Home Page     The ChurchinHistory Information Centre www.churchinhistory.org  THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition] By Dennis Barton The Gospels are Historical Part 1 This publication brings together the Synoptic researches of many, especially the following pioneers: Dr. Henry Owen (1716-1795). Anglican priest, Scripture scholar and Boyle Lecturer. First pioneer in modern times to propose the Matthew-Luke-Mark order of the Gospels. Johann Griesbach (1745-1812). Lutheran University professor who spread knowledge of the Matthew-Luke-Mark order in Germany and beyond. Pontifical Biblical Commission (1902 -1971). Firmly opposed the Markan Priority theory. John Chapman OSB. (1865-1933). Considered the greatest Patristic scholar of his time, pointed out weakness of the Markan priority theory. Upheld the priority of Matthew's gospel. Abbot Christopher Butler OSB (1902-86). Leading English-speaking contributor at Vatican II. Influential in forming the open attitude to research, to be found in Dei Verbum. Lifelong active defender of the priority of Matthew's Gospel. Auxiliary bishop of Westminster, London. William R. Farmer (died in 2000). Methodist professor. He showed how Markan Priority was established in Germany, by Government imposed, 'political correctness.' Promoted the Matthew-Luke-Mark order throughout America. Editor of the International Bible Commentary (1998). Harold Riley. Anglican priest and Scripture scholar. Close co-operator with Bernard Orchard. Dom Bernard Orchard OSB (1910-2006). Editor of: The Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture (1953). The New Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture (1969). Catholic Edition of The Revised Standard Version of the Bible. (1966). Bernard Orchard was also author of: The Origin and Evolution of the Gospels (1993). This short pamphlet showed how the Synoptic Problem may be solved in a way consistent with the ancient historians, modern methods of literary analysis and Dei Verbum. This pamphlet inspired the booklet you are are now reading. It is available, with other articles by him, a celebration of his final years and moves to make known and build on his work, as part of a list of articles on item[G225]. Click HERE FOREWORD The theory that Mark's gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built. 'The Authors of the Gospels' sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis, the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome. This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council. K.J.Gajewski NOTE 1. a. Scriptural quotations are from the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition). b. An editorial comment, within a quotation, is indicated within [ ] brackets. c. The author has adopted the reference system used in other `ChurchinHistory` publications. References are provided in double brackets such as: ((AF 753)). The AF refers to a publications listed in the bibliography at the end, with the number denoting the page. d. There is a difference between an hypothesis and a theory. But in academic discourse, as well as in popular literature, they are both often referred to as: `a theory`. In this booklet the two words are treated as interchangeable. NOTE 2. Associated leaflets also available on this web site: a. An introduction to this booklet: b. A short overview: Why, How and When the Gospels? c. The importance of correct translations: Dei Verbum, Chapter II, Section 7 - Translation CONTENTS Page             Chapter                     5   I   INTRODUCTION 8   II   THE EARLY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE 17   III   LITERARY ANALYSIS 18   IV   THE JEROME TRADITION 19   V   MARKAN PRIORITY 21   VI   THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION (GRIESBACH AND 2GH) 27   VII   THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION (PETER`S TALKS) 32   VIII   DATING MATTHEW 35   IX   A HEBREW MATTHEW 39   X   ANTI-JUDAISM IN MATTHEW AND JOHN 42   XI   LUKE, ACTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MATTHEW 51   XII   THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 61   XIII   THE EPISTLES AND PSEUDONYMITY / FORGERY 66   XIV   THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 73   XV   PAPIAS; THE `Q` SOURCE; TONING DOWN MARK? THE JERUSALEM PROPHESIES; ACCORDING TO …           80   XVI   THE ROMAN WORLD; ARCHAEOLOGY; A NOVEL 83   XVII   FUNDAMENTALISM; ECUMENISM; TWO AUDENCES; THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION           87   XVIII   THE EVENTS FALL INTO PLACE 92   XIX   THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH 107   XX   A ROOF WITHOUT WALLS 115   XXI   THE UNFOLDING OF EVENTS 117       REFERENCES/ BIBLIOGRAPHY/ WEB SITES CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For nearly 2000 years Christians have maintained that the Apostles Matthew and John (eye-witnesses of the public life of Christ) and Mark and Luke (secretaries to Peter and Paul) composed the four Gospels. Today this historical basis of Christianity is widely denied, not only by non-Christians, but also by some within the Christian community. When at parish level speakers are asked to provide solid reasons for this change, the usual replies are: `The experts say so`, or `everyone agrees`. I therefore felt the need to make a personal investigation. This involved collecting the external evidence (what the early historians wrote) and the internal evidence (modern literary analysis of the texts). This booklet shows the result of this research. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) show clear signs of borrowing. The dispute as to who borrowed from whom, and therefore in what order they were written, is the key to the debate regarding authorship. There are three main schools of thought: ~ The Jerome Tradition (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) ~ ~ The Markan priority theory (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John)~ ~ The Clementine Tradition (Matthew, Luke, Mark, John) ~ THE JEROME TRADITION asserts that: + The order of Gospel composition was in the sequence they appear in our Bibles today. + St. Jerome and some other early Christians made use of this order. + If internal evidence contradicts these historians, the literary analysis must be in error. THE MARKAN PRIORITY THEORY asserts that: + Those, who wrote second and third, would have improved the literary form of the Greek in the borrowed verses. They would not have deliberately corrupted the Greek. + Mark`s Gospel is in `poor Greek` when compared to that of Matthew and Luke. + So Matthew and Luke must have borrowed from Mark. + This shows that Mark wrote prior to the other two (i.e. Markan priority). + Matthew the Apostle (an eyewitness of the public life of Christ) would not have borrowed from a non-eyewitness when forming the basis of his account. + This indicates that Matthew the Apostle did not write the Gospel named after him. It must have been composed by an unknown person at a later date, using Mark`s Gospel as a basis and adding additional material from other sources (these are referred to as `Q`). + As Luke also improved on Greek of Mark, he must also have written late. This means he could not have been a companion of Paul. + These findings of modern literary analysis show that the ancient historians were in error. They are not therefore a reliable