Scholarly Reflections
Wenham, John. "Chapter Four: Building a Synoptic Theory: (3) The Relation of Matthew to Mark." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 88-115.
Wenham considers the arguments for Markan priority to be lacking. Matthew seems like an original work, Palestinian in origin, without strong marks of depdence on other texts (Wenham 1992, 88). For this reason, Wenham in this chapter pursues the thesis that "Matthew's relation to Mark can be satisfactorily explained on the lines of patristic tradition" (Wenham 1992, 89).
The Gospels do not show signs of complete independence. They frequently follow the same order of arrangement, which suggests some influence (Wenham 1992, 89). However, the lines of influence are not clear. Most arguments which can be made from similarity can be reversed. This becomes a more significant challenge when we consider the three Synoptic Gospels, rather than just two of them (Wenham 1992, 90).
Wenham briefly discusses arguments in favor of Markan rather than Matthean primacy Mark tends to omit material found in Matthew. This could suggest that Mark didn't know what Matthew did, or it could suggest that Mark was selectively emphasizing some elements but didn't feel a need to provide every possible piece of information he had (Wenham 1992, 91). Mark's wealth of detail, which could suggest priority, could also point to a later, more mature stage of understanding. Therefore, Wenham does not consider this a compelling argument for Markan priority (Wenham 1992, 91). Mark's provision of a fuller, more nuanced, view of the death of John the Baptist could suggest a later date just as well as an earlier date (Wenham 1992, 92). Further, when comparing Matthew 27:15-18 with Mark 15:6-10, some scholars suggest Mark's narrative is more clearly logical in its sequence, therefore Matthew borrowed from Mark but didn't fully understand his sequence. This could equally well say that Matthew wrote first and Mark, possibly aware of Matthew, chose to clear up some of the statements of motivations (Wenham 1992, 93).
Matthew's Gospel was regarded, in early Christianity, as a brilliant and original work. Wenham, along with others, has trouble seeing it as a derivative "patchwork" which tried to follow the work of others but made some eight thousand modifications. In short, to Wenham, it "looks original" (Wenham 1992, 94).
Not only does it look original, but it seems early in date and Palestinian in nature (Wenham 1992, 95). The frequent appeals to the Old Testament and the portrayal of conflict with the Pharisees suggests this early Palestinian origin.
Rather than finding Mark as a work dependent on Matthew, Wenham considers many of the distinctives to be indicative of relatively independent composition for a very different audience, one not local to Jerusalem (Wenham 1992, 96-97).
Mark is often considered to have omitted portions of Matthew's material (Wenham 1992, 97). Wenham considers whether this is evidence of anything in particular. When Wenham compares passages in which Matthew provides numerous chunks of teaching content and Mark provides fewer, Mark regularly makes statements to the effect that he is providing only a partial account (Wenham 1992, 99). This suggests to Wenham that not only is Mark aware of Matthew's account, but also that he does not think of himself as providing uniqe material (Wenham 1992, 100).
The different order of events in Matthew and Mark may be indicative of the order in which the works were written. Wenham argues that it is easier to explain Mrk changing the order of events than to explain Matthew doing so (Wenham 1992, 101). The three major dislocations in order are considered in turn. It proves much more reasonable to understand Mark as moving fairly large blocks of narrative than to understand Matthew as making many small displacements of material so as to take logically connected materials and make a different but coherent schme (Wenham 1992, 102).
Wenham further considers whether there is evidence for a Semitic original of Matthew (Wenham 1992, 109). It would be highly unlikely to take a Greek Gospel (Mark) and revise it into Aramaic (Matthew). However, Wenham finds many Aramaisms in Matthew, which suggest to him that Matthew is an original composition with Hebrew/Aramaic roots (Wenham 1992, 110). Finally, Wenham argues for a very high rate of literacy in 1st century Palestine, with people typically making notes of interactions so as to preserve them. Of all the apostles, Matthew, by his profession, would be uniquely qualified to preserve accounts of Jesus through notetaking and subsequent transcription (Wenham 1992, 113).
Wenham concludes that Matthew came first, that Mark came second and was heavily influenced by Peter, with knowledge of Matthew, and that Luke came third, knowing Matthew and Mark but showing considerable independence (Wenham 1992, 115).