Yes well he may, but the vast vast majority of scholars still claim Markan priority as you well know. And nobody other than the orthodox apologists believe that Matthew, was the actual apostle. Someone wrote in his name or their own, but they wrote in the area of 80-85 CE.
I was taught Markan priority in high school, and at the time I accepted it as “gospel truth.” But, Markan priority doesn’t even begin to explain how the Synoptic Problem may be solved in a way consistent with the ancient historians, modern methods of literary analysis and Dei Verbum – which is why I now have a problem accepting Markan priority as a valid theory.
I merely answered the questioned posed as I believe it. I don’t and have not find it fruitful to make proofs to orthodox apologistic Catholics who deny all sources they disagree with as “liberal” anyway. Long hours of research only to be ignored has convinced me not to try. The evidence is clearly available since it is the majority opinion. You may of course believe as you wish which you will undoubtedly do.
But as you know, just because something is the majority opinion doesn’t make it right
Roe v. Wade, anyone?
Here is a web site for the
Two Gospel Hypothesis – maintained by Protestant scholars who “have found the widely accepted ‘Two Document Hypothesis’ * unsatisfactory as an explanation of the literary phenomena that are observed when the first three gospels are compared with each other.”
Here is another explanation* (by Protestant theologians) of why the Two Gospel Hypothesis is significant.
Finally, here’s one reason why orthodox apologistic Catholics might be inclined to “deny all sources they disagree with as ‘liberal’ anyway” … From page 120 of The Gospel of Jesus by William Reuben Farmer (who was Professor of New Testament * Emeritus,* at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.):
In this case, the difference can be measured in terms of how the Two-Source Hypothesis affects the scriptural basis for a belief that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. In a phrase, the Two-Source Hypotheses weakens scriptural support for this belief. It does this by underscoring that Jesus’ assurance that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church is not found in the Gospel of Mark. This assurance is also not found in Q. It is not attested in either of the two earliest and most reliable sources, assuming the validity of the Two-Source Hypothesis.
The same can be said about the tradition in which Jesus promises to give the keys of the kingdom to Peter. The Two-Source Hypothesis also weakens scriptural support for the belief that authority in the church is in some unique way related to the person of Peter. All those who doubt that Jesus made this promise to Peter will find support for their reservations, assuming the validity of the Two-Source Hypothesis, because these words are absent from both Mark and Q. Conversely, Christians who hold that Jesus promised to give Peter the keys find scriptural support for this conclusion under the Two Gospel Hypothesis *. *
I’m sure there are a lot of well-intentioned scholars, Catholic and Protestant alike, who consider almost exclusively the results of “modern methods of literary analysis” and who have come to believe the Markan priority theory. Whether or not they consider themselves “liberal” and whether or not they think they have an axe to grind, there’s no getting around the reason why the Markan priority theory spread as rapidly as it did among Lutheran, Anglican, and other Protestant theologians beginning in the mid- to late-19th century… namely, they
did have at the time a vested interest in undermining the scriptural basis for the Catholic Church’s authority.
I really have no axe to grind here, since it is unimportant to me who was first. I simply follow the experts. Theide’s work is highly controversial and not agreed to by most other experts. I believe you are incorrect in your assertion. He originally dated the material to before 70 as I understand and has since redated it to late 1st century. But I’m surely no expert, and certainly not of his work which as I said, is highly controversial. If he were mainstream I would surely pay more attention. But I have no need or desire to evoke Matthew primacy as for some odd reason so many here do.
See above for the “odd reason” (i.e. something about a Rock, the gates of hell, and the keys of the kingdom).
Thiede actually argued that since the main comparative script (from Nahal Hever) is generally dated no later than AD 50, the possibility of a date around the middle of the first century for the Magdalen papyrus would be possible. Matthew D’Ancona even says as much in the book he co-wrote with Thiede,
Eyewitness to Christ:
“…Yet Thiede…argued that they * were of astonishingly early origin, dating from the mid-first century A.D…”
This
review of that book* even describes how Thiede arrived at that date:
“…Thiede reexamined the fragments, using state-of-the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede’s tests and skill appear to be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have met with strong opposition from critics…”
Of course Thiede’s work is “highly controversial and not agreed to by most other experts” – in no small part
because of its implications for the “mainstream” Markan priority theory.
There’s a saying in Orthodoxy in regards to God’s grace: “We know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not.” In other words, we believe the Orthodox Church to hold the faith that Christ gave to His Apostles, but we do not limit where God sends His grace to others who have not found the Orthodox Church.