source for the historical claim that the fourth Gospel was by John the Apostle, eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus.. + As none of the authors of the Gospels were Apostles or their companions, their writings can not be seen as accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did. +The authors must have been unknown writers, living at late dates, expressing their beliefs in the form of stories. As the Markan priority theory is based upon modern scientific research, and the Jerome Tradition is based on historical records, `Science` should be trusted in preference to `old traditions`. `The Jesus of History` is not the same as `The Christ of Faith` Christianity is therefore not built on a firm historical basis. THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION + Challenged by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit. + Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. + In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first. + Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order. + When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today. + A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third. + Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles. + Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue. + By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel. + This vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel. + The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect agreement. THE CHURCH + Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels. + The Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum. + The Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum. + Rome urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis + The Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact. ================ THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION is in full accord with: The earliest Christian historians Modern literary analysis The doctrine of the church Recent Church statements The following pages contain the evidence for the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the reaction of the Church. CHAPTER II THE EARLY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE It would be surprising if scrolls produced by the earliest Christian writers had survived intact for 2000 years. However, we do have important extracts and also possess quotations from their works as reproduced by Eusebius in his `Ecclesiastical History`. a). PAPIAS (c. 60-139) was the bishop of Hieropolis. Eusebius said Papias wrote five books and mentions his commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and John. Ancient Armenian literature records Papias writing commentaries on Luke and John ((RO 171)). Papias had carefully studied at least three of the Gospels. Hieropolis was close to the Christian centres at Colossae and Laodicea, and about one hundred and fifty kilometres from Ephesus along a good surfaced road. So contact with John the Apostle would have been easy. No doubt John took a great interest in Papias as he trained to be a bishop, and afterwards gave him good advice. His life span overlapped that of John by 30-40 years and Papias speaks of `The Presbyter`, who traditionally has been identified as John the Apostle. An extract from the fourth book by Papias and preserved by Eusebius reads: `And this the Presbyter used to say: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord's sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew`s this was said: "For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able"`. ((EH 3: 39, 8 and RO 166r)). Here we have Papias quoting John the Apostle`s words in defence of the style of the Gospel of Mark. So the `poor Greek` of Mark is not something first noticed in the 18th century. The extract, `... the Presbyter used to say`, being in the plural, shows that aspects of Mark`s gospel had to be repeatedly defended by John the Apostle against criticism. b). JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100-165) was born in Palestine and following his study of philosophic systems, became a Christian about 130 AD. About 138 AD Justin moved to Rome and set up as a teacher of Christian philosophy. He became a public leader in the defence of Christian beliefs against Paganism, the Jews and the heretical teachings of Marcion. So he had to be careful to use soundly based arguments. Amongst his writings we possess twelve direct quotations from the Gospels. Justin then moved to Ephesus where he died. The elderly members of the Ephesus community would remember the Apostles who had lived in or visited the town. In his `Dialogue with Trypho` published between 161-165, Justin quotes from Matthew and Luke referring to them as, "the teachers who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ". He writes of `the memoirs composed by the apostles which are called Gospels`. He specifically attributes the Apocalypse to John the Apostle. He knew the Septuagint well, and used the same version that had been used by Matthew. Justin in his `Dialogue with Trypho`, frequently uses the phrase `the memoirs of his apostles [note: plural] and others who followed him`, as the source of his quotations ((JMD ch. 98-107 and RO 122)). So Justin accepted that apostles had written at least two of the Gospels. Also, in his `Dialogue with Trypho`, he refers to Mark 3:16-17: `And when it is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and when it is written in his [Peter`s] memoirs that this happened, as well as that he surnamed two other brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, with the name of Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder, this was a signification of the fact that it was He [JHWH] by whom Jacob was called Israel…` ((JMD 106. 9-10 and RO 125)). c). IRENAEUS was born about 120 AD near Smyrna. After travelling throughout the Roman world gaining a wide knowledge of Christian life and history, he was made bishop of Lyons and martyred about 180 AD. As a young man he frequented the house of bishop Polycarp in Smyrna. In a letter to Florinus, he wrote regarding his childhood: `… I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out, too, and his coming in - his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people, also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever thing he had learned from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and his teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures ... ((See newadvent.org web site: Fathers: Irenaeus: Fragments from lost writings of Irenaeus, item II and IJK 540)). In the first chapter of his third book in the series known as `Adversus Haereses`, Irenaeus records that the apostles of Christ preached the Gospel verbally. He then continues: `Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia`. ((RO 128-9: IAH 3. 1,1; and EH 5: 8, 2)). This quotation above comes from the Latin translation of his work. But we also possess the same passage in the original Greek as quoted by Eusebius. This confirms the Latin translation is accurate. The Latin version may imply that Irenaeus was thinking that Mark and Luke wrote after the death of Peter. However, the perfect tense used in the Greek version makes it clear that this is not so. Irenaeus was merely saying that the gospels of Mark and Luke have handed on the traditions taught by Peter and Paul when they were still alive ((RO 163)). 