The Poison Pill taken by Catholic universities and seminaries — and the antidote
Jerome D. Gilmartin – December 9, 2021, revised February 3, 2023
It began with a mutiny. Not the upheaval that struck the Church following the July 29, 1968 announcement of Humanae Vitae. Not the many liturgical and other changes that — though not mandated by the second Vatican council — nonetheless were soon implemented.
A far more consequential mutiny followed a conference that took place in July, 1967 in Land O’ Lakes Wisconsin. There, led by Holy Cross Father Theodore (Ted) Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame University, leaders of ten major Catholic universities and of two religious orders issued a declaration of independence; most importantly from the Pope:
“[T]he Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.” (Excerpt from par. 1). https://www.ncregister.com/blog/reilly/the-land-o-lakes-statement-has-caused-devastation-for-49-years.
Within a few years all but a few U. S. Catholic centers of higher education followed suit. They rejected the time-honored conclusions of St. Augustine:
- The Gospel according to Matthew was written first by apostle-eyewitness Matthew.
- Mark was written by Mark the evangelist based on the preaching of Peter and with access to The Gospel according to Matthew.
- Luke wrote referring to Matthew and Mark.
- John was written by apostle-eyewitness John.
(newadvent.org – Harmony of the Gospels, Book 1, Ch. 2, par. 3, 4).
As detailed an analysis as this was by St. Augustine, it preceded the development of the Historical-Critical Method by many centuries. Instead of the Augustinian Hypothesis, by the 1970s most of our Catholic universities, colleges and seminaries began teaching students the historical-critical hypothesis that most biblical exegetes at that time believed was the best explanation of the origin of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke: The Markan Priority Two-Source Hypothesis (TSH) — also known as the Two-Document Hypothesis, or 2DH.
In Catholic academia, the anonymous-Gospels Markan Priority TSH is applied to the Gospel according to John as well.
The Markan Priority Two-Source Hypothesis — The “Poison Pill”
Markan Priority Two Source
Hypothesis
Markan priority (en-academic.com)
The key points and implications of the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis (TSH), as taught for the past five decades [also casting doubt on the apostle John as the writer of John] in virtually all of our Catholic universities, colleges and seminaries, are these:
- The TSH discredits the four evangelists — including apostle-eyewitnesses Matthew and John — as writers of the Gospels.
- The TSH attributes the four canonical Gospels instead to unknown persons writing a generation later who probably never saw or heard Jesus and whose sources are also unknown.
- The TSH renders the papacy irrelevant and the Catholic Church just another Christian faith tradition: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . (Mt 16:18-19) does not appear in Mark (Mk 8:27-30). Therefore Jesus probably never said those words instituting Petrine primacy. The obvious explanation — that in Rome, with agents of Nero surely listening, Peter never preached those words addressed to him by Christ — is ignored. They are missing from Lk 9:18-21 as well, which would be expected since most scholars hold that Mark’s Gospel was a primary source for Luke.
- The THS ignores the Gospel-authenticating testimony of the Early Church Fathers.
- In the diagram above, “Q” (Quelle – source) represents a hypothetical list of statements Jesus must have made if Mark actually was the first Gospel written.
- TSH proponents acknowledge that the TSH collapses without “Q.”
- TSH proponents also acknowledge that numerous versions of “Q” would have to be found to accommodate the differing lists of “Q” statements compiled by exegetes that Jesus must have made.
- TSH proponents acknowledge that the existence of “Q,” though essential to TSH credibility, is mere speculation; no such artifact or historical reference to it has ever been found. Brant Pitre, Ph.D., Distinguished Research Professor of Scripture at The Augustine Institute, wrote:
“One huge problem with the [Markan Priority] Two-Source Theory is that it relies on ‘Q,’ which exists only in the imagination of the scholars who believe in it. No manuscript of ‘Q’ has ever been found. No reference to ‘Q’ is ever made in the writings of the church fathers.” (The Case for Jesus, 2016, 97). (Underline added).
