The Overwhelming Patristic Evidence

Synoptic Problem: Markan Priority Defies Logic (Part 6/13)

We Cannot Ignore the Patristic Evidence

More than anything, when I set out to verify the appeal to authority that Markan Priority was settled, I was stunned to learn about the Church Fathers (Patristic) evidence. In fact, I was more troubled than stunned. It’s unlikely that there is any body of evidence concerning the Synoptic Problem that’s been ignored or mischaracterized more than the external evidence from the early church. At the absolute very minimum, this evidence should bring pause to the declarations that the priority question is definitively solved in favor of Mark. Humility alone would do that.

That’s not to say that challenges to this evidence aren’t permitted. But there are some source criticism concepts we must keep in mind when trying to challenge 2000-year-old records:

• First, these sources are closer in time to any original sources, making their testimony more reliable than later views where all else is equal.
• Second, it’s certain that the earlier sources had access to texts and materials that are non-extant today, which also strengthens their claims over later postulations, again where all else is equal.
• Third, there is a wide range of testimony here, in both time and geography, very likely representing multiple traditions, thus bolstering credibility where they all agree.

As with every ancient historical record we have even outside of the Biblical context, there are some minor holes in the Patristic case set forth here. The biggest is that the earliest definitive testimony comes in the early second century. To be clear, this would still have been well within the timeframe of direct descendants of witnesses, and even quite possibly witnesses themselves. Accordingly, if we are to disregard this evidence, we need clear, pervasive evidence of either bias or wholesale unreliability. Thus, any solution to the Synoptic Problem that doesn’t provide a compelling basis for addressing this Patristic Evidence is logically suspect by default.¹ I will try to cover the highlights of what I’ve learned here, without claiming that to cover everything.

Irenaeus of Lyons

There Is Unanimity That Matthew Was First

There is a lot to get through below. If you are only interested in the main takeaways, here they are:

1. Every one of the earliest church sources that comments on priority places Matthew first.
2. There are multiple, and independent, traditions that place Matthew as first.
3. Not a single early source places Mark first.
4. There is no discernible basis for, or pattern of, bias favoring Matthew over any other Gospel.
5. There is no record of any debate on the issue of who was first, although some sources fail to align on who was second, third, or even last.

For the sources that don’t directly comment on priority, none of them conflict with the tradition that Matthew is first. In short, it’s not just that the historical evidence is unanimous about Matthean Priority, it’s also that there is no historical record of any disagreement or discord with this view.

What Would We Have to Believe for Historical Markan Priority?

For Mark to have been first historically, it would have circulated widely (and for Two-Source theorists, before “Q”). It would have had to have gained some rapport for Matthew and Luke to both later rely on it, suggesting that it would have already been known (and prized) by the fledgling early church. Yet there is no record at all of anyone making the Markan Priority claim, a perplexing issue that’s only magnified if one accepts the tradition that Peter was the source for Mark. We’d then need a reason (e.g. clear and pervasive bias) as to why the early church historians all went against these sets of facts and nonetheless designated Matthew first. After that, we’d have to account for the lack of any discord on the “unjust” placement of Matthew as first, especially where it appears that there are separate lines of tradition for Matthean Priority. Keep these issues in mind as you read through the evidence below.

If the Patristic Record Is Accurate, What Are the Implications?

It may be obvious, and even feel repetitive, but I will point out the significance of the Patristic record nonetheless. As we are (necessarily) making abductive logical inferences, we are trying to choose the best possible explanation among competing hypothesis. Accordingly, if the Patristic attestations are true, there is nothing else in the evidence set that otherwise necessitates Markan Priority. This point is crucial. As we’ll cover, Markan Priority is not a necessary conclusion based on the data we have available. There’s no intrinsic reason to suppose it over any other priority. Based on the data we currently have, we’re only permitted to accept Markan Priority if we have a compelling reason to reject the entirety of the Patristic record. If the Patristic testimony is true, we cannot logically accept Markan Priority as a viable hypothesis to solving the Synoptic Problem. I hope that point is clear now!

A Multiply Attested Tradition for Matthean Priority

Irenaeus of Lyons, circa 180 C.E.