'Tongue` may also be rendered as 'language` or 'dialect`. 'Demise` was also used by the Greeks to denote 'departure`. 'Matthew also` may also be rendered as: 'So Matthew'. Irenaeus is saying that the Gospel of Matthew was composed by one of Christ`s apostles who had already proclaimed the Gospel verbally. As Peter fled to Rome about 41 AD and Paul was martyred in 67 AD, Matthew must have written between these dates. When, in his third and fourth books, Ireneaus builds his case against three heresies, he uses quotations from the Gospels in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. In 3:9,1-3 he quotes mainly from Matthew, in 3:10,1-4 from Luke, in 3:10, 5 from Mark and in 3:11,1-6 from John. In the second controversy he says the Ebionites only use Matthew; Marcion mutilates Luke; the Docetists adapt Mark and Valentinus misuses John (3:11,7). In the third instance he quotes Scripture to show God was the father of Jesus, then writes: `…Matthew hath set down, and Luke also, and Mark....' (4: 6, 1). ((IJK 220, 234, 320)). So the order most familiar to Irenaeus was that of Luke being prior to Mark. Hans von Campenhausen first pointed this out in his 1972 book, `The Formation of the Christian Gospel`, page 195, note 243. In our Chapter IV we have an item showing that this use by Irenaeus is consistent with the Sunday readings of the Gospels in the early churches. d). THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT, or Canon, was discovered in 1740. Its authorship is unknown but it is thought to have been written by Hippolytus ((MFGR)). It is in barbarous Latin and not always correct. It mentions Pope Pius I who reigned from 141-158, and three heretics as contemporaries, so is normally dated as about 150 ((RO 138)). The surviving extract of the opening indicates that Mark was present at a specific event. "… at which nevertheless he was present and thus related. In third place [we have] the book of the Gospels according to Luke. This Luke, a physician, after the Ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him, as one studious of Right, [to be his follower] at his own request [in his own name], wrote from report, since he himself notwithstanding had not seen the Lord in the flesh. Yet as far as he could ascertain so indeed he began to relate, beginning at the birth of John The fourth of the Gospels is John`s, one of the Disciples. At the insistence of his fellow-disciples and bishops he said: Today and for three days fast with me and what shall be revealed to each of us relate to one another. The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that whatever should come to the minds of them all, John in his own name should write it all down … …What therefore [is there] to wonder at if John so constantly utters statements indeed in his Epistles saying from his own experience: What I have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have touched, these thing we have written to you? For thus he declares that he is not only an eyewitness and a hearer but also the writer of all the wonders of the Lord in order. However the Acts of the Apostles were written in one book. To the excellent Theophilus, Luke dedicates [the Acts], some of the events of which happened in his presence, just as he clearly declares, though with omission of Peter`s Passion and Paul`s journey from Rome setting out for Spain" ((MFGR and RO 139-140)). e). THEOPHILUS, the sixth bishop of Antioch writing about 179, named John as the divinely inspired author of a Gospel ((CCHS 776b)). f). POLYCRATES, bishop of Ephesus, in 189 defended the authenticity of the four Gospels by appealing to the authority of the Apostles Philip and John. He also called on the witness of seven kinsmen, who had been bishops in Asia before himself, that: `He who was reclining on the breast of our Lord wrote John`s Gospel`. ((CCHS 776b)). g). CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c 150-215) was a pupil of Pantoris, the first great Christian teacher at Alexandria in Egypt. Clement records that he himself had travelled widely, meeting and listening to `truly notable men` from all over the Roman Empire ((EH 5, 11)). While Rome was the administrative heart of the Church, her intellectual centre was at Alexandria. The town had long possessed a famous Pagan university. The earlier presence of Philo had also made it the centre of Jewish studies, and it was here the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament had been made. In his `Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas`, Clement commented on 1 Peter 5, 13. As Eusebius did not copy the full quotation, we are using here the Latin translation by Cassiodorus: `Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar`s knights and uttering many testimonies of Christ, [Mark] being begged by them that they should be able to record what was said, wrote the Gospel which is called the Gospel of Mark, from the things said by Peter; just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews`. ((RDCA and RO 131)). The words `Caesar`s knights` brings to mind the letter of Paul to the Philippians: `…so that it has become known throughout the whole praetorium and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ`. And, `All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar`s household ` (Phil.1: 13 and 4:22). The next quotations are of particular importance with regard to the subject of this booklet. They are quoted by Eusebius from Clement`s books. "So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches. Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: `The Outlines` [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: `The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark` ((EH 2. 15, 1-2 and RO 166)). `And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the very earliest presbyters about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. He used to say that the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. While Peter was publicly preaching the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, the audience, which was numerous, begged Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write down the things he had said. And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel`. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)). In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence. h). TERTULLIAN (c. 155-220) lived mainly in Africa and was a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria. For a time he practiced as an Advocate at Rome, so as a lawyer he would have been very experienced when sifting evidence. Between 207 and 212, he wrote `Adversus Marcionem` [Treatise against Marcion]. Being one of disputation, it would have been compiled with great care to ensure it was not open to challenge. "… I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospels have the Apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. If they have also for their authors apostolic men, yet these stand not alone but as companions of the apostles, because the preaching of disciples might be made suspect of the desire of vainglory, unless there stood by it the authority of their teachers, or rather the authority of Christ, which made the Apostles teachers. In short, from among the Apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the Faith, while from among apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it, …". ((TE Book 4: 2, 1-2 and RO 133-4)). Here Tertullian has placed the name of Luke before that of Mark and later writes: "That same authority of the apostolic churches will stand as a witness also for other gospels, which no less [than Luke`s] we possess by their agency and according to their text -I mean John`s and Matthew`s, though that which Mark produced is stated to be Peter`s, whose interpreter Mark was. Luke`s narrative also they usually attribute to Paul". ((TE Book 4: 5, 3 and RO 135)). i). ORIGEN (c. 185-253) was the successor of Clement of Alexandria as the principal teacher in Alexandria. Eusebius quotes Origen as asserting that by tradition: "The first written was that according to the one time tax collector but later apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in Hebrew characters. And second, that according to Mark, composed as Peter guided, …And third, that according to Luke, the gospel praised by Paul, composed for those from the Gentiles. Finally, that according to John". ((EH 6: 25, and RO 169)). [Emphasis not in the original] It is very unlikely Origen intended to dispute the clear statement regarding the order of writing provided by his teacher, Clement of Alexandria. Origen is explaining how and why the gospels were composed, not the order of their writing. He could have been thinking in the order of their publication. If this is correct, his listing in the order of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, is not a problem for those holding the Clementine tradition. [See part 1. of Chapter XVIII ]. j). ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES These second, third and fourth century Gospel introductions come down to us in both Latin and Greek. Concerning Mark we read: `…Mark who was also called Stubfinger, because he had shorter fingers with regard to the other dimensions of his body. He had been the disciple and recorder of Peter, whom he followed, just as he had heard him relating. Having been asked by the brethren in Rome he wrote this short Gospel in the regions of Italy; when Peter heard about it, he approved and authorized it to be read to the church with [his own] authority`. ((AMM and RO 148)). Concerning John we read: "John the Apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved exceedingly, last of all wrote this Gospel at the request of the bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially the teachings of the Ebionites then arising, …" "But they also say that there was another reason for this Gospel being written, because after reading the volumes of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the gospel, he of course approved the text of their accounts and confirmed the truth of what they had said, but [perceived] that they had provided the account of one year only in which he suffered after the imprisonment of John. Omitting therefore the year whose happenings were recorded by the three, he related the events that had occurred at an earlier period before John was shut up in prison, as will be able to be clear to those who have carefully read the books of the four Gospels. The Gospel therefore written after the Apocalypse, was also given to the churches in Asia by John while still living in the flesh, as the bishop of Hieropolis, Papias by name, a dear disciple of John, has related in his `exoteric`, that is, in [his] last, five books, who wrote out this Gospel, John dictating it to him". ((AMJ and RO 151)). k). EUSEBIUS OF PAMPHILIUS (260-340) emerged as a great scholar of the Church as She was emerging into cultural and political freedom. As bishop of Caesaria he had a library with 30 000 scrolls and codices ((CTJ 74)). This library included the most complete collection of Christian documents ever assembled. He was the literary heir of Pamphilius, who had inherited the library of Origen, as well as the correspondence of Dionysius of Alexandria who had died in 264. As a theologian and biblical critic he played a part in the 325 Council of Nicea. Between 303 and 325 he wrote his ten-volume history of the church, which summed up the accumulated historical knowledge of the early Christian world. Eusebius had a great advantage over the researchers of today in that he had a great number of books in front of him which have since been lost. Fortunately he normally quoted what earlier historians, such as Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others had written, rather than provide paraphrases. Some modern authors assert that Eusebius copied from Clement and Clement obtained all his information from Papias. They say that if Papias was in error, Clement and Eusebius would be also. But this is not correct. As mentioned previously, Eusebius knew Clement had `travelled widely and listened to truly notable men [note plural] from all over the Roman Empire`. Eusebius saw Clement as a very reliable witness to the consensus view of the most educated Christian authorities. He treats the witness of Papias as being a separate confirmatory source. For example if we reread the words of Clement in g) above, we see that Eusebius, when quoting information from Clement of Alexandria, regarded him as an independent source. Regarding Peter and Mark, Eusebius says Papias: "also bears witness to it". ((EH 2: 15, 2 and RO 166)). Eusebius explained that at first the apostles and disciples did not write of their experiences, but relied on the proofs of the Spirit. But Matthew and John eventually wrote `perforce`. Matthew wrote because he was on the point of leaving Palestine, so left something to partially make up for his absence. John wrote because the existing gospels limited themselves to one year of Christ`s preaching. He was asked to add the events of the other years ((EH 3: 24, 1-15)). l). ST. JEROME (331 - 420) Many people presume the gospels are printed in the order in which they were composed and that this order is based on the earliest Christian traditions. But this is not correct. At the end of the 4th century, Pope Damasus became concerned at the faulty translations and copying errors creeping into the Latin texts in use in Western Europe. So he commissioned Jerome to prepare a new Latin translation from the Greek. When completed it was known as `The Vulgate` and issued for standard use in the West. In his letter, `Epistula ad Damasum`, addressed to the Pope and enclosed with his final text, Jerome had to explain why he had adopted the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John order. This indicates it was not normally used in the West ((WRFN 27)). [See this chapter, section p]. During the same years, Jerome compiled `De Viris Illustribus` [On Illustrious Men]. When describing these men, he does so in the order of Matthew (chapter 3), Luke (7), Mark (8) and John (9) ((WRFN 26 and DVI)). This was the Clementine order. When Jerome wrote his Prologus Quattuor Evangeliorum [Prologue to the Four Gospels], he did not specify whether they had been written or published in the order he had adopted. In his letter to Hebidiam, Jerome wrote: "…Peter also had Mark, whose gospel was composed with Peter narrating and him writing." m). AMBROSIASTER is the name given to an anonymous author of the late fourth century. He appears to have been writing just after the Vulgate had been published. A passage in his writings implies that the gospels in his copy of the New Testament were arranged in the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John order. `The gospel is arranged according to the order [of their contents] rather than in chronological order. Therefore, Matthew is put in the first place because he begins from the promise, that is, from Abraham to whom was made the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Next comes Luke, because he relates how this incarnation took place. Third comes Mark, who witnesses that the gospel preached by Christ has been promised in the Law. Fourthly John …`. ((AS and RO 201-2)). n). ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354 - 430). During Jerome's lifetime, Augustine wrote his: `De Consensu Evangelistarum` in four volumes. In the first volume he wrote that the received order was Matthew-Mark-Luke and John, but the order of dignity was Matthew-John-Mark and Luke ((AH 1 Book 1: 1-3)). Because he mentioned Matthew-Mark-Luke in his first volume, this order has often been referred to as: `The Augustinian Tradition`. But this is a misnomer because in his fourth volume he explains that Mark's Gospel developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke. ((AH 4 Book 4:10, 11 and RO 211-214)). David Peabody has examined Augustine's thinking regarding this in some detail. ((WRFN 37-64)). He shows how Augustine eventually adopted the Clementine tradition. In this booklet, to avoid confusion, we refer to the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence as: `The Jerome Tradition`. o). THE MONARCHIAN PROLOGUE TO MARK`S GOSPEL This was probably written by Priscillian, a heretic who died in 386. "For setting out on the perfect work of the Gospel, and starting to preach God from the Lord's baptism, he did not bother with the nativity story which he had seen related in the former [Gospels]. A similar prologue, probably by the same author, refers to Luke`s Gospel as being after Mark's. ((RO 208-9 and WRFN 22 and 23)). p). THE OLD LATIN VERSIONS These early Latin translations from the Greek continued to circulate for centuries after Jerome`s Vulgate was published and many copies or part copies have survived. Most have the Gospels in the order of Matthew-John-Luke-Mark. ((BMM and RO 126)). It is likely that this order was adopted so as to honour the Apostles by placing them first. However, it is interesting that if John is moved to the end, we are left with the Clementine tradition. q). THE EASTERN TRADITION The Greek and Russian Orthodox liturgies have not changed as much as those in the Latin West. Apart for a few feast days, Matthew is read on Sundays from Pentecost. Luke follows later in the year and Mark begins during Lent. John is read in the Easter period. The Melkite Church, which traces herself back to Antioch, has a similar order, as do the Byzantine Churches. This points to the early Christians being familiar with Luke being used prior to Mark. [For details see Documentation Section on this website]. See also Chapter IV. r). THE TWO ENDINGS OF MARK. Most of the early copies of Mark are as we have them today. But some have been found where the last twelve verses are replaced by: `But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation` ((RSV)). COMMENT: The early historians are completely united in stating that Matthew the Apostle wrote the first Gospel, and John the Apostle wrote another. They also agreed that Luke and Mark wrote the other two. While there are two traditions as to which of these was written / published first, the oldest tradition places Luke as written prior to Mark. NOTE: Remarks such as, `the evidence shows that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Greek`, or `Papias is unreliable`, are sometimes made today. But these remarks are not based on historical research. They are made on the presumption that the Markan priority theory has been proved. It is this 'evidence' (i.e. a theory) that they claim shows the historical evidence to be in error. CHAPTER III LITERARY ANALYSIS When the Gospel of Mark is compared with those of Matthew and Luke, a pattern is noticeable. According to literary analysis, the grammar, vocabulary, style, idiom and sentence construction, Mark is said to be in poorer Greek than that found in the parallel verses of the other two. Some examples will illustrate this: In Mark 1:12 we read `drove`, while Matthew has `led up` and Luke `led`. Both of these are more refined styles. In Mark 2:4 the paralytic is described as lying on a `pallet`. This was a slang word for `bed`. So the other two are using better Greek. In Mark 4:41 Mark uses the singular of the verb `to obey` when he is speaking of `wind and sea`. The other two use the correct plural form. In Mark 5:9-10, after stating `for we are many`, Mark writes `he begged`. Luke correctly has `they begged`. In Mark 10:20 the aorist middle of the Greek verb `ephylaza` is used instead of the aorist active The aorist active is correctly used by the other two writers. In Mark 16:6 the singular of the Greek verb for `to see` is used, although `women` is plural. Matthew has the correct word. Also Mark uses the term `the place` in the nominative instead of the accusative, while Matthew is correct. Literary analysis highlights other differences between the Gospels. 1. There are clear Aramaic expressions to be found in Mark, which are missing in five parallel accounts in Luke. They are also missing in five of the seven parallel accounts in Matthew. These are: Boanerges (3:14-17), Talitha cumi (5:40-41), Corban (7:9-13), Ephphatha (7:32-35), Abba (14:13-36), Golgotha (15:22-23) Eloi Eloi (15:34). 2. Mark`s gospel has a primitive freshness and a vivid style compared to those of Matthew and Luke. His unsophisticated style can be seen in the frequent use of `And` or `Immediately` when commencing a paragraph. 3. In many instances Mark uses redundant words. For example we read: `that evening` in Matthew 8: 16-17, and `the sun was setting` in Luke 4: 40-41. Mark has: `That evening as the sun was setting` (Mark 1: 32). So Mark is saying the same thing twice. This is also known as a `duality`. 4. Mark`s Gospel has apparently unimportant pieces of information, such as the reference to a cushion (Mark 4: 38). Scholars broadly agree on these distinctive characteristics but dispute how and why they arose. The alternative explanations will be set out in our next chapters. CHAPTER IV THE JEROME TRADITION For centuries it was universally presumed that the sequence of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, enshrined in the New Testament as translated by St. Jerome, was the sequence in which they had been written. Henry Owen's suggestion, in 1764, that Luke wrote prior to Mark, was seen by academics as revolutionary. But, as his idea did not threaten the historical reliability of the Gospels, Christians were not perturbed. It was when the Markan priority theory asserted that Mark had written before Matthew, and that Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses of the life of Christ, that Christians became concerned. The supporters of the Jerome sequence appealed to the authority of Augustine of Hippo, who had said 'the received tradition' was Matthew-Mark-Luke-John. They often refer to this order as: 'The Augustinian Tradition'. But, as pointed out in chapter II, Augustine in his fourth book followed