- Distinguished biblical scholar David Laird Dungan, after noting the crippling criticism of Markan Priority by biblical exegetes, wrote:
“It continues to be used far and wide as if nothing had happened, resembling the headless horseman who rides across the countryside every Halloween in the light of the full moon.” (The History of the Synoptic Problem, 1999, 389).
- Catholic apologists defend Catholic truth by quoting the Gospels, relying on their authenticity. By reducing the Gospels to anonymous hearsay, the TSH undermines all arguments Catholic apologists make in defense of Church teaching.
[See “How the original ‘Poison Pill,’ Markan Priority ─ ‘broke the back’ of Matthew’s Gospel and ‘neutralized the papacy.’” In the Addendum]
After four, (now five) decades of Markan Priority instruction in Catholic academia, Pope Benedict XVI assessed its effects as follows:
“Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air” (Jesus of Nazareth, 2007, xii).
The devastating effect of the Markan Priority TSH on seminarians
The effect on seminarians of this poison pill rejection of the Gospels as highly credible reports about the ministry of Jesus and the reduction of the Gospels to mere anonymous hearsay is evident in these excerpts from an email I received from a priest whose faith somehow survived this experience:
“Dear Jerome,
I was taught the [Markan Priority TSH] Historical-Critical Method in the seminary in the 1970’s…[by] Fr. Raymond Brown. [H]e saw toward the end of his life how this method could destroy Catholic Faith in people rather than build it up. I saw seminarians lose their faith in my class when exposed to the unbridled use of this method. Many were converted by this method to heterodox teachings or beliefs. Others lost their faith and left the seminary.
“The [Markan Priority TSH] HCM calls into question not only the infancy narratives but also the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Virgin Conception and birth, not to mention miracles of Christ and his physical death and resurrection. It really opens old heresies already resolved by the Church.“ (Italics added.)
This explains much that has gone wrong in the Church for the past five decades. Is the experience of seminarians today any less disturbing? If so, it can only be because elements of the Markan Priority TSH are taught at earlier levels of Catholic education.
USCCB discredits evangelists as writers of the Gospels
For two millennia Catholic tradition, affirmed by St. Irenaeus and other Early Church Fathers / writers, has held that the apostle Matthew wrote The Gospel according to Matthew. However, The USCCB discredits apostle-eyewitness Matthew as writer of Matthew in the closing paragraphs of, “Introduction to the Gospel according to Matthew,” on the USCCB web site.
“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is UNTENABLE . . . The UNKNOWN author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience . . . https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0
This commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew asserts that its author is unknown, but, because it is convenient, the USCCB will continue to refer to its author as Matthew.
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0
The USCCB also casts doubt on Mark, associate of Peter, as writer of that Gospel,
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/0, as well as on apostle John as writer of that Gospel, https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/0
How difficult it must be for virtually all bishops, priests, and deacons today to preach at Mass fervently, with conviction, after reading from “The Gospel according to Matthew,” for example, having been instructed explicitly that Matthew the apostle did not write it and no one knows who did.
The Four Major Historical-Critical Hypotheses
As noted in The Synoptic Problem: Four Views, (2016; S. E. Porter and B. R. Dyer), a book recommended to me by a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, many different historical-critical hypotheses have been proposed as explanations of the origin of Synoptic (“same view”) Gospels; Matthew, Mark and Luke. However, only the following four hypotheses are currently peer-recognized as “Major”:
The Four Major Historical Critical Hypotheses ─ The only explanations for the origins of the Synoptic (first three) Gospels now recognized as “Major” by the majority of biblical exegetes.