The clearest of the earliest statements about priority comes from Irenaeus, writing as Bishop of Lyons (Lyon), France. Tradition has it that Irenaeus was a “listener to Polycarp,” who was purportedly a follower of John the Apostle.² Irenaeus’ testimony comes from his work, Against Heresies, written circa 180 C.E.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them]…, and had perfect knowledge…. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.

To be clear, the purpose of this statement was not to argue a chronology of the Gospels, nor does it relate in any way to what we today call the Synoptic Problem. Rather, this was included as part of a larger apologetic work by Irenaeus in responding to heretics. Nothing here indicates that Irenaeus cared at all about which Gospel was first, nor did it appear that his opponents did either.² This disinterested point of view strengthens the value of this evidence. Note, especially that Irenaeus cites “Apostolic” (including Paul) authority for all four “divinely inspired” Gospels, with no indication that attribution to Mark and Luke in any way diminished their “perfect” status. He reveals no biased agenda whatsoever to place Mark after Matthew given his view of the perfect, Apostolic, divinely inspired nature of each Gospel. Notably, there is no record that the order he provides — Matthew, then Mark and Luke, then John — was being challenged, or ever challenged. Irenaeus does not specify which of Mark or Luke was earlier,³ but he his clear that Matthew was first and John was last.

As we’ll see when reviewing the earlier Papias testimony below, there is evidence that Irenaeus knew of, and respected, Papias. To the extent that what’s extant from Papias is ambiguous on order between Mark and Matthew, Irenaeus resolves that ambiguity. Either that, or Irenaeus decided to reject Papias’ tradition without betraying any other bias as discussed above. All told, this should make one extremely skeptical about any hidden agenda relating to priority here. If this is to be challenged or disregarded, we need a very strong reason to do so. We cannot ignore evidence.

Clement of Alexandria, circa 150–215 C.E.

If Irenaeus was alone, it could be argued that Matthean Priority was a one-off legend. But Eusebius, writing in roughly 313 C.E., records an earlier account of Clement, bishop of Alexandria in Egypt (Clement’s original account is non-extant):

Again in the same books, Clement has placed a tradition of the presbyters from the beginning regarding the order of the Gospels, which goes like this. He said that the Gospels which contained the genealogies were written first, but that the Gospel according to Mark had this occasion: When Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those present, who were numerous, urged Mark, inasmuch as he had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to write down what was said; and after he had done this he gave it out to those who requested it. When Peter discovered this, he neither energetically prevented it nor urged it on. But John, the last, being conscious that external facts had been exhibited in the Gospels, on the urging of his disciples and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.5–7 (emphasis added).

This account is notable for three things: a) it affirmatively puts Matthew (and Luke) ahead of Mark, b) it cites to tradition of multiple presbyters (some translate “presbyters” here as the “primitive authorities”), so this is not merely the tradition of a single Papias, and c) it affirmatively furnishes a reason for why and how Mark’s Gospel was written in the first place (presumably influenced by Papias discussed below).⁴

Clement does not place Matthew ahead of Luke (or behind Luke). But he does place Mark behind both Luke and Matthew. Again, there’s no revelation here of a bias to intentionally downgrade Mark behind Matthew or Luke. To the extent there is a difference between the testimony of Clement and that of Irenaeus, it may reflect the differing traditions they reference. Again, these these differences, while preserving Matthew as being prior to Mark, strengthen the value of the evidence for Matthew being before Mark.

It does appear that Clement viewed Mark as a Gospel that came later and required some additional defense from detractors, a defense that comes off rather lukewarm (no pun intended). While it’s possible, it’s harder to imagine that Mark would have needed such a defense if he was truly first. We cannot ignore evidence. If this account is false, misremembered, folk legend, etc. then that case must be clearly made, separately and in addition to any case against the claims of Irenaeus. But there’s more.

Papias, circa 100 C.E.

Perhaps the earliest extant record on the the the origin of the Gospels comes from Papias, again as recorded by Eusebius (the originals of the referenced Papias work are non-extant). Papias was writing circa 100 C.E.