Clement of Alexandria's order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John In the early church the Gospels were read in church in continuous order. The Epistle and Gospel read on a Sunday would continue from where it had been left the previous week. Signs of this pattern, with interruptions for feasts, may be found in many of the Eastern Churches today. The Byzantine Church in her Sunday gospel readings begin immediately after Pentecost with Matthew. Luke follows from September, Mark begins in or before Lent and John is read following Easter. The Syrian church has the same arrangement (evidently originating in Antioch). ((CC06659a)). [Also see the Documentation section of this website]. This pattern, together with the use of this sequence by Irenaeus, points to at least some of the early church using the gospels in the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John order. Over the past 200 years the supporters of Jerome's Matthew-Mark-Luke sequence, have achieved much in upholding the priority of Matthew and in exposing the inconsistencies to be found in the Markan priority theory. Many have done so out of loyalty to what they understood to be the oldest and only Christian tradition and usage. But, by presuming that Mark wrote before Luke, they have been less effective than they could have been. They have exposed themselves to the criticisms, based on literary analysis, made by the Markan Priorists. They correctly held that Luke had borrowed from Matthew but, in order to conform to Jerome's tradition, they had to presume that he had also borrowed from Mark. This meant that Mark must have been written prior to Luke and therefore prior to Peter's death. But Ireaneus said it had been written after Peter's demise. R.Ginns, in an authoritative article in support of the Jerome tradition, was forced to presume Ireaneus had made an error ((CCH 744g)). CHAPTER V MARKAN PRIORITY The arguments put forward in support of Mark having written prior to Matthew and Luke are as follows: 1. It is easy to understand Matthew and Luke improving on 'the poor Greek' of Mark. But difficult to see why Mark would have deliberately spoiled the good grammar and sentence formation of the other two. 2. Matthew and Luke omit the seven clear Semitic expressions found in Mark. This points to them addressing audiences at a later time than the original mainly Jewish congregations. 3. As if the save space, Mark omit important items such as the infancy of Christ, the early preaching of John the Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer and much of the resurrection narrative to be found in the other two. But he then adds redundant clauses and unimportant details. Why should he act in such a manner? It is easier to imagine Matthew and Luke wishing to expand Mark's Gospel by adding extra important information, and making room by cutting out redundant clauses and unimportant details. 4. Mark portrays Christ and the Apostles more favourably than the other two. It is more likely that reports of alleged deficiencies of Christ and the apostles would have been toned down with time. Mark portrays Christ, and the apostles, more favourably than the other two gospels. Markans also claim what they consider to be supporting arguments for their position: 5. Parables in the gospels of Matthew and Luke indicate that they were aware of the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. 6. The anti-Jewish spirit of Matthew reflects the decision taken about 85 AD at Jaminia, to expel the Christians from the Synagogues. 7. The theology to be found in Matthew and Luke is more developed than that in Mark. Having established to their satisfaction Mark's priority, the following arguments are put forward: a. It is agreed that Mark was not an eyewitness Apostle, and he wrote between 65-75 AD. b. An eyewitness Apostle would not have based his Gospel on Mark's non-eyewitness account. Therefore, the author of the gospel referred to as: 'According to Matthew', was not the eyewitness Apostle of that name c. As all the ancient historians report that Matthew wrote first, and this is contrary to the Markan theory, all those historians must have been in error. We are therefore unable to trust the historians. So we do not have reliable historical evidence that John the Apostle wrote a gospel. d. This points to the gospels known as by Matthew, Luke and John, having been written by unknown authors in various Christian communities, many years after the events. The words placed on the lips of Christ would therefore have been based on verbal traditions more than fifty years old, or on the creativity of the authors. e. This means that, as we do not have reliable firsthand eyewitness accounts of the words and acts of Christ, there is no basis for knowing with certainty what Christ said or did. When this booklet uses the terms `Markan priorist` or `Markan` it is referring to those who accept this progression of thought. This line of thought is consistent and persuasive if we accept its first premise that Mark wrote prior to Matthew. The acceptance of this premise leads to the contradiction of all the ancient historians, the 2000 year old tradition of the Catholic Church, including a dogmatic decree of the Second Vatican Council, the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the general consensus of the founders of the various Protestant bodies and a growing number of modern exegetes. Sometimes, during a talk on Scripture, a member of the audience may challenge the presumption of Markan priority implied by the speaker. The audience can become restive because to them it does not seem important who wrote first. They have come together to be inspired by the Word of God and do not want to waste time on what appears to be an unimportant academic argument. Their point of view is understandable. But two points need to be noted. It is quite likely the speaker will explain a piece of Scripture from Matthew`s gospel with reference to how Matthew `revised` the meaning expounded by Mark. If Mark wrote second this line of meditation, however uplifting, cannot be said to come from the biblical Word of God. The second point is to recognise that the speaker is preparing the mind of his audience to accept the Markan priority theory as correct and endorsed by the Church. While this may not cause problems during the evening of the talk, it could lead eventually to problems of faith for those who decide to study further. At one time the Markans asserted that Matthew and Luke were composed in the second century. They now tend to give them a late first century date of between 85 -95 AD. CHAPTER VI THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION (GRIESBACH AND 2GH) Supporters of this tradition, as revived by Henry Owen ((HO)) and Johann Griesbach, hold that Mark`s Gospel was formed by the conflation of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. They liken this to two streams flowing into one another to form one stream (i.e. conflating). This approach is often known as: `The two Gospel Hypothesis`, or `2GH`. [According to Orchard, Peter was the conflator]. When the three Gospels are placed side by side, we can see where borrowing has taken place. This is known as a synoptic arrangement. Synopsis means, `seeing as if with one eye`. Matthew, Luke and Mark are frequently referred to as `the Synoptic Gospels`. Synoptic