The four Historical Critical Hypotheses peer-recognized as Major | Are evangelists Mark and Luke — as well as apostle-eyewitness Matthew — ruled out as writers of these Gospels? | Does hypothesis take into account testimony of Early Church Fathers (pre-325 A.D.)? |
Markan Priority Two- Source Hypothesis (TSH) | Yes | No |
Markan Priority Farrer Hypothesis | Yes | No |
Orality-Memory Hypothesis. Priority: A hypothetical “Proto-Mark” | Yes | No |
Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis (TGH) | No * | Yes |
* Coupled with the compelling evidence that all four Gospels were written before 70 A.D. — i.e., within the probable lifetimes of all four evangelists, certainly John — the Matthean Priority TGH points strongly to the evangelists as writers of the four Gospels. (See Addendum: “Evidence for the pre-70 A.D. writing of all four Canonical Gospels”).
Ignoring the Early Church Fathers ─ the first three centuries of Church history ─ how credible can the first three major hypotheses be?
Note that the first three hypotheses deemed Major ─ The Markan Priority Two Source hypothesis, the Markan Priority Farrer hypothesis and the “Proto-Mark” Priority Orality-Memory hypothesis ─ are the three that ignore the Early Church Fathers. They survive in academia only because their proponents have been allowed to ignore the compelling, early evidence for the evangelists as writers of the Gospels, including the Gospel-affirming testimony of numerous early-Church writers.
Why, we might ask, would scholars sincerely seeking the truth about Jesus ignore the written testimony of the Early Church Fathers, among them many who chose martyrdom rather than deny what they knew to be true about Christ? For example, why ignore the testimony of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who died as a martyr at age 86? In his youth Polycarp was a follower of St. John the apostle-evangelist who was with Jesus during his entire public ministry. The proconsul, apparently wanting to spare the aged Bishop Polycarp, said:
“Talk the oath and I will release you; revile Christ!” Polycarp answered: “Eighty-six years I have served Him, and He has never done me wrong. How, then, should I be able to blaspheme my King who has saved me?” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, p. 31).
Gospel-affirmations of Early Church Fathers
The question of Petrine Primacy in the One apostolic Church Jesus founded, as well as authenticity of the Gospels, are among the many answered clearly in Early Church writings:
In The Faith of the Early Fathers, author William A. Jurgens lists eighteen pre-Nicene (i.e., pre-325 A.D.) citations under the caption, “From earliest times it was acknowledged that the supreme power over the whole Church belonged to the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter” (Doctrinal Index, p. 421).
Jurgens lists an additional thirteen citations under the caption, “Among the apostles, Peter received from Christ the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church,” (Doctrinal Index, p. 421).
Under the caption “The Gospel,” Jurgens also lists page numbers of citations from various Early Church Fathers attesting to the authenticity and historicity of each of the four Gospels: Matthew, 14 citations; Mark, 14 citations; Luke, 13 citations; John, 10 citations (Doctrinal Index, p. 414).
The “Poison Pill” antidote: The Gospel-affirming Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis — The only major hypothesis not in conflict with the writings of Early Church Fathers and not in conflict with Church teaching on Gospel origin.
https://catholicnewslive.com/story/421313
The Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis (TGH) is now peer-recognized as a “Major” Historical Critical hypothesis and is the only recognized hypothesis that is not at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Only the faith-affirming Matthean Priority TGH meets all the following criteria:
(a) does not require “Q” or any other never-found element,
(b) takes into account the writings of the Early Church Fathers,
(c) does not rule out the possibility that evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote those Gospels.
(d) Coupled with the evidence that all four Gospels were written before 70 A. D. — only about 37 years after the Resurrection when all evangelists, certainly John, were probably living — only the Matthean Priority TGH provides compelling evidence pointing to the evangelists as writers of all four Gospels and that all are highly credible.
(e) As the above criteria affirm, only the Matthean Priority TGH is consistent with Church teaching that the evangelists wrote all four Gospels (Dei Verbum).
As indicated in the above table, only the faith-affirming Matthean Priority TGH takes into account Early Church testimony. It is telling that, in The Synoptic Gospels: Four Views, Craig A. Evans, presenter / defender of the Markan Priority TSH thanks David B. Peabody, presenter / defender of the Matthean Priority TGH, for his detailed analysis of the patristic evidence:
“For this alone we owe Peabody our thanks.”