‘This also the Presbyter used to say, “When Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord nor followed Him, but later, as I have said, he did Peter, who made his teaching fit his needs without, as it were, making any arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things down as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave careful attention, to omit nothing of what he heard and to falsify nothing in this.” ‘Now, this has been related by Papias regarding Mark, and regarding Matthew he has spoken as follows: ‘Now Matthew collected the oracles⁵ in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he was able.’ — Eusebius of Caesarea, “Ecclesiastical History” 3.39.14–17

Papias does not offer anything clear on the issue of priority. If we are to draw any priority conclusions from Papias, they will be no more than inferences we’ve reached abductively. These passages have been studied extensively and no definitive conclusions have been reached. If there is any clear takeaway, it’s that this reference from Papias is the first (extant) source to document a connection between the Gospel of Mark and Peter the apostle of Jesus, and to connect the Apostle Matthew to the Gospel attributed to him. And the value of Papias in general is his relatively early date,⁶ a date placing him within the lifetime of elders who would have been witnesses to the Apostles (or whomever wrote the Gospels).

Textual critics and historians have argued that Papias (or more accurately the elder John) is making an apology for Mark here. And in doing so, he is trying to tie Mark to Peter so as to bolster the credibility of Mark’s Gospel. As such, some scholars discount this testimony as biased. There are a number of reasons to have pause and humility with such analyses, beyond what we will cover here.⁷

The Presbyter (“Elder”) here is thought to refer to an influential “John,” connected to witnesses from the early church, but likely not John the Apostle of Jesus per Eusebius. It appears that this presbyter had taken issue with the “order” of Mark’s Gospel at times in the past. Some have argued that since the verb sunetaxato (συντάσσω) used when discussing Matthew means “to arrange various parts in an organized manner,”⁸ that Papias may have been comparing Mark’s (out of order) Gospel to that of Matthew (in order).⁹ Thus, perhaps, Matthew’s order was the template to which Mark was measured against and criticized? This is consistent with the passages, but it’s a very thin inference. I leave it to you to decide how much weight to give it.

It is also possible to read Papias as saying that Matthew attempted to place order on an earlier Mark. This theory has a number of problems: a) Eusebius does not indicate he’s using “sequence” when quoting Papias’ sections on Mark then Matthew. And if he was, it’s odd that he didn’t point out the discrepancy between this view and the established tradition by the time he was writing, b) Papias cites authority for Mark and none for Matthew, which may indicate that Matthew was already well-known by the time Papias was writing,¹⁰ c) it’s inconsistent that Papias (again, the Elder John) would have to give such an apologetic defense of Mark if that Gospel was already the “standard,” d) it raises even further questions as to what “order” was the preferred one at the time (if not Matthew),¹¹ and e) Irenaeus, who depends in part on Papias, writes about 50 years later and definitively puts Matthew ahead of Mark.

The best takeaway here is that there was tradition that Matthew and Mark had both written something¹² by this point, and there’s no strong case on Papias alone to place one in front of the other.

Muratorian Fragment, circa 170 C.E.

Muratorian Fragment — By Unknown author

Historians cite the Muratorian Fragment, which is preserved in a 7th-8th century Latin codex, as a translation of a mid second-century (most-likely) list of authoritative texts. The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to the second half of the second century because the author (unknown) uses “recently in our time” in the same sentence referring to leadership of Pius I who was bishop of Rome from 140–155 C.E. Some argue that this is the first document “canon” list of the early church.¹³

In a painfully tantalizing turn of events, the first part of the fragment discussing the order of the first two Gospels is lost. It describes Luke as third, and John as fourth. However, the section that remains is cut off where the discussion of the second Gospel would have begun. Most scholars argue that the remaining language points to Mark over Matthew as second, thus making Matthew first.¹⁴ That reading seems to make more sense to my untrained eye, but you can decide for yourself what to make of it.

… at which, nevertheless, he was present and thus related. In third place [we have] the book of the Gospel 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….

For our analysis, the fragment is an extant reference of an additional stream of tradition that is not clearly tied to the other sources here. And it’s another one that strongly implies that Matthew was first. It’s also an example of the kinds of sources, most now lost, that likely circulated in the early church.

Origen, Early Third Century C.E.

