Editing Marcan priority (section)

==History==
[[File:H Leibnitz - Theophil (Gottlob) Christian Storr (1844).jpg|thumb|200px|[[Gottlob Christian Storr]]]]

The tradition handed down by the [[Church Fathers]] regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written in [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]], which was later used as a source by Mark and Luke.{{sfnp|Tuckett|2008|pp=16–17}} It is seen as early as in [[Irenaeus]]'s book ''[[Against Heresies]]''.<ref name="Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1.">[https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm], Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1.</ref> [[Augustine of Hippo]] wrote in the 5th century: "Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, ...are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John." And: "Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done...".<ref>Augustine of Hippo, ''The Harmony of the Gospels'', Book 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 4</ref>

This view of Gospel origins, however, began to be challenged in the late 18th century, when [[Gottlob Christian Storr]] proposed in 1786 that Mark was the first to be written.<ref name="Storr1786">{{cite book|last=Storr|first=Gottlob Christian|authorlink=Gottlob Christian Storr|title=Über den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis|pages=274 ff|publisher=Jacob Friedrich Heerbrandt|location=Tübingen|year=1786|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O4dAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP5|language=German}}</ref><ref name="Meyboom1993">{{cite book|last=Meyboom|first=Hajo Uden|author-link=:nl:Hajo Uden Meyboom|editor-last=Kiwiet|editor-first=John J.|title=A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis, 1835–1866|page=xviii|series=New Gospel Studies|volume=8|publisher=Mercer University Press|location=Macon, Georgia|year=1993|isbn=0865544077}}</ref>

Storr's idea met with little acceptance at first, with most scholars favoring either [[Matthaean priority (disambiguation)|Matthaean priority]], under the traditional [[Augustinian hypothesis]] or the [[Griesbach hypothesis]], or a fragmentary theory (according to which, stories about Jesus were recorded in several smaller documents and notebooks and combined by the evangelists to create the Synoptic Gospels). Working within the fragmentary theory, [[Karl Lachmann]] in 1835 compared the Synoptic Gospels in pairs and noted that, while Matthew frequently agreed with Mark against Luke in the order of passages and Luke agreed frequently with Mark against Matthew, Matthew and Luke rarely agreed with each other against Mark. Lachmann inferred from this that Mark best preserved a relatively fixed order of episodes in Jesus's ministry.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yzENAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA570 | title=De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis | author-link=Karl Lachmann | year=1835 | pages=570–590 | work=Theologische Studien und Kritiken | volume=8 | last=Lachmann | first=Karl }} English translation, {{cite journal | title=Lachmann's Argument | journal=New Testament Studies | year=1967 | volume=13 | issue=4 | pages=368–378 | doi=10.1017/S0028688500018373 | last=Palmer | first=N. Humphrey| s2cid=171079293 }} Reprinted in {{cite book | title=The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal | year=1985 | editor-last = Bellinzoni | editor-first = Arthur J. | editor2-last = Tyson | editor2-first = Joseph B. | editor3-last = Walker | editor3-first = William O. | pages=119–131 | isbn=0865540969 | last=Parker | first=N. Humphrey | chapter=Lachmann's Argument | publisher=Mercer | chapter-url=http://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/uploads/Lachmann.pdf}}</ref>

In 1838, two theologians, [[Christian Gottlob Wilke]]<ref name=Wilke1838>{{cite book|last=Wilke|first=Christian Gottlob|authorlink=Christian Gottlob Wilke|title=Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältniß der drei ersten Evangelien|publisher=Verlag von Gerhard Fleischer|location=Leipzig|year=1838|url=https://archive.org/details/derurevangelist00wilkgoog|language=German}}</ref> and [[Christian Hermann Weisse]],<ref name=Weisse1838>{{cite book|last=Weisse|first=Christian Hermann|authorlink=Christian Hermann Weisse|title=Die evangelische geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet|publisher=Breitkopf und Hartel|location=Leipzig|year=1838|url=https://archive.org/details/dieevangelische02weisgoog|language=German}}</ref> independently extended Lachmann's reasoning to conclude that Mark not only best represented Matthew and Luke's source but also that Mark was Matthew and Luke's source. Their ideas were not immediately accepted, but [[Heinrich Julius Holtzmann]]'s endorsement in 1863 of a qualified form of Marcan priority<ref name=Holtzmann1863>{{cite book|last=Holtzmann|first=Heinrich|authorlink=Heinrich Julius Holtzmann|title=Die synoptischen Evangelien ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter|publisher=Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann|location=Leipzig|year=1863 |url=https://archive.org/details/diesynoptischen00holtgoog|language=German}}</ref> won general favor.

There was much debate at the time over whether Matthew and Luke used Mark itself or some Proto-Mark (Ur-Mark).<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/two-source-hypothesis.html#Storr%201786 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041119143510/http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/09/two-source-hypothesis.html#Storr%201786 | url-status=usurped | archive-date=November 19, 2004 | title=Synoptic Problem Website: Two-Source Hypothesis | year=2004 | access-date=2013-12-21 | last=Carlson | first=Stephen C.}}</ref> In 1899 J. C. Hawkins took up the question with a careful statistical analysis and argued for Marcan priority without Proto-Mark,<ref>{{cite book | url=https://archive.org/details/horaesynopticaec00hawk | title=Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem | publisher=Clarendon Press | year=1899 | last=Hawkins | first=John Caesar }}</ref> and other British scholars<ref>{{cite book | url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924029338484 | title=The Gospel History and Its Transmission | author-link=Francis Crawford Burkitt | year=1907 | last=Burkitt | first=Francis Crawford }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | title=The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates | author-link=B. H. Streeter | year=1924 | last=Streeter | first=Burnett Hillman }}</ref> soon followed to strengthen the argument, which then received wide acceptance.

Most scholars in the 20th century regarded Marcan priority as no longer a hypothesis but an established fact.{{sfnp|Tuckett|2008|p=10}} Still, fresh challenges from [[Basil Christopher Butler|B. C. Butler]]<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jSAXv-ffK9wC | title=The Originality of St Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis | author-link=Basil Christopher Butler | orig-year=1951 |year=2011 | isbn=0521233038 | last=Butler | first=Basil Christopher | publisher=Cambridge University Press }}</ref> and [[William R. Farmer]]<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hdQqF-9hZ00C | title=The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Review of the Problem of Literary Relationships Between Matthew, Mark and Luke | orig-year=1964 |year=1976 | last=Farmer | first=William Reuben | publisher=Mercer University Press |author-link=William R. Farmer | isbn=9780915948024 }}</ref> proved influential in reviving the rival hypothesis of Matthaean priority, and recent decades have seen scholars less certain about Marcan priority and more eager to explore all the alternatives.{{sfnp|Tuckett|2008|p=10}}