arrangements may vary depending on how the gospel verses and pericopes are divided. (A pericope is a small section or sub-section of a verse). The chart below is based on the synoptic arrangement designed by Harold Riley ((RO 4-6)). The shading indicates where Mark`s gospel incorporates material from Matthew or from Luke. When illustrating this zigzag effect the works of several authors were consulted, including Riley ((RO 6-18)), Orchard ((RO 263-272)) and Meijboom ((JJK 151-155)). When the wording of Matthew and Luke is identical, we are not able to decide which gospel Mark was following at that moment. Sometimes just a small variation within a verse provides a clue. For example, at the Transfiguration Mark follows Matthew`s `six days` rather than Luke`s `about eight days`. This enables the shading to be placed for this verse with Matthew. THE ORDER OF MARK AND ITS PARALLELS   Matthew Mark Luke         The Baptist and Jesus’ Baptism                T1 3:1-17 1:1-11 3:1-22 Temptation 4:1-11 1:12-13 4:1-13 Into Galilee 4:12-17 1:14-15 4:1-13 Call of Four Disciples 4:18-22 1:16-20   Events at Capernaum   1:21-38 4:31-43 A preaching tour 4:23 1:39 4:44 The Leper   1:40-45 5:12-16 Five Occasions of Controversy   2:1-3:6 5:17-6:11 Healing of Multitudes 4:24-25 3:7-12 (6:17-19) Calling of the Twelve   3:13-19 (6:12-16) Sermon on the Mount (Matthew)   OF and B 5:1-7:27     Sermon on the Plain   (Luke) B                        6:20-49 Matthew`s narrative continued 7:28-8:34     Luke`s narrative continued     7:1-17 The Apostolic Commission (Matthew) 9:35-10:42     Matthew`s narrative continued 11:1-12:21      Luke`s narrative continued     7:18-8:3 “He is beside himself”   {3:20-21}           On Collusion with Satan               T2 12:22-30 3:22-27   Sin against the Holy Spirit 12:31-37 3:28-30   Jesus` True Kindred 12:46-50 3:31-35   The Parable Collection       Parable of the Sower and comments 13:1-23 4:1-20 8:4-15 Lamp under Bushel/Bed   4:21-25 8:16-18 Parable of Seed Growing Secretly   {4:26-29}   Parable of Mustard Seed 13:31-32 4:30-32   Use of parables 13:34-35 4:33-34   The Parable Collection continued (Matthew) 13:36-52     Across the Sea and back   4:35-5:43 8:22-56 Jesus Rejected at Nazareth 13:53-58 6:1-6a           Commissioning the Twelve                      T3   6:6b-13 9:1-6 Opinions concerning Jesus 14:1-2 6:14-16 9:7-9 Death of the Baptist 14:3-12 6:17-29   Return of the Apostles   6:30-31 9:10a The Five Thousand 14:13-21 6:32-44 9:10b-17 Walking on the Water, and Healings 14:22-36 6:45-56   Defilement, Traditional and Real 15:1-20 7:1-23   Syro-Phoenician (Canaanite) Woman 15:21-28 7:24-30   The Deaf-Mute (Matthew, Healings) (15:29-31) 7:31-37   The Four Thousand 15:32-39 8:1-10   Pharisees: Sign and Leaven 16:1-12 8:11-21   The Blind Man   {8:22-26}   The Confession of Peter 16:13-20 8:27-30 9:18-21 First Prediction of the Passion 16:21-23 8:31-33 9:22 “If any man will come after me” 16:24-28 8:34-9:1 9:23-27 The Transfiguration 17:1-9 9:2-10 9:28-36 The Coming of Elijah 17:10-13 9:11-13   The Epileptic Boy 17:14-21 9:14-29 9:37-43a Second Prediction of the Passion 17:22-23 9:30-32 9:43b-45 True Greatness 18:1-5 9:33-37 9:46-48 The Strange Exorcist   9:38-41 9:49-50 Warnings against Temptation 18:6-9 9:42-50   Discourse on True Greatness (continued) 18:10-35     Departure to Judea 19:1-2 10:1 9:51 Luke`s Central Section    OF       9:52-18:14         On Divorce and Adultery                          T4 19:3-12 10:2-12   Jesus blesses the Children 19:13-15 10:13-16 18:15-17 On Riches and Discipleship 19:16-29 10:17-31 18:18-30 Third Prediction of the Passion 20:17-19 10:32-34 18:31-34 The Sons of Zebedee 20:20-28 10:35-45   The Blind Bartimaeus 20:29-30 10:46-52 18:35-43 The Triumphal Entry 21:1-9 11:1-10 19:28-40 Jesus in Jerusalem 21:10-11 11:11   Cursing of the Fig Tree 21:18-19a 11:12-14   Cleansing of the Temple   11:15-17 19:45-46 Conspiracy against Jesus   11:18-19 19:47-48 The Fig Tree Withered 21:19b-22 11:20-26   The Question about Authority 21:23-27 11:27-33 20:1-8 Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen 21:33-46 12:1-12 20:9-19 Questions on Tribute and Resurrection 22:13-33 12:13-27 20:20-40 The Great Commandment 22:34-40 12:28-34   Questions about David`s Son 22:41-46 12:35-37a 20:41-44 Woes to Scribes and Pharisees 23:1-36 12:37b-40 20:45-47 The Widow`s Mite   12:41-44 21:1-4 The Eschatological Discourse       Prediction about the Temple etc. 24:1-22 13:1-20 21:5-24 False Christs and False Prophets 24:23-28 13:21-23   The Coming of the Son of Man 24:29-36 13:24-32 21:25-33 Conclusion: “Take Heed, Watch”   {13:33-37}   Discourse continued (Matthew) 24:37-25:46   21:34-36 Conclusion (Luke)     21:37-38         Jesus` Death Predicted                              T5 26:1-5 14:1-2 22:1-2 Anointing at Bethany 26:6-13 14:3-9   Betrayal by Judas 26:14-16 14:10-11 22:3-6 Preparation for the Passover 26:17-20 14:12-17 22:7-14 Jesus Foretells his Betrayal 26:21-25 14:18-21   The Last Supper 26:26-35 14:22-31 22:15-34 Gethsemane 26:36-56 14:32-50 22:39-53 The Young Man who Fled   14:51-52   Jesus before the Sanhedrin 26:57-68 14:53-65 22:54-55 Peter`s Denials 26:69-75 14:66-72 22:56-62 Jesus Delivered to Pilate 27:1-2 15:1 23:1 Trial before Pilate 27:11-14 15:2-5 23:2-5 Jesus Condemned to Death 27:15-26 15:6-15 23:17-25 Jesus Mocked by Soldiers 27:27-31a 15:16-20a   The Road to Golgotha 27:31b-32 15:20b-21 23:26-32 Crucifixion 27:33-43 15:22-32a 23:33-38 The Two Thieves 27:44 15:32b 23:39-43 Death of Jesus 27:45-54 15:33-39 23:44-48 Witnesses to the Crucifixion 27:55-56 15:40-41 23:49 Burial of Jesus 27:57-61 15:42-47 23:50-56 Women at the Tomb 28:1-8 16:1-8 24:1-9 The Last Twelve Verses   {16:9-20}   From the shaded areas we are able to see how Mark`s Gospel borrowed alternating from the existing two Gospels. Verses of his own, are indicated by { }. OF indicates `The Our Father` and B the `Beatitudes`. T will be explained on page 26. The chart illustrates the alternating borrowing of complete verses, but is not detailed enough to indicate the borrowing of individual words or phrases. For example: Although Mark 6: 7-16 as a whole draws from Luke, the words in 6:14 are from Matthew. Although Mark 8: 27-10: 40 is mainly taken from Matthew, the influence of Luke may be seen in 8: 38, 9: 32-33. ((JJK 153-5)). According to the Markan priority theory, when Matthew ceases to follow the order of Mark, Luke continues in it until, when Luke ceases, Matthew takes over, and this continues throughout the Gospels. This could only have been accomplished if Matthew and Luke co-ordinated their work very closely. But, according to the Markan priority theory, these Gospels were created in separate communities that were out of touch with one another. This is an insoluble difficulty for the Markan theory. This difficulty also applies to individual phrases. Matthew and Luke use exactly the same five Greek words to form a phrase concerning Peter`s denial. Mark uses three different words conveying the same meaning (Mark 14: 72). If Markan priority is correct, how could Matthew and Luke have arrived at the same phrase without having been in contact with one another? ((DBP 303)). DUPLICATIONS As mentioned in Chapter IV. 3, the duplications of Mark are a feature of his style. These are usually referred to as his `redundant clauses` or `a duality`. To take the example used in