When I was doing my studies of the Synoptic Gospels for seminary, there were numerous references to the primacy of Mark. That is, that most experts believe that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and then Luke and Matthew used Mark's material, plus other sources. I could see that for Luke, because he was not, as is generally admitted, an eyewitness of the events in his gospel (though he was for parts of Acts). As he tells us in his preamble: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4). To summarize, Luke was not an eyewitness, so he interviewed those who were, or depended on additional sources. That would largely have been the Apostle Paul, of whom Luke was a longtime co-worker. Luke's case is consistent with the majority view of primacy.
Mark, too, was not an eyewitness. He, however, was a longtime co-worker with the Apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness. Therefore, Mark could write from an original source, short only of Jesus Himself.
Matthew, in contrast, was an eyewitness, as confirmed not just in his own gospel account but also of the other two. He was himself one of the original apostles, appointed personally by Jesus. Given that, why would he have need to depend on other sources for his account? That was the logical question that kept bugging me as I read the majority view.
That question led me to this personal view of primacy: as the only eyewitness, Matthew wrote the first account of the events of the earthly ministry of Jesus. This would have been especially relevant, because he was a Jew and wrote from a Jewish perspective, during the initial period after the ascension of Jesus, when the church was predominantly Jewish. Then, as Romans and romanized Jews entered the church, a new gospel account was needed to address their cultural perspective. Enter Mark, with Peter's oversight, perhaps also borrowing from Matthew (the case I seek to make), while trimming down most of his cultural references. Then, as the church continued to expand beyond Palestine, more and more Greek-speaking Jews and pagans came into the church, requiring a third gospel account for the use of the apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13) and his co-workers.
My argument here is strictly a logical consideration. I have no linguistic or documentary expertise on which to judge this issue. I also recognize that it puts me in the minority. However, does my argument not make sense? Does this not provide a beginning basis for presuming that Matthew was first, not Mark? Also, I share this hypothesis with so august a personality as Augustine. While that is not decisive, I am quite comfortable being in a minority that also includes Augustine!
No comments:
Post a Comment