And yet Evans and the other two defenders of Markan / Proto-Markan Priority continue to ignore that same Gospel-authenticating Patristic evidence.
Scholarly affirmation of the Matthean Priority TGH vs. the Markan Priority TSH
Until his death in 2006 Bernard Orchard, O. S. B., was one of the foremost biblical exegetes favoring the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis. His article, “Dei Verbum and the Synoptic Gospels,” on the Catholic Answers website, written May 1, 1996 provides an overview of the Markan Priority TSH, how its credibility has been “destroyed,” as well as the emergence of the faith-affirming Matthean Priority TGH as the most credible explanation of the origin of the Gospels:
“There is enough uncertainty, doubt, and contradiction [regarding the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis] to require those who rely on Markan priority for their exegesis to listen patiently to the advocates of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, who claim that there is another way of interpreting the literary, historical and patristic evidence that satisfies the most rigorous requirements of scholarship. In other words; that dialogue, which should have got under way after Vatican II, must now be taken up again in earnest.
“Taking the above examples as representative of modern Roman Catholic biblical scholarship, the following conclusions may be drawn:
- Modern exegesis finds it exceedingly difficult honestly to comply with Dei Verbum’s insistence on the full historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, the root cause of the conflict being the use of the Markan Priority Hypothesis.
- This conflict now leaves the Catholic academic world in dire need of a more realistic source hypothesis. It therefore has no option but to consider seriously and without prejudice the only viable alternative, the Two-Gospel Hypothesis.
“During the past twenty-five years the proponents of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis have put together a considerable dossier, along with a chain of arguments scientifically persuasive, which also happens to be in close agreement with the Tradition . . .”
Associates of Orchard soon satisfied his wish for a book that does, in fact, present “a chain of arguments scientifically persuasive, which also happens to be in close agreement with the Tradition.” That book is 426-page One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke. (2002). Written by David B. Peabody, Lamar Cope and Allan J. McNicol this book, which includes nine citations of the writings of Bernard Orchard O.S.B., is arguably the definitive book demonstrating strongly the credibility of the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis as well as the weaknesses of Markan Priority, in particular the TSH.
Related articles
My article “Jesus emerges from the Historical Critical Fog” was published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly, Fall / Winter 2017. It is posted, with “Replacing ‘thin air Jesus’ with the true Jesus in Catholic universities” at https://7stepcatholic.com/.
I received no objection from any FCS or other scholar to my detailed treatment of the spiritually destructive deficiencies of the Markan Priority TSH, as well as to my call to instead instruct students about the Matthean Priority TGH — by any objective measure, the most credible of all four “Major” Historical Critical Hypotheses.
A respectful suggestion for presidents of Catholic universities and colleges and for bishops who oversee seminaries.
Change, even for the best of reasons, may not be readily embraced by those who, with the best of intentions, have long taught differently. With this in mind, approaching the matter along the following lines with faculty may be helpful, ideally facilitated by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities and The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
“Five decades ago, when the Church was thriving and belief in Jesus as presented to us in the Gospels was strong, we joined virtually all of Catholic academia in setting aside St. Augustine’s conclusions that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names. We did so because at that time the great majority of biblical exegetes believed that the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis — although it rendered the Synoptic Gospels anonymously written; not written by those evangelists — best explained the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. At the urging of Catholic exegetes we soon considered the Gospel according to John anonymously written as well. We now know, however, that, after four decades of such instruction, Pope Benedict XVI faulted it as reducing Jesus to ‘thin air.’
“As we know, within the last decade or two another explanation of Gospel origin has been peer-recognized as “Major” — The Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis. The claim is made and strongly supported that, by any objective measure, it is more credible than all other historical-critical hypotheses, including our Markan Priority Two Source instruction and is the only historical-critical hypothesis not at odds with the Vatican II document Dei Verbum:
“For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”
“We claim to be a Catholic university / college / seminary. But are we, really, if we knowingly continue instruction that, as Pope Benedict wrote, reduces seeking Jesus to “clutching at thin air”?