Chapter IV: Matthew: "That evening they brought to him" (Mt. 8: 16-17). Luke: "Now when the sun was setting, …they …brought them to him " (Luke 4: 40-41). The gospel of Mark (1: 32), conflates the material together as: "That evening, when the sun was setting, [or `sundown`] they brought to him …". By using `evening` and `sundown`, Mark is duplicating himself. For those who accept that Mark is conflating, there is no difficulty as it is just part of the style of Mark. But for Markan priorists duality is a serious problem. If there were only a few instances of duality, they could be ignored. It could be said that Matthew just happened to use half of the duality and Luke happened to use the other half. But there are many dualities and where both halves are of equal importance, they never chose the same half. Matthew and Luke would have had to divide up Mark`s dualities between them in a consistent manner to avoid them using the same half. The only way this division could have been achieved would be for them to have worked closely together. Again the advocates of Markan priority meet the problem that, according to their theory, Matthew and Luke did not know one another. Realising the strength of the Clementine case, Markans have attempted to answer this problem. In 1983, C.M.Tuckett claimed there were 213 dualities in Mark`s gospel, so chance would explain the 17 cases where Matthew and Luke chose different halves ((CMT 20-21)).. At first sight this appears a plausible argument, and many feel overawed by statistics. So a few comments are required. e. Let us presume for the moment, that Markan priority is correct. Of the 213 dualities Matthew and Luke did not use either half in 157 of them. It is correct that 39 do not use the same half. But these instances are where dualities are vague or do not have `equal value` (i.e. one word is more suitable than the other, so was highly likely to be chosen by both). The debate must be judged on the 17 cases where there is a clear duality of equal value and meaning (e.g. `evening` and `sunset`). Markans need to explain why, whenever there was such a choice, Matthew and Luke always chose differently. 2. An interesting observation may also be made regarding the 213 dualities examined by Tuckett. Matthew has one or both halves 152 times, of which 124 are when Matthew and Mark are in the same sequence. Luke has one or both 116 times, of which 114 are when one or both are in the same sequence. This provides further support for the view that Mark was conflating the other two. 3. As Riley has pointed out, the normally accepted number of dualisms as listed by Neirynck, a Markan, is 217. Tuckett omits many of these while adding others of his own. So the statistical basis for his calculations is itself open to questioning ((RO 107-8)). A more detailed response to Tucket`s argument was made in 1987 by Allan J. McNicol ((AJMT)). HEALING AND COMMANDMENTS Of the ten healing stories in Mark, eight appear in Matthew and Luke. They have chosen exactly the same eight ((WRF 166-7)). Mark lists six Commandments (10: 19). Matthew and Luke list five and these are exactly the same five ((WRF 160)). If Mark was reading from the other two there is no problem in accepting that he copied what was in front of him and added something of his own. But if Matthew and Luke were using Mark, the pattern of choosing exactly the same items would be highly unlikely if they did not consult with one another. Markan priority insists that they did not know one another. OTHER ASPECTS a). As recorded in our Chapter II g, Clement of Alexandra recorded that: "And when Peter got to know about it [Mark`s Gospel] he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or promote it". This raises interesting questions. If Mark`s Gospel was the first gospel to be written, and therefore the `flagship` of the Christians, why was Peter so indifferent regarding its promotion? On the other hand, if we accept that two well prepared and constructed Gospels already existed, and Peter had merely preached a series of sermons based on them, Peter's attitude is easy to understand. b). By examining evidence from historical, scientific and Church teaching, this booklet may be said to take a `holistic` approach to New Testament dating. But most Markan priorists live in the narrow world of literary analysis only. Before engaging in debate they set the precondition that literary analysis only may be considered. To meet this attitude a group of American scholars who accept the sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark, have published books within this framework. ((DBP, AJM and AJMT)). They leave aside questions of dating, place of composition, identity of author, reason for publication and historical sources. They challenge Markan priority on the bases of literary analysis alone. Although their books tend to be too academic to gain a wide readership, this shows Markan priority is coming under increasing challenge even on the restricted battleground of its own choosing. Their work has added much to the analysis of Mark`s verses where he borrows from one gospel, but is subtly influenced by the other. They have established a `2gh` web site ((col)). c). Markans admit that Matthew`s Gospel is more Jewish than Mark`s. They explain this, by claiming, without evidence, that Matthew was `re-Judaizing` Mark. Rabbi Philip Sigal, a Talmudist, in his authoritative work: The Foundations of Judaism`, volume 1, says that `historical-literary criticism` points to `Mark beginning a great process of de-Judaization which proceeds for centuries …`. For Sigal `Mark is a later composition arriving on the scene after Matthew, and probably Luke, were well known …` ((WRFN xxvi)). d). When we weigh the evidence for the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence, against that for the Mark-Matthew-Luke, we find that the scales come down heavily on the side of the former. But there remains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark as a Markan priority counter-weight. This was, and still is, the foundation of all Markan speculations. To discuss this we will turn to the pioneering work of Dom Bernard Orchard as set out in the next chapter. e) Juggling? It has been objected that Peter, even with assistants, would not have been able to 'juggle' between two scrolls. But once we accept Orchard's construction of Peter delivering five talks, the problem disappears. There are 25 places from where Peter commenced quoting. Ten of these would be where Peter started his talks, so his assistants could have easily have opened the scrolls at these places prior to the talks. In eight places Peter would have to return to a verse following on from (or very close to) where he had ceased quoting from a few minutes previously. So the scroll could have remained open without disturbance. There is no reason to suggest that the 7 longer jumps, spread over four evenings, would have been outside the capabilities of pre-warned assistants. The longest 'jump' occurs in the second talk. Matthew's gospel would need to have been unrolled for 31 verses whilst Peter is quoting from 13 of Luke's verses. It is interesting that Mark interjects four verses of his own at this point. Did he do so in order to provide his assistants with a little more time? Part 2 Copyright ©; ChurchinHistory 2005.     This version: 7th September 2009 Home Page