Editing Marcan priority (section)

===External evidence===

[[File:Pasquale Ottino San Marcos escribe sus Evangelios al dictado de San Pedro Musée des Beaux-Arts, Bordeaux.jpg|right|thumb|Pasqualotto, ''St. Mark writes his Gospel at the dictation of St. Peter'', 17th century.]]

The early patristic evidence records a few traditions on the origins of the Synoptic Gospels. It never indicates that one gospel used another as a source and shows little concern even for their chronological order; the focus was rather on who composed them and on their apostolic authority. What evidence there is as to the order of composition or publication is seen as virtually unanimous agreement on placing Matthew first.{{sfnp|Tuckett|2008|pp=16–17}}

The earliest relevant source is [[Papias of Hierapolis|Papias]] ({{c.|105}}), whose surviving fragments report two notable facts, echoed by most later sources. The evangelist [[Mark the Evangelist|Mark]], he says, was [[Saint Peter|Peter]]'s interpreter and compiled his Gospel from the preaching of Peter in Rome, which Peter then sanctioned for use in the churches. [[Matthew the Apostle]], on the other hand, wrote his account himself in the "Hebrew dialect".{{sfnp|Bauckham|2006|pp=12–38, 202–239}}<ref>These quotations are preserved in Eusebius, [http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias ''Hist. Eccl.'' 3.39.15–16, 2.15.1–2] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias |date=2014-09-10 }}.</ref>

This account of the origin of Mark is seen as likely genuine by many scholars, though hardly all.{{sfnp|Bauckham|2006|pp=124–263}}<ref>{{cite book | title=Studies in the Gospel of Mark | author-link=Martin Hengel | year=1985 | at=passim | isbn=0334023432 | last=Hengel | first=Martin }}</ref> If so, Mark's source is not the other two Synoptics but Peter—unless Peter himself drew from them, as some propose.<ref>{{cite book | title=Why Four Gospels?: The Historical Origins of the Gospels | author-link=David Alan Black | year=2001 | isbn=0825420709 | last=Black | first=David Alan | publisher=Kregel }}</ref>

The curious statement that Matthew's ''[[logia]]'' (as Papias calls it) was written in the "Hebrew dialect"—the ordinary way of referring to either the Hebrew or the Aramaic language—has been much discussed.{{sfnp|Thomas|Farnell|1998|pp=39–46}} The difficulty is that canonical Matthew is in Greek and does not appear to be a translation, nor is any such original Hebrew version known. Some scholars have argued that Papias simply meant "a Semitic style" in Greek.<ref>{{cite book | title=Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution | author-link=Robert H. Gundry | year=1994 | pages=617–620 | isbn=0802807356 | last=Gundry | first=Robert H. | publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans }}</ref> Other synoptic theorists have speculated on some role of this ''logia'' as a source for the canonical Gospels; the hypothesis, for example, that canonical Matthew was a recension of the ''logia'' making use also of Mark's Gospel was the original foundation for the [[two-source theory]].<ref>{{cite book | title=The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections | author-link=John S. Kloppenborg | year=1987 | pages=51–52 | isbn=1563383063 | last=Kloppenborg | first=John S. | publisher=A&C Black }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | title=The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q | last=Lührmann | first=Dieter | year=1995 | editor-last=Piper | editor-first=Ronald Allen | chapter=Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia? | pages=97–116 | publisher=BRILL | isbn=9004097376 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F_KbL5s6h_kC&pg=PA97 }}</ref>

