The fallacy of Markan Priority

[Myles Domini]

A MUST read for all Catholics who have been wrongly told that historical critical methods 'clearly show' that Mark's gospel was written first. This booklet by the great Biblical Scholar W.R.Farmer explores the truth behind the lie and shows how this theory gained ground in opposition to a tradition that is affirmed unanimously by the Fathers: Matthew was first.

[url="http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/farmer.pdf"]http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/farmer.pdf[/url]

Edited March 4, 2005 by Myles

[Myles Domini]

A follow up for those interested in seeing how modern critical methods when unbiasedly applied actually confirm the Patristic testimony that Matthew's gospel was written first:

[url="http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels.pdf"]http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/boo...ors-gospels.pdf[/url]

[God Conquers]

ooo this is good stuff, thanks myles.

[WBOZ]

This is a wonderful example of why this message board is such a wonderful resource. I could have hunted for a long time online or at a local seminary library and still maybe not come up with such a good source, especially the second linked document.

Thank you

WCB

[God Conquers]

These need to be posted in the reference section ASAP.

Myles, if you have any other good sources of this type, you should contact Phatcatholic and get it on the Apologetics board.

Information like this is invaluable.

[cmotherofpirl]

Church history has always stated Matthew was first written in Aramaic Hebrew, then translated into Greek.

Why would anybody buy into the historical-critical stupidity if it contradicts church teaching and history?

[JP2Iloveyou]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!! I cannot thank you enough for these. I am taking a NT class right now that is teaching Markan Priority, Q, historical method carp, and the whole nine yards. I haven't even read these articles yet and I'm this excited! I seriously cannot thank you enough.

[Socrates]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 4 2005, 07:33 PM'] Why would anybody buy into the historical-critical stupidity if it contradicts church teaching and history? [/quote]
Because it gives justification for opposing the Church and Her teachings, obviously.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Church history has always stated Matthew was first written in Aramaic Hebrew, then translated into Greek.

Why would anybody buy into the historical-critical stupidity if it contradicts church teaching and history?[/quote]

Thats the thing, as these two pamphlets display and the great books of Dom Bernard Orchard i.e. 'why three synoptic gospels?' and by W.R. Farmer 'The Gospel of Jesus: Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem' etc. show there is no reason why historical-criticism should contradict tradition. Indeed, logically it cant given the sheer volume of external evidence in favour of the Matthean priority. The thing is the exegetes manipulate their conclusions according to their bias' as these pamphlets I've posted illustrate. The historical crtical method is historically unreliable. The great Oxford English scholar, Monsignor Ronald Knox, once displayed how by using it on the work of Tennyson one could conclude Sherlock Holmes was infact written by Queen Victoria in his 'essays in satire'. Your conclusions depend on your hermenutical technique, which makes historical criticism to borrow from Scott Hahn something like a knife: Good in the hands of a chef dangerous in the hands of a lunatic.

In the 20th century there have been many great Catholic historical-critical exegetes i.e. Bernard Orchard, William R. Farmer, Heinrich Schiller, William Most. However, for some reason many of our seminaries and colleges seem to dismiss their work out of hand in spite of the fact that its the only example of showing how historical-criticism actually helps the Church. I suppose the reason for this is as Socrates says: They dont want to help the Church.

Edited March 5, 2005 by Myles

[argent_paladin]

Myles,
You first need to educate the phorum itself. Check out the timeline in the Reading Room section on the phront page of phatmass. One part reads "Mark's Gospel, the nascent Church's first life , is written; the gospels of Matthew and Luke, using Mark as source material, follow." Perhaps you should email dUSt so that he can change that line.

[Norseman82]

And let's look at where the "historical-critical" method has led us. Things like the Jesus seminar that states that Christ really did not rise from the dead; Dominic Crossan stating on TV specials that the Last Supper was a later invention of the Christian community; and circular attitudes of "Jesus didn't say that because He would have never said that".

Luckily, I did hear one Loyola University scripture professor warn against going off the deep end and concluding things that are not supported by the text, so at least there some who put limits on it.

I think the "historical-critical" method needs to have a "historical-critical" look taken at itself. Thanks for posting this.

[cmotherofpirl]

You can read all of Father William Most's stuff at EWTN.com

[Guest Eremite]

Here's an article from Cardinal Ratzinger entitled "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis"

[url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/biblical-crisis.htm"]http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/rat...ical-crisis.htm[/url]

"The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" by Craig Blomberg is also a good resource.

Edited March 6, 2005 by Eremite