Building a Synoptic Theory: (3) The Relation of Matthew to Mark

"Building a Synoptic theory: (3) The Relation of {Matthew to Mark" Wenham, pp. 88-115.

p. 88 "Matthew's relation to Mark can be satisfactorily explained on the lines of patristic tradition."

Wenham suggests, on p. 89, "There are three main possibilities as to the relation of the first two gospels: 1.) They are independent; 2.) Matthew used Mark; 3.) Mark used Matthew." In modern scholarship we typically see a view that favors Mark being written first and Matthew depending upon Mark and one or more other sources. There are numerous objections to the primacy of Matthew, even though until fairly recently it was assumed that Matthew was composed first.

p. 91 "It is difficult to believe that Mark would have omitted so much important Matthean material had he known of its existence. . . If it is supposed that Mark was intended as a replacement of Matthew, it has great weight - we should indeed be much the poorer without the great discourses and all Matthew's unique contributions. But whoever suggested that this was the intention?"

p. 91 "Mark's wealth of detail is a prima facie indication of priority . . . Wealth of detail would make it an acceptable supplement, but in itself it has nothing to do with order of production."

p. 92 "Matthew's account of the death of the Baptist requires a knowledge of Mark's account." Yet this is not necessarily the case. "It is perfectly possible that Herod was torn between great annoyance that John had repeatedly denounced his sexual sin in public, and respect for one he knew to be a good man. There is no need for Matthew to have known Mark's gospel, it is sufficient that he should have known the fuller story."

p. 92 "Matthew 27:15-18 has destroyed the logic of Mark 15:6-10."

p. 93 "The claim is that Mark's 'comparatively clear' sequence 'seems' to have a logic which has been blurred by Matthew, whose account lacks 'clear logic'. This appears to be hypercriticism with no real basis. The point of the statement 'For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up' may not be immediately obvious - but this applies equally to both gospels. They are both making the point that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent, and he hoped that the demand of the people would get him out of his predicament."

Judging from the evidence displayed, Wenham is unconvinced that Matthew or Mark was written in dependence on the other. He suggests that it is quite possible that Mark was written with a knowledge of, but not dependence upon, Matthew. He goes on to discuss several reasons this seems to be a valid hypothesis.

p. 94 Matthew looks original. "Whether he assembled recollections and testimonies of his own or whether his work was based on Mark and other sources, all must admit that it was a careful and brilliantly successful operation. It is difficult to see it as the result of making eight thousand alterations to someone else's work. But of course it is not impossible."

p. 95 Matthew looks early and Palestinian. "Matthew's account looks like a vivid record of a terrible clash between Jesus and the religious leaders, rather than a veiled polemic of church against synagogue."

p. 96 "Mark looks like Peter's version of the same Palestinian tradition composed for Jewish and Gentile readers outside Palestine."

p. 97 "It looks as though Mark is omitting Matthean material at certain points."

p. 101 "Matthean priority provides the better rationale for the differences in order between the two gospels."

p. 109 "Matthew looks as though it may have been originally in a Semitic language."

p. 115 "To sum up our investigation of the internal evidence of the symoptic problem thus far: There seems to be a good case for believing that Matthew, possibly in a Semitic language, was the first gospel; that Mark is substantially the teaching of Peter, who knew Matthew's gospel; and that Luke knew and used both matthew and Mark. However, Mark shows a large measure of independence of Matthew, and Luke shows a large measure of independence of both. These conclusions (which have already to some extent anticipated it) will be seen to fit the external evidence remarkably well."