Many scholars besides those just mentioned hold to this order without admitting an
interdependence, and this I think is the correct view, in connection with the tradition hypothesis.
See below, sub V. and the text.- Matthew, Luke, Mark. So first Clement of Alexandria (Eus., H. E., VI. 14), but, without
intimating a dependence of Mark except on Peter. Griesbach (in two Programs, 1789) renewed this
order and made Mark an extract from both Matthew and Luke. So Theile (1825), Fritzsche (1830),
Sieffert (1832), De Wette, Bleek, Anger, Strauss, Baur, Keim. The Tübingen school utilized this
order for the tendency theory (see below). Keim puts Matthew a.d. 66, Luke, 90, Mark, 100.
Bleek is the most considerate advocate of this order (Einleitung in das N. T., 2d ed., 1866,
91 sqq., 245 sqq.), but Mangold changed it (in the third ed. of Bleek, 1875, pp. 388 sqq.) in favor
of the priority of a proto-Mark. - Mark, Matthew, Luke. The originality and priority of Mark was first suggested by Koppe
(1782) and Storr (1786 and 1794). The same view was renewed by Lachmann (1835), elaborately
carried out by Weisse (1838, 1856; Hilgenfeld calls him the "Urheber der conservativen
Markushypothese "), and still more minutely in all details by Wilke (Der Urevangelist, 1838; but
he assumes numerous interpolations in the present Mark and goes back to a proto-Mark), and by
B. Weiss (Das Marcusevangelium, 1872). It is maintained in various ways by Hitzig (Johannes
Markus, 1843), Ewald (1850, but with various prior sources), Ritschl (1851), Reuss, Thiersch,
Tobler, Réville (1862), Eichthal (1863), Schenkel, Wittichen, Holtzmann (1863), Weizsäcker
(1864), Scholten (1869), Meyer (Com. on Matt., 6th ed., 1876, p. 35), Renan (Les Évangiles, 1877,
pp. 113, but the Greek Mark was preceded by the lost Hebrew Matthew, p. 93 sqq.). Among English
writers, James Smith, of Jordan Hill (Dissertat. on the Origin of the Gospels, etc., Edinb., 1853),
G. P. Fisher (Beginnings of Christianity, New York, 1877, p. 275), and E. A. Abbott (in "Encyclop.
Brit.," vol. X., 1879, art. "Gospels") adopt the same view.
The priority of Mark is now the prevailing theory among German critics, notwithstanding
the protest of Baur and Keim, who had almost a personal animosity against the second Evangelist.
One of the last utterances of Keim was a passionate protest against the Präkonisation des Markus
(Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1878, pp. 28–45). But the advocates of this theory are divided on the
question whether the canonical Mark or a lost proto-Mark was the primitive evangelist. The one is
called the Markushypothese, the other the Urmarkushypothese. We admit the originality of Mark,
but this does not necessarily imply priority of composition. Matthew and Luke have too much
original matter to be dependent on Mark, and are far more valuable, as a whole, though Mark is
indispensable for particulars. - Mark, Luke, Matthew. Herder (1796), Volkmar (1866 and 1870).
- Luke, Matthew, Mark. Büsching (1776), Evanson (1792).
- Luke, Mark, Matthew. Vogel (1804), Schneckenburger (1882).
The conflicting variety of these modifications shakes the whole borrowing theory. It makes
the omissions of most important sections, as Matt. 12–17; 14:22 – 16:12; and Luke 10–18:14, and
the discrepancies in the common sections entirely inexplicable. See text.
III. The hypothesis of a Primitive Gospel (Urevangelium) written before those of the
Synoptists and used by them as their common source, but now lost. - A lost Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic Gospel of official character, written very early, about
35, in Palestine by the apostles as a manual for the travelling preachers. This is the famous
Urevangeliumshypothese of the learned Professor Eichhorn (1794, 1804, 1820), adopted and
A.D. 1-100.