show_no_mercy

In the synoptics, Jesus gives Simon the name "Peter". This is only expanded upon in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus makes a pun on Peter's name saying that he's the rock that his church will be built on. Could this mean that gMatt was written first? Renaming Simon "Peter" doesn't seem to have any function in the other gospels besides Matthew.

Ben C Smith

If the tradition of this renaming predates the writing of Matthew and Mark, then it can mean nothing for dating Matthew and Mark relative to each other. An author can choose either to include or to exclude such information at will.

In this case, especially, it seems quite possible that neither Mark nor Matthew had any clear tradition or guidance on exactly why Jesus renamed Simon as Peter, and it was only Matthew who made use of Peter being the Greek word for rock.

Ben.

Cesc

Before Mark or Matt were even written, "Simon Peter" was mentioned by Paul only as Cephas, which is thought to be from the Aramaic "stone", kepha, I believe.

In the stories of Peter, he is made to act as a sort of prototype bishop for a Christian community, it seems to me. Perhaps naturally seen as the "corner-stone" of the Christian community. This masonic imagery is kind of like the imagery of the "Pillars of the Church" to me or in 1 Peter 2:5-8 about Christ. The corner-stone of the foundation of the church.

Isaiah's corner-stone prophecy is used in this sort of way by the Essenes as well:

Isaiah 28:16

So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.

The Essene's Community Rule on the Essene community:

It shall be a tried wall, that precious corner-stone whose foundations shall neither rock nor sway in their place.

And the Teacher who parallels the Matt. passage to some extent:

But I shall be as one who enters a fortified city,
as one who seeks refuge behind a high wall
awaiting deliverance;
I will lean on Thy truth, O my God.
For Thou layest the foundations on the rock,
and the cross-beams by a true measure,
and the tried stone [...]
by a true plumb-line,
to build a mighty wall which shall not sway;
all who enter therein shall not falter
for no enemy shall enter,
since its doors shall be armoured gates barring entry;
and its bars shall be strong and unbreakable.

Compare:

on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Imo, this "rock" allegory could easily go back to "Cephas" of Paul's epistles, with "Cephas" being the "corner-stone" or the "rock upon which the church is built", thus a tradition pre-dating the Gospels.

hatsoff

As Ben pointed out, as long as the tradition was in place at the time of Paul (or at least before the Synoptics were written), it wouldn't matter. However, I do think it is an interesting observation, so kudos on that.

In answer to your opening question, though, yes, it is certainly possible that Matthew was written first. It's just fairly unlikely. Some would say it's enormously unlikely, but my opinion is that without more concrete evidence, Markan priority is simply the best of several competing, reasonable hypotheses.

aa5874

There is no record anywhere to show that anyone called Paul wrote Cephas before before the authors of Matthew and Mark.

And, further the use of the word "Cephas" for "Peter" appears to be a later translation since none of the synoptics use "Cephas" and the author of John appears to be correcting the synoptics when he claimed Jesus used the Aramic word for "rock" instead of the Greek.

It will be noted that only the letters of the writer called Paul and the author of John used Cephas and Peter as refering to the same person. And the Church records, based on Eusebius, placed Paul with the gospel called Luke.

Paul, by deduction, is after gMatthew.

Ben C Smith

I have linked to it before, but it may be worth mentioning that I have a page on my website summarizing various redactional and editorial arguments for gospel priority and posteriority. Despite my own stance that Mark came before Matthew and Luke, I attempted to approach the topic neutrally, giving reasons both for Matthean and for Lucan priority alongside the reasons for Marcan priority.

Ben.

show_no_mercy

That's another interesting coincidence. It's possible that gJohn was written to harmonize the synoptics with all of Paul's epistles; and maybe the writers of the synoptics are ignorant of Paul's epistles.

aa5874

I don't think it is a coincidence. It would appear that the author of gMark made errors in his Jesus story and the author of gJohn corrected them, in fact, it can be argued that gJohn's Jesus is a "corrected Jesus."

But, the author of gMark appears to lack familiarity with Jewish tradition, and the author of John corrected the burial scene where Gmark claimed the women went to anoint the body after it was buried early sunday morning. According to the author of John, it was Jewish custom to anoint the body before burial.

But, there may be some indication that gMatthew was written before gMark, and one such case may be Matthew 21.2 and Mark 11.2 where the author of Matthew claimed Jesus used two donkeys in the parade and gMark claimed he used only one.
Mark may have corrected Matthew.

spamandham

Yes, it's possible that Matthew predates Mark. The argument that Mark came first seems stronger than other positions, but not by much.

Huon

You could have a look at :

The Synoptic Problem Home Page by Stephen C. Carlson