That MARK is the source for Matthew and Luke is the most generally held theory today, among non-Catholic and Catholic scholars alike. This literary priority of Mark seems almost to be a fixed tenet of the critics.

The Gospel of Mark is certainly independent of Matthew and Luke. If Mark abridged Matthew, as some critics hold, how can the countless additions be explained. The narratives of Mark are far more lively than those of Matthew’s stylized form.

There is no decisive evidence of any borrowing or dependence between Matthew and Luke. When Matthew or Luke do not follow Mark, they disagree with regard to the arrangement of their common materials and the mode of expression. If Matthew had written with Luke before him, how can we explain the omission of so much fine material? There must be another explanation for any agreement that is evidenced.

The question of whether or not Luke and Matthew depend on Mark is greatly discussed. The dependence of Luke on Mark is generally accepted. However, the nature and extend of the dependence is disputed. The problem arises with the doublets found in Luke, i.e., the same episode appears in Luke twice, once in a section where Luke is following Mark, and again in a section where Luke has independent material. Such a phenomenon posits another source somewhat parallel to Mark. Both Matthew and Luke omit details that appear in Mark. Thus a simple dependence of Luke on Mark is insufficient as an explanation. This raised a theory, generally abandoned today, of a proto-Mark, that is Luke did not have the canonical Mark but a more primitive form.

That Matthew depended on Mark is widely affirmed but also disputed vehemently. The hypothesis of Matthew’s priority has never been totally excluded from criticism.

The priority of Mark is generally accepted by scholars today. It seems to answer best the questions raised and is surely a fine working hypothesis. Concerning the dependencies of Matthew and Luke on Mark, there has not been a truly satisfactory proposal to solve the problems involved. The dependence of Luke on Mark is to be maintained. The dependence of Matthew on Mark is to be maintained, but with more reserve.

Why, you may ask, do I spend so much time on sharing these thoughts about the scriptures. I do so that you might be informed Christians and not take what some fundamentalist Christians say about the Gospels. They usually speak with great certainty.