“Now that biblical exegetes have made it possible to teach as the Church has always taught, without comprising academic principles, can we, in good conscience, not immediately make this change in our classrooms?”
For the sake of the untold number of souls whose eternal salvation is jeopardized by “thin air Jesus” instruction, may this restoration of Gospel credibility soon be implemented in all our Catholic universities, colleges and seminaries.
Addendum
Evidence for the pre-70 A.D. writing of all four Canonical Gospels
a) All three of the Synoptics include Jesus clearly foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24:2, Mk 13:2, Lk 19:44), but there is no reference in any of the four Gospels that that prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled. Mt 22:7, “The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city,” is cited by some who claim that this city was Jerusalem and therefore Matthew was written after 70 A.D. In context, however, this is drawn from the parable of the wedding banquet where a king burned the city of those who murdered his servants rather than accept the king’s invitation to a wedding banquet. However, it is simply an excerpt from one of the many parables of Jesus. It is clearly not a reference to the cataclysmic, far beyond burning, prophecy by Jesus before his death in about 33 A.D.: “Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down” (Mt 24:2, RSVCE) about 37 years before the terrible event occurred in 70 A.D.
Some Markan Priority TSH proponents attempt to date the writing of Matthew to after 70 A.D. by ignoring the unmistakable future tense used by Jesus: “there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down” (Mt 24:2). The Bible Gateway web site, however, lists translations of Mt 24:2 in 59 different bibles, including the RSV Catholic Edition and the New American Standard Bible. Without exception, all 59 translations quote Jesus as referring to a future event; unequivocal evidence that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., almost certainly by Matthew the apostle-eyewitness — evidence which is compatible with the faith-affirming Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis and which renders the dominant but Gospel-blurring Markan Priority TSH untenable.
Such illogical interpretation of the clear meaning of biblical passages is an apparent reflection of a fundamental tenet of the Historical-Critical Method: God (if God exists) cannot intervene in human history. This accounts for the often heard, even from the pulpit, attempts to offer natural explanations of such miracles of Christ as his feeding of the crowds and walking on water.
b) In John, the Gospel virtually all biblical scholars agree was written last, we read, “Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Beth-za′tha, which has five porticoes” (Jn 5:2). If writing after Jerusalem was destroyed, the Gospel writer would have written something like, “Before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem there was, by the Sheep Gate . . . or, “By the Sheep Gate, which was somehow not destroyed by the Romans . . .” There is virtually unanimous agreement among biblical scholars that the apostle John lived until the late 90s, more than twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem. If John’s account of the ministry of Christ, apparently written and promulgated by him before A.D. 70, was false and fraudulently attributed to him, John would have had at least two decades to denounce it as such, as he did “false words” in 3 John: 9-10.
c) The pre-70 A.D. writing of all four Gospels, within about 37 years after the Resurrection, means that all four evangelists were probably still living and able to expose as fraudulent any Gospel falsely attributed to them. Even if an evangelist was no longer living, many of the disciples and others who would have known Jesus and witnessed his miracles would have denounced as false any miracle of Jesus recorded in his Gospel, including the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, if it had not actually occurred. That all four Gospels were given canonical approval in the late fourth century by the Church — which had access to the Gospels, the letters of Paul and the others, as well as three hundred years of writings of the Early Church Fathers — attests to the authenticity of all four Canonical Gospels.
It is well attested that the apostle John lived until about the middle of the last decade of the first century as noted and we have the following testimony of St. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215): “John, last of all, seeing that the plain facts had been clearly set forth in the Gospels, and being urged by his acquaintances, composed a spiritual Gospel under the divine inspiration of the Spirit.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14).
C.C. Torrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale from 1900 to 1932 wrote: “I challenged my colleagues to designate one passage from any one of the four Gospels giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A.D. . . . The challenge was not met, nor will it be, for there is no such passage.” (“The Dates of the Gospels,” Rev. George H. Duggan, S.M.).