Origen, writing in the early third century out of Alexandria, Egypt documented his knowledge in his Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew. This work is also partially preserved by Eusebius, who records:

…But in the first of his Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew, defending the canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing somewhat as follows: ‘For I learned by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are indisputable in the Church of God under heaven, that first there was written that according to the one-time tax-collector and later Apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for those who from Judaism came to have the faith, being composed in the Hebrew language; secondly, that according to Mark, which he wrote as Peter guided him, whom also Peter acknowledged as son in his Catholic Epistle…and thirdly, that according to Luke, who composed this Gospel, which was praised by Paul, for Gentile converts; and in addition to them all, that according to John.’ — Eusebius of Caesarea, “Ecclesiastical History” 6.25.1–10

Origen would have most certainly known the work of Irenaeus, and especially Clement who preceded him in Alexandria. And he is widely considered unrivaled intellectually up to his time, producing thousands of writings.¹⁵ Sadly, much of this work is lost outside of what’s been preserved by Eusebius. For our purposes, Origen is clear the first Gospel written was that of Matthew, and that is based on tradition he has learned. The “tradition” he relies on is not stated. Still, he gives no indication that he places any significance on the order of the Gospels other than what is written here. Rather, he holds all four canonical Gospels in the highest of esteem.

Jerome, Late 4th/Early 5th Century

Jerome is best known for producing the Latin Vulgate (the original, near-complete Latin translation of the Bible) which became the dominant version of the Bible in Western societies for centuries. He was the rare scholar at the time who was attained fluency in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.

In addition to his translations, he wrote commentaries and a relevant excerpt is below:

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew¹⁶ for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. — Jerome, “Lives of Illustrious Men,” Chapter 3.

There is a lot to analyze with respect to Jerome — far more than we can cover here. For our purposes, Jerome’s statements are most notable for being reflective of a separate tradition that Matthew was originally in Hebrew, as reflected by an “extant” copy purportedly still preserved by this 4th/5th century Jewish community. In other words, Jerome is reporting the tradition of a group of “Nazarenes of Beroea” who made the claim to hold an original Hebrew Matthew. Whether this is true or not likely can never be known. But it’s significant as reflecting a separate attestation of tradition that clearly influenced Jerome, and possibly other church fathers. One of three possibilities is true about this fourth century Jewish community tradition:

1. They were lying (or Jerome was) about possessing a Hebrew version of Matthew, knowingly possessing a forgery.
2. They were mistaken in their belief that they possessed a copy of the original Hebrew Matthew (it was either an unknown forgery or an honest mistake).
3. They in fact did possess a copy of an original Hebrew version of Matthew

What matters to us, for now, is not the accuracy of the reported fact. Rather, it is that there was a separate line of community belief that could have been an additional source for the traditional there was an original Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel. And such tradition is consistent with, and supportive of, the other evidence we’ve reviewed that places Matthew first.

Eusebius, 313 C.E.

Eusebius himself, writing in the early 4th century, corroborates the view that Matthew was written first. However, it appears he is merely affirming the sources he has cited previously, so we will not accord much additional weight to his testimony.

For Matthew, who had first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go among others, by committing the Gospel according to himself to writings in his native language, compensated by his writing for the lack of his presence those from whom he was being sent. And Mark and Luke had already given out the Gospels according to themselves, but it is said that John all the same made use of an unwritten message, and finally resorted to writing for the following reason. When the three Gospels which had been written before had been distributed among all including himself, it is said that he accepted them and bore witness to their truth, but said that there was only lacking in the writing the description of what was done by Christ in the first days and at the beginning of His preaching. — Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24

There are additional later church writers who repeat what has been documented here, for example: Pantaenus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others. All agree that Matthew was first (possibly by reciting what they’ve learned previously from the traditions above).

Other Related Early Tradition

There are also some additional early writings that don’t comment directly on priority, but which reflect the traditional belief in the “Apostolic” origins of the Synoptic Gospels. While our focus here is not on authorship per se, this data is important because it circumstantially corroborates the traditions cited above (albeit not specifically on priority).

For example, very early in the second century (110 C.E.), Ignatius of Antioch appears to quote passages from the Gospel of Matthew. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1, Ignatius references Matthew 3:15 (“…in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled”). And in his Letter to Polycarp 2:2, he refers to Matthew 10:16: (“[In all things] be wise as the serpent and at all times be as simple as the dove.” ). Polycarp himself appears to be quoting Matthew 6:13 in his Letter to the Philippians 7:2 dated circa 108 C.E. (“…[beseeching the all-seeing God in petitions] ‘not to lead us into temptation….’”) This data is admittedly not strong enough to stand on its own. And it could represent oral tradition, “proto” documents, etc. Nonetheless, what this does is help establish additional “consistent” traditions to those relayed by Papias around the same time (i.e. there was something circulating at the time with passages that would, at a minimum, very soon become attributed to Matthew).

