestant writers but remained unknown to all but a tiny group of scholars until in th 1800s atheists took it up as an argument against the truth of Christianity.

The theory of Markan priority was first invented in the late 1700s by certain German Protestant writers, but remained unknown to most scholars until the early-to-mid 1800s, when it was dug out of obscurity. By the late 1800s, the theory was already well known enough that the Kulturkampf attempted to use it as a vehicle to attack Catholicism.

I note you omitted to mention the theory which is by far the simplest explantion of the synoptic primacy theory (it is not a “problem”) and the only one in accordance with the testimony of ancient sources: Matthew wrote first, then Luke (who no doubt had access to Matthew as well as other sources such as the BVM’s recollections), then Mark was written as the record of a series of sermons which St Peter gave in Rome, quoting both Matthew and Luke (as a way of approving the use of Luke in the West) and adding a few oof his own reminiscences and remarks, with the final chapter of Mark being written in Alexandria after St Peter’s death at about the time of which St Mark moved to Alexandria as its first bishop (presumably having been sent there by St peter both to spread the faith and to ensure orthjodoxy and to avoid his suffereing the same fate as Sts Peter and Pauil as Nero’s persecution raged in Rome).

No, I mentioned it, but only in passing: the Griesbach theory.

In fact the earliest Bibles and collections of the Gospels have them in the order Matthew, Luke, Mark, John. It was only later Mark was placed ahead of Luke.

This is the so-called Western order of the gospels, which puts the two apostles Matthew and John before Luke and Mark. (To be more exact, the order is Matthew-John-Luke-Mark.) The East has generally known the order Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (cf. Papyrus 75, which has Luke following John, and the Greek uncials.) Some Coptic versions seem to actually put John first before Matthew (hence John-Matthew-Mark-Luke), although they also seem to attest to the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John order.

 

[PeterJP]

Interesting thread. I’ve always believed that Mark came first simply because there is less in Mark than in Matthew, and I can’t think of any plausible reason for this.

Peter

 

[abucs]

Hello Peter.

Some of the early writers of the Church tell us that Mark’s gospel came from a transcript of Peter’s public teaching. If Peter was teaching from both Matthew and Luke then we can see where Mark’s gospel comes from. By this thinking, Mark’s writings were nothing more than a series of speeches from Peter, collected in one writing and then published.