With the exception of most Evangelicals, the above notwithstanding, the Gospel-blurring Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis (TSH) gained acceptance within Protestantism before its acceptance in most of Catholic academia, where it is generally applied not only to the first three Synoptic Gospels, but to John as well.
The study of Gospel Semitisms called for by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII — a further indication of pre-70 A.D. writing of the Gospels by the evangelists
In 1893, as Bismarck-imposed “higher criticism” (the Historical Critical Method) was gaining ground beyond Germany, Pope Leo XIII warned in Providentissimus Deus that it would make the enemies of religion more bold and confident in “attacking and mangling the Sacred Books.” As a defense, the Pope called for the study of the biblical Semitic languages, which would include Hebrew and Aramaic. Such study would better prepare biblical exegetes to recognize Hebrew and Aramaic Semitisms, characteristics of those languages in the canonical Greek Gospels. In 1943, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, paragraphs 15 and 16, Pope Pius XII granted Catholic biblical scholars permission to employ the historical-critical method, but stipulated that in that endeavor scholars study not only Greek but Hebrew. Unfortunately, it seems that the studies of most Catholic and other historical-critical scholars have instead proceeded from the Greek, with little if any reference to the Semitic substrate.
Dead Sea Scrolls aid understanding of first century Hebrew and Aramaic
Resistance to the call of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII to study the Gospels in light of Hebrew and Aramaic may have had some merit before discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1945-1955). Until then, and for some time afterward while scroll images were distributed and studied, biblical exegetes were familiar with the Hebrew of the Old (Hebrew) Testament and to some extent the Mishnaic Hebrew that developed from biblical Hebrew beginning in about the first century, A.D.
But the Dead Sea Scrolls ─ some written as early as the third century B.C., but others written by the Jewish Essene Community as late as 60 A.D., about the time when the four Gospels were probably written ─ brought about what scholars have called a “sea change” in their ability to recognize Hebraisms and Aramaisms in the canonical Greek Gospels, many of which explain some of the rough Greek of the canonical Gospels, and enhance scholars’ ability to categorize those Semitisms.
A number of Semitism scholars find the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and sources of Luke to be translations of earlier Hebrew / Aramaic documents
After a 20-year study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, French Hebraist abbé Jean Carmignac (1914 – 1986) concluded that the canonical Greek Gospel according to Matthew was in fact a translation of an earlier Hebrew, in part Aramaic, document. In his book, Birth of the Synoptic Gospels, he cited twenty other Semitism scholars who also found Greek Matthew to be such a translation, twenty who found Greek Mark to be such a translation, and nineteen who reached the same conclusion about sources of Greek Luke (The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 65-83).
Abbé Carmignac’s studies led him to conclude that Matthew, Mark and Luke were probably all written between about A.D. 40 and a little after 50 (p. 61 of his book); only about seventeen years after the Resurrection. With high probability, all three evangelists would still have been living and able to attest to the truth of the Gospels they had written. Such early dates make the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis untenable, of course, prompting this comment by abbé Carmignac on the back cover of his book:
“These scientific arguments should prove reassuring to Christians and attract the attention and interest of nonbelievers. But they overturn theories presently in vogue and therefore they will be fiercely criticized.”
Objections to relevance of Semitisms as indications of translations are refuted.
Most Markan Priority TSH proponents explain the many Semitisms in the canonical Greek Gospels as simply indications of the presumed native Hebrew language of the unknown writer, or the writer’s attempt to imitate the Septuagint, the translation into Greek of the Hebrew (Old) Testament done in the third and second centuries B.C.
I found no information about the number, if any, of Markan Priority TSH proponents who object to abbé Carmignac’s conclusions who have the equivalent of his knowledge of Gospel Semitisms gained through his 20-year study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In any case, abbé Carmignac forthrightly refuted those objections and asserted that Semitisms, properly categorized, clearly indicate that the canonical Greek Matthew, Mark and sources of Luke are in fact translations of earlier Hebrew or Aramaic documents:
He divided those Semitisms into nine categories: Semitisms of borrowing, of imitation, of thought, of vocabulary, of syntax, of style, of composition, of transmission, of translation, with the added category of multiple Semitisms; several mixed together.
