rodahi, offa is a "pesharist", though he uses the term incorrectly (unless he uses it by Thiering's definitions I guess). He doesn't need sources to back him up. He simply makes it all up himself. Voila!

Sorry, I get somewhat annoyed by Offa's posts. They are mostly anachronistic and unsubstantiated. Unfortunately, they have the sound of radical scholarship, so some people get taken in.

He has as much if not more right than I do to post here though, so I guess I just hope his misinformation gets ignored most of the time.

Since he seems to have a glimmer of intelligence at times, I can only assume that he is being fecetious. But then, hey, to him, I'm a gullible Christian...

All Riled-up,
Ish

Tercel, I totally agree with you that the early Church fathers aren't taken seriously enough on this issue. There seems to be such agreement among them that I have to wonder if modern scholars are leading us down the wrong path. Besides, I like the idea of Matthean priority!

My reasoning on the MSS issue is that the lack of early Marcan MSS compared to early Matthean MSS might say something about which came first. I totally agree however that this is tenuous. However, it is a possibility.

Finally, as to the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, here's one of my sources which happens to be on the web:

The Two Gospel Hypothesys (Matthean Priority)

My internet connection is moving slower than molasses, so you might have to dig the information out. Sorry.

Ish

I agree entirely, including the Matthean priority!

The Two Gospel Hypothesis (Matthean Priority)
I have a problem with this theory. Clement of Alexandria writes that Mark was asked to write down what Peter had preached so that the believers in Rome might have a Gospel. Now I can support Mark using a Hebrew copy of Matthew because the Romans wouldn't be able to read it. BUT if Mark had a copy of Luke (which I assume was originally written in Greek - If Mark had a Hebrew copy of Luke this objection is invalid.) WHY would he not just give that to the believers instead of writing his own Gospel?

As far as I can tell, the theory which best fits the writings of the early Church Fathers is that Mark and Luke both used a (different) copy of Hebrew Matthew (which presumably there would have been many copies and partial copies floating around). Luke combined his Hebrew Matthew with what he had heard from Paul and other sources ('L'), and Mark combined it with what he heard from Peter.

It seems to me that this is the obvious conclusion to draw, if you believe the early Church writers.

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited March 11, 2001).]