A generation later, in his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr (160 C.E.) quotes from Matthew and Luke, and refers to them as: “the teachers who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ.” He refers to the Gospels as “the memoirs composed by the apostles which are called Gospels.” Justin refers to a quote from Mark 3:16–17 as being “Peter’s memoirs.”¹⁷ This helps support a couple points. First, that Justin accepted the tradition of “apostolic” attribution to at least two of the Gospels (Matthew and Mark), again consistent with other tradition. Second, that Justin had no problems accepting and quoting Mark. Rather he venerated it as being the word of Peter. This is additional circumstantial evidence that there was no general motivation to intentionally demote an “otherwise earlier” Mark. Again, none of this is persuasive on its own. However, when added to the other traditions referenced above, it’s even more consistent evidence.

Gospel Attributions Themselves Are Independent Tradition

Without wading too broadly into the ocean of Gospel authorship, it bears pointing out that the earliest Gospel manuscripts all contain the “According to” attributions. To the best of my review, there is no outlier. This is important because this represents yet another line of tradition supporting the tradition laid out by Papias. Unless the dubious proposition is advanced that Papias’ testimony is what caused the four canonical Gospels (allegedly circulating anonymously) to become uniformly attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then this is separate, and independent, tradition. To be clear, this is not meant to prove priority by itself. Rather, it’s meant to buttress the claim that there were certainly multiple streams of tradition relating to the authorship of the Gospels besides Papias. It’s also additional support that Papias’ testimony about Mark and Matthew may indeed be reliable.

Augustine of Hippo, Early 5th Century

Before we leave our discussion on the Patristic evidence, we need to spend a little bit of time on Augustine of Hippo (the namesake of the “Augustinian Hypothesis). Augustine is presumed to be the first of the church writers to tackle the Synoptic Problem, albeit over a thousand years before it was formally referred to as such. What’s significant about Augustine (again, besides reaffirming tradition that Matthew was first) is that he saw the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels and was not troubled (logically) at all by the fact that Mark could have come after Matthew (or Luke).

Mark … either appears rather as one who goes with Matthew because, together they with him, he relates a great number of things respecting the kingly figure … or, more probably, he goes in step with both. For although he agrees with Matthew in many things, yet in some things he agrees with Luke, so by this very fact he may be shown to share the symbolism of the Lion and the Bull (for Christ is a Man), which symbolism of Mark possesses as he shares both aspects…— Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10.11

Augustine, somewhat pejoratively, referred to Mark as “pedissequus et breviator Matthaei”, the “footman and abbreviator of Matthew.”¹⁸ As we’ve shown, this is logically sound since nothing in the pattern he saw — the same pattern we have today — necessitates or suggests any specific Gospel as being prior to any other. He logically started with the tradition that Matthew was first and reasoned from there. There is a heavy burden on those coming after Augustine to demonstrate why this approach is still not the most logical.

In the next section, we’ll examine the flawed original case for Markan Priority (Part 7/13).

[1]: For a number of reasons, we can neutralize the case Markan Priority without any reference to the Patristic Evidence, which is all the more damning for the theory.

[2]: See, e.g., Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.5; Irenaeus was Bishop of the church in Lyons in the mid to late second century. History records him as a disciple of Polycarp (and he is originally from Polycarp’s home city of Smyrna in modern day Turkey). Polycarp was reportedly a disciple of John the Apostle. Whether this is historically accurate or not, this direct linkage to the apostles of Jesus was claimed by Irenaeus during his life and in his writings, and there is no extant record of his claim being challenged by contemporaries. See generally, González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Volume 1, Volume 1, pp 83–86. New York: HarperCollins, 2010.

[3]: When, in his third and fourth books, Ireneaus builds his case against three heresies, he quotes the Gospels in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. As follows:

• In his third book, at 3:9, 1–3, he quotes mainly from Matthew. Then at 3:10, 1–4 from Luke. Next in 3:10, 5 from Mark and in 3:11, 1–6 from John.
• In the second controversy, Irenaeus says the Ebionites only use Matthew; Marcion mutilates Luke; Docetists adapt Mark and the 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)).