[[Ephrem the Syrian]] ({{c.|350}}) is more explicit about the Gospels' languages: "Matthew the Hebrew wrote this, and behold it was turned into Greek. [...] Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, Mark in Latin from [[Simon bar Jonah|Simon]] in the city of Rome, Luke in Greek,"<ref>Ephrem, {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20070330133323/http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2006/09/external-evidence-ephraem-syrus.html ''Comm. in Diatess. Tatiani'' App. I, 1]}}.</ref> and this is echoed in many later sources<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/58108415/ | title=Extracts from believers that Mark's Gospel was written in Latin | year=2011 | access-date=2013-12-12 | last=Gain | first=David Bruce }}</ref> such as [[Gregory of Nazianzus]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gregory of Nazianzus|title=Poems on Scripture: Greek original and English translation|publisher=St Vladimir’s Seminary Press|year=2012|isbn=978-0-88141-433-2|series=Popular Patristics Series Book 46|translator-last=Dunkle|translator-first=Brian|chapter=On the genuine books of divinely inspired Scripture (PG 37.472–474)|oclc=811238964}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - The Canon of Gregory of Nazianus|url=http://www.ntcanon.org/Gregory.canon.shtml|access-date=2020-10-01|website=www.ntcanon.org}}</ref> Mark writing in Latin may have arisen merely by inference, but it is true that canonical Mark exhibits numerous Latinisms,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Decker|first=Rodney J.|date=May 28, 2011|title=Latinisms in Mark's Gospel|url=http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=1205|access-date=2020-10-01|website=ntresources.com}}</ref><ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> and some have argued that indeed canonical Mark was translated from a Latin original.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal | url=http://www.radikalkritik.de/COUCHOUDEvMarc.pdf | title=Was the Gospel of Mark written in Latin? | journal=Crozer Quarterly | year=1928 | volume=5 | pages=35–79 | last=Couchoud | first=Paul-Louis | others=Translated by Morton S. Enslin | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319081029/http://www.radikalkritik.de/COUCHOUDEvMarc.pdf | archive-date=2012-03-19 }}</ref><ref name=":1">Cf. {{cite book | url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb1.toc.html | title=Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment | author-link=Herman C. Hoskier | year=1914 | pages=126–194 | last=Hoskier | first=Herman Charles }}</ref> Most scholars, however, reject this view and consider the Greek original.<ref>{{cite book | title=Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross | author-link=Robert H. Gundry | year=2000 | pages=1035–1045 | isbn=0802829112 | volume=2 | last=Gundry | first=Robert H. | publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans }}</ref>

[[Irenaeus]] ({{c.|185}}), who knew the work of Papias, gives the first extant account of the origins of Luke (to which later sources add little) and of all four Gospels together: {{blockquote|So [[Matthew the Apostle|Matthew]], among the Hebrews in their own dialect, brought forth a writing of the Gospel, while [[Saint Peter|Peter]] and [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]] in Rome were evangelizing and founding the church. But after their departure [[Mark the Evangelist|Mark]], the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed what was preached by Peter down to us in writing. And [[Luke the Evangelist|Luke]], the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the Gospel that was preached by him. Then [[John the Evangelist|John]], the disciple of the Lord and also the one who leaned against his chest, also published the Gospel when residing in Ephesus of Asia.<ref>Irenaeus, {{usurped|1=[https://archive.today/20131230030040/http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/11/external-evidence-irenaeus.html ''Adv. Haer.'' 3.1.1]}}.</ref>}}

It is doubtful whether Irenaeus intends a chronological order in this passage; "while" need not be understood temporally, and "after their departure" need not indicate the time of composition, but simply that the apostles' testimony survived in writing even after they themselves were gone.<ref>{{cite book | title=Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem | year=1992 | pages=239–242 | isbn=0830817603 | last=Wenham | first=John William | publisher=InterVarsity Press }}</ref> Elsewhere Irenaeus often prefers the order Matthew—Luke—Mark—John when addressing the Gospels together,<ref>{{cite book | title=Irenaeus' Use of Matthew's Gospel in ''Adversus Haereses'' | year=1998 | pages=89–94 | isbn=9068319647 | last=Bingham | first=Dwight Jeffrey | series=Traditio exegetica Graeca | volume=7 }}</ref> and this order thereafter recurs commonly in a wide variety of ancient sources.<ref>{{cite book | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cNb2fm5D0-gC&pg=PA17 | chapter=A Further Reexamination of Evidence from the Early Tradition | title=New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond | year=1983 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/newsynopticstudi00unse/page/17 17–35] | isbn=086554087X | last=Gamba | first=Giuseppe G. | publisher=Mercer University Press | editor-last=Farmer | editor-first=William Reuben |editor-link=William R. Farmer | url=https://archive.org/details/newsynopticstudi00unse/page/17 }}</ref> In fact, early Bibles and canons arranged the four Gospels in many different sequences, though most placed Matthew first among the Synoptics.<ref>{{cite book | title=The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance | last=Metzger | first=Bruce M. | year=1987 | pages=295–300 | publisher=Clarendon Press | isbn=0198261802 | url=http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/134.pdf | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130601181717/http://www.ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/134.pdf | archive-date=2013-06-01 }}</ref>

