Smith, Kevin G.Domeris, William R.2022-10-042022-10-04https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14194/2809The Synoptic Gospels are remarkable for the extent of their similarities and the significance of their differences. There is along standing widely-held consensus that the explanation of these features is the Mark an Priority hypothesis, which places Mark as written first of all, and then used by the other two authors. This dissertation presents an alternative explanation of the evidence: that the Gospel of Matthew was published progressively over several decades in a series of documents, some of which were later collected and used by Luke in writing his Gospel; and then Mark wrote third, using the other two Synoptics together with the preaching of Peter. The existence of such early pre-Gospel documents is referred to by Luke in his Preface, and by Papias. The evidence is presented for the writing of such documents by the apostle Matthew and their use by Luke for the writing of his Gospel.The testimony of the early church Fathers is that John Mark wrote the Second Gospel from Peters preaching, commencing shortly prior to Peters death, and completing and publishing his work soon after the death of this apostle. Marks Gospels explained as a handbook for preachers and evangelists in the early church, embodying the kerygma they proclaimed-the action stories showing who Jesus was, and what he did. Mark drew upon the two Major Synoptics for his material and his structure (first following the sequence of Luke and then of Matthew). However, Marks vocabulary and his grammar reflect to a considerable extent the language of the preaching of Peter. A chapter of significant statistics supports this, showing the large extent to which the Gospel of Mark differs in these features from Matthew and Luke. The two major Synoptic explanations, Markan Priority and Markan Posteriority,and the arguments in support of each, are examined for validity and coherence. The demonstration is given to show that Markan Dependence (the hypothesis that Mark is dependent upon Mark, Luke, and Peter) is superior in its explanation of the text of the Synoptic Gospels, and of other available evidence (including the church Fathers).FurtherchaptersprovidemoredetailedconsiderationoftherelationshipofLukeand Matthew,precise details of the relationship of Mark to the Majors in the matter of pericope sequence, a consideration of other Synoptic explanations which have been put forward,and a detailed comparison of the text of the Rich Young Man pericope in the three Synoptics. The Progressive Publication of Matthew hypothesis (including Markan Dependence) is shown to offer a better explanation of the data than Markan Priority or other hypotheses currently offeredThe Synoptic Gospels are remarkable for the extent of their similarities and the significance of their differences. There is along standing widely-held consensus that the explanation of these features is the Mark an Priority hypothesis, which places Mark as written first of all, and then used by the other two authors. This dissertation presents an alternative explanation of the evidence: that the Gospel of Matthew was published progressively over several decades in a series of documents, some of which were later collected and used by Luke in writing his Gospel; and then Mark wrote third, using the other two Synoptics together with the preaching of Peter. The existence of such early pre-Gospel documents is referred to by Luke in his Preface, and by Papias. The evidence is presented for the writing of such documents by the apostle Matthew and their use by Luke for the writing of his Gospel.The testimony of the early church Fathers is that John Mark wrote the Second Gospel from Peters preaching, commencing shortly prior to Peters death, and completing and publishing his work soon after the death of this apostle. Marks Gospels explained as a handbook for preachers and evangelists in the early church, embodying the kerygma they proclaimed-the action stories showing who Jesus was, and what he did. Mark drew upon the two Major Synoptics for his material and his structure (first following the sequence of Luke and then of Matthew). However, Marks vocabulary and his grammar reflect to a considerable extent the language of the preaching of Peter. A chapter of significant statistics supports this, showing the large extent to which the Gospel of Mark differs in these features from Matthew and Luke. The two major Synoptic explanations, Markan Priority and Markan Posteriority,and the arguments in support of each, are examined for validity and coherence. The demonstration is given to show that Markan Dependence (the hypothesis that Mark is dependent upon Mark, Luke, and Peter) is superior in its explanation of the text of the Synoptic Gospels, and of other available evidence (including the church Fathers).FurtherchaptersprovidemoredetailedconsiderationoftherelationshipofLukeand Matthew,precise details of the relationship of Mark to the Majors in the matter of pericope sequence, a consideration of other Synoptic explanations which have been put forward,and a detailed comparison of the text of the Rich Young Man pericope in the three Synoptics. The Progressive Publication of Matthew hypothesis (including Markan Dependence) is shown to offer a better explanation of the data than Markan Priority or other hypotheses currently offered639p639pNew TestamentThesis