This appears to show that the sequence preferred by Irenaeus was Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. Campenhausen, Hans von. The Formation of the Christian Bible (“Formation”), p. 195, note 243. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. (I add this for completeness without assigning extra weight to it).

[4]: By Clement’s account, Mark’s Gospel was written because Mark had been around, hearing the preaching of the apostle Peter, and then was urged to write down what Peter said and give it to those who requested it. This could be based solely on Papias, however Eusebius says there were multiple elders attesting. We will return to this point later.

[5]: Some argue that the reference to “sayings” collected by Matthew could be a reference to “Q.” However, Papias uses the same Greek word here λογίων/λόγια which translates as “sayings” or “oracles” to both describe Mark’s and Matthew’s work. As such, I don’t think this is all that persuasive since “Q” relies on Mark not having/knowing of it.

[6]: It’s also notable that by the end of the first century, two of the Gospels, Mark and Matthew, already had attributions. This casts nearly fatal doubt on the already dubious claim that the Gospels originally circulated anonymously.

[7]: See, e.g., Park, Yoon-Man (2009). Mark’s Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1–3:6): An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan Oral-Aural Narrative. p. 50.(“Before using this source as evidence it is necessary to discuss the much debated issue of the reliability of Papias’s testimony. Many modern scholars have dismissed the reliability of the tradition from Papias primarily because they believe it was formulated to vindicate the apostolicity of Mark’s Gospel. Yet what is to be noted is that Papias’s claim to apostolicity for the second Gospel is indirectly made through Peter rather than through Mark himself. The question is that if Papias wished to defend the apostolicity of Mark’s Gospel, why did he not directly appeal to apostolic authorship… instead of fabricating the relationship between Mark and Peter?…”)

[8]: ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου· περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαίου ταῦτʼ εἴρηται· “Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δʼ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. See, e.g., William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 974. (I do not read or write Greek!)

[9]: Matthew is widely praised for its “order” generally. See, e.g., https://davidschrock.com/2018/05/30/the-artistic-evangelist-seeing-the-structure-of-matthews-gospel/

[10]: Schoedel, William R.. Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, pp. 141–142. United Kingdom: Nelson, 1967.

[11]: Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, pp. 238–240. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

[12]: Another question worth raising is that if Mark based his sayings on preaching of Peter, and Mark was not first, then why does so much of Mark appear in Matthew (and Luke)? How could Mark be based on Peter’s preaching and also have copied so much from Matthew? This is a fair question, and the number of possible answers are numerous. But one key observation is that Mark’s passages that are in common with Matthew and Luke tend to all have more details and length. So it’s certainly possible that both are true: Mark copied Matthew but then added details he got from Peter’s preaching.

[13]: Kirsch, J.P. (1911). Muratorian Canon. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 16, 2022 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10642a.htm

[14]: See, e.g., https://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/matthew.htm#ch8

[15]: See, e.g., MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Christianity (p. 150). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[16]: Epiphanius (370 C.E.) also made similar claims about the “Nazarenes” having an original Hebrew Matthew. There is an entire rabbit hole to run down regarding the original language of Matthew. Some insist it was in Greek from the start. Others argue there were two “original” versions, one in Hebrew and another in written separately (possibly by the same author) in Greek. Still others argue that there was an original Hebrew version that was translated into Greek. And further, some argue that “Hebrew” in all the instances above actually means “Aramaic.” I’ve not landed on anything that’s definitive.

However, I’ve come to accept the position that Hebrew very well could have been the language of first century Jews (e.g. as corroborated by Dead Sea Scrolls findings). I’ve also come to be skeptical of claims that “Greek Matthew could not have been translated from a Semitic Language.” I simply cannot blindly trust lazily parroted statements like these from Biblical scholars anymore, nor should anyone else. See, e.g., Engelbrecht, J. “The Language of the Gospel of Matthew” Neotestamentica 24, no. 2 (1990): 199–213, and http://markhaughwout.com/Bible/Matthew_Hebrew.htm. However, I do not have the training to offer an analysis on this myself and so I leave that to others.

[17]: (JMD ch. 98–107 and RO 122)) and ((JMD 106. 9–10 and RO 125)).

[18]: Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, p. 373. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1893.