He then defended unequivocally the Semitisms of the final three categories (composition, transmission, translation), each of which he explained at length.
He continued: “But even in the first five categories . . . and especially the sixth (style), the abundance of evidence presented goes far beyond any possibility that the author [writer] was influenced by his mother tongue or by the prestige of a venerable text.” Birth of the Synoptic Gospels, 17-41.
In finding Greek Matthew in particular to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic, Carmignac, et. al., are consistent with Papias, Irenaeus and other ecclesiastical writers as noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911):
Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of the apostle John: “Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew dialect and each person interpreted them as best he could,” Fragments of Papias, VI, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm;
Irenaeus: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome [both were martyred there by Nero in about the year 67], and laying the foundations of the Church” Against Heresies, 3.1.1. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm; cited by Eusebius of Caesarea.
”St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew . . . all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm (emphasis added).
This strong evidence that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not in Greek, before 70 A.D. makes all Markan Priority hypotheses, including the dominant Two Source Hypothesis, untenable. With such compelling evidence that, with high probability, apostle-eyewitness Matthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name, by no objective rationale can the Gospel according to Matthew be subordinated to The Gospel according to Mark, to any other Gospel, or attributed to an unknown second-generation writer. A further defense of Matthean Priority and refutation of Markan Priority can be found in “Jesus emerges from the historical-critical fog” and at https://7stepcatholic.com/
__________________
Diagrams of the Farrer hypothesis and The Orality and Memory Hypothesis
https://alchetron.com/Farrer-hypothesis
The Orality and Memory Hypothesis
Rainer Reisner — Image from The Synoptic Problem: Four Views
How the original “Poison Pill,” Markan Priority ─ “broke the back” of Matthew’s Gospel and “neutralized the papacy.”
In 1786 Protestant theologian Gottlob C. Storr proposed that Mark was the first Gospel written. “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church . . .“ (Mt 16:18-19), is not in Mark (8:27-30), therefore It could be argued that Jesus never conferred primacy on Peter. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church would then be considered just one of the many Christian faith traditions, as earlier noted.
A century later, “Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck used that very idea in his attempt to nullify Petrine primacy. In “Bismarck and the four Gospels,” biblical exegete William R. Farmer (later a convert to Catholicism) tells how Bismarck, seething after the announcement of the Papal Infallibility dogma in 1870, “broke the back” of the Gospel according to Matthew, and thus of Canon Law, and neutralized the papacy by imposing Markan Priority in German universities. Many German bishops and priests opposed the “May Laws” and were imprisoned or exiled.
But this Markan Priority square peg didn’t logically fit into the historical-critical hole. How could a statement made personally by Jesus and quoted by apostle-eyewitness Matthew be nullified by Mark, a non-eyewitness?
Early Church Bishop Irenaeus has provided the explanation:
“After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter . . .” https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm.
(Eusebius of Caesarea, Against Heresies, Book III, 1, 1, from the New Advent website).
Mark wrote what Peter preached. In Rome, with Nero’s agents ready to pounce, would Peter have sealed his doom by calling his flock to strive to enter another “kingdom” to which Jesus had given him the keys? Peter would not have said this. Therefore Mark would not have written it.
However, ironclad as the case is that the canonically approved Greek Gospel according to Matthew is a translation of an eyewitness report by this apostle, Markan prioritists declare that all three synoptic Gospels, i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke were probably written anonymously a generation later. After the 1967 Land O’ Lakes rejection of pontifical authority, all but a few Catholic seminaries, universities and colleges would teach the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis as the best explanation of Gospel origin, adding, on equally speculative basis, that the Gospel according to John was anonymously written as well.