From [[Clement of Alexandria|Clement]] ({{c.|195}}), who probably also knew the work of Papias, comes a unique and much-discussed statement that the gospels with genealogies (i.e., Matthew and Luke) were "written before" ({{transliteration|grc|progegraphthai}}), in contrast to Mark.<ref>Clement of Alexandria, ''Hypotyposeis'', apud Eusebius, {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20070324101909/http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2006/09/external-evidence-clement-of.html ''Hist. Eccl.'' 6.14.5–7]}}.</ref> Farmer touted this as support for Marcan posteriority,<ref>{{cite book | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cNb2fm5D0-gC&pg=PA3 | chapter=The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy | title=New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond | year=1983 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/newsynopticstudi00unse/page/3 3–15] | isbn=086554087X | last=Farmer | first=William Reuben | publisher=Mercer University Press |author-link=William R. Farmer | editor-last=Farmer | editor-first=William Reuben | url=https://archive.org/details/newsynopticstudi00unse/page/3 }}</ref> but Carlson argued that the word was better interpreted as "openly published", in contrast to Mark's initially private circulation.<ref>{{cite journal | title=Clement of Alexandria on the 'Order' of the Gospels | last=Carlson | first=Stephen C. | journal=New Testament Studies | volume=47 | year=2001 | pages=118–125 | doi=10.1017/S0028688501000091 | doi-broken-date=2024-11-12 | s2cid=171005597 | url=https://www.academia.edu/968395 }}</ref>

[[Origen]] ({{c.|250}}), a pupil of Clement who also knew the work of Irenaeus well, enumerates the Gospels as follows: "As learned by tradition… the first written was Matthew… the second, Mark… the third, Luke… after all of them, John."<ref>Origen, ''Comm. In Matth.'' I, apud Eusebius, {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20070329045145/http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2006/09/external-evidence-origen.html ''Hist. Eccl.'' 6.25.3–6]}}.</ref> Most readers then and now have seen this as a clear statement of chronology,{{sfnp|Carlson|2001}} though some have doubted that was Origen's intent.{{sfnp|Farmer|1983}}{{sfnp|Tuckett|2008|pp=16–17}} In any case, this canonical order was increasingly well established by this time, and subsequent sources accepted this temporal sequence.

[[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] ({{c.|400}}) recites this traditional chronological order and adds his own influential inferences. Denying that each evangelist wrote in ignorance of his predecessors, he describes Mark as "seemingly an attendant and epitomizer" of Matthew.<ref>Augustine of Hippo, {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20041222004112/http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/2004/10/external-evidence-augustine.html ''De Consensu Evangelistarum'' I.3–4]}}.</ref> Later in the same work, Augustine revises his opinion and sees Mark as following not only Matthew but also Luke; Mark "walks with both".<ref>{{cite book | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cNb2fm5D0-gC&pg=PA37 | chapter=Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis: A Reexamination of Augustine's Thought in ''De consensu evangelistarum'' | title=New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond | year=1983 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/newsynopticstudi00unse/page/37 37–64] | isbn=086554087X | last=Peabody | first=David B. | publisher=Mercer University Press | editor-last=Farmer | editor-first=William Reuben | url=https://archive.org/details/newsynopticstudi00unse/page/37 }}</ref> This is sometimes seen as the first suggestion that one Gospel used another as a source, but it is not at all clear whether Augustine had literary dependence in mind.{{sfnp|Thomas|Farnell|1998|pp=62–63, 71–72}}

In summary, the external evidence stands against Matthew using Mark, inasmuch as Matthew was written first, and against Mark directly using Matthew, unless perhaps either of these canonical Gospels is a translation into Greek influenced by the other. The patristic consensus, rather, was literary [[independence hypothesis|independence]].{{sfnp|Thomas|Farnell|1998|pp=57–75}}<ref>Cf. especially Chrysostom, ''[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.iv.html Hom. in Matt. 1]'' 5–6.</ref> However, the value of this external evidence is uncertain; most synoptic scholars regard it as being of little help and focus almost entirely on the internal evidence instead.{{sfnp|Goodacre|2001|pp=76–81}}