I think the contradictions you claim are only in your head. The issues you site are easily reconcilable. Peter was alive when Mark took down in shorthand what Peter preached. …]
Actually, my problem with this scenario is that it really mishmashes different details from different writers (Irenaeus, Clement, Jerome in particular). I’m more on the side that thinks that each account should be taken each on their own terms than just try to harmonize them.
I still say the only real consistent element across the patristic testimony from Papias downwards are:
- Matthew wrote a ‘Hebrew’ gospel, which from Irenaeus onwards was considered to be the first gospel to be chronologically written. (Most Fathers usually speak of this ‘Hebrew’ Matthew rather than the canonical Greek Matthew in this context. Jerome even went so far as to note, “Who later translated (his gospel) into Greek, is not quite certain.”)
- Mark was Peter’s disciple who wrote his gospel using Peter’s teachings and memories of Jesus as a source. Mark is often contrasted with Luke, who in turn was Paul’s disciple.
The Clementine Gospel Tradition ( modified Griesbachian theory)
does not base its conclusions on only the evidence provided by Clement.
So, are claiming that the Gospel that was written third did not use the other two ?
Or that it is PURE SPECULATION (and I infer you to mean “without any real evidence to support it” ) to think that the third Gospel was based on the two before it ?
Well, I think it’s pure speculation to think that Clement was advocating a variant of the Griesbach theory just because (Eusebius’ paraphrase of) Clement talks about the two gospels with the genealogies first before going on about the circumstances that led to the penning of Mark’s gospel (leaving the whole issue of how exactly to translate that problematic Greek word there -
progegraphthai - for a moment).
Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were
progegraphthai, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances: Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged.
Note: never does Clement suggest any
literary relationship between the synoptics in his account. In fact, no Father explicitly did until St. Augustine. Augustine was the first person to wonder whether the synoptic gospels actually have a literary relationship and to try to solve the ‘synoptic problem’. This is really what I was getting at: some folks read Clement as if he is suggesting a literary relationship between the synoptics (he, or rather Eusebius, mentions Matthew and Luke first before Mark - does this mean he thought Mark used Matthew and Luke?), but they’re reading something that’s not necessarily there into the account.
I consider what you call the Augustinian hypothesis a misnomer. What he said falls more in line with what I am claiming to be true,
Written Order: Matthew, Luke, Mark.
Published Order Matthew, Mark, Luke
“Mark (who in the mysterious symbolism of the four living creatures seems to symbolize the figure of the man) either appears rather as one who goes with Matthew because together with him he relates a great number of things respecting the kingly figure … Or more probably he goes in step with both. For though he agrees with Matthew in many things, yet in some things he agrees more with Luke, so by this very fact he may be shown to share the symbolism of the Lion and the Bull (for Christ is a Man), which symbolism Mark possesses as he shares both aspects”.
I’m sorry, but I still don’t see this passage as implying that Augustine actually advocated a proto-Griesbach theory. The observation that Mark “shares both aspects” of Matthew and Luke doesn’t necessarily equate to “Mark used Matthew and Luke.” It’s simply Augustine observing what modern scholars would call Mark being the ‘intermediary’ or the ‘middle term’: Mark is usually closer to Matthew and Luke than they are to each other. No matter what theory one holds, nobody disputes that Mark is the common denominator.
One facet of the synoptic problem is to attempt to explain
why Mark is the middle term: was it because Matthew and Luke used Mark - Markan priority (as per the Two-source and the Farrer-Goulder hypotheses)? Or was it because Mark condensed Matthew and Luke - Markan posteriority (as per Griesbach)?
P.S. Faith1960, please ignore our little discussion here if you find all this talk confusing.
