Why Matthew Might Not Be the Gospel You Thought

If you think Matthew's gospel was hot off the presses before Mark's, you might be racing a horse that left the stable. The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis shakes the theological world by suggesting that Matthew might just be a re-run of Mark. Proposed in the 20th century, this theory argues that Matthew's gospel isn't the original source that Sunday School led you to believe—it’s derivative, borrowing heavily from Mark. Hold your horses if this shocks you; let's trot through the details.

The who's who in this scholarly rodeo? Let's talk about B. C. Butler, an Anglican Benedictine monk who first saddled up, and a bunch of contemporary scholars who think he might be on to something. These guys contend that Matthew leaned more heavily on Mark’s text like a canteen leans on the side of a cowboy’s saddlebag. Mark's text, dating around 70 CE, was cutting edge for its time—a pioneer. Matthew supposedly didn’t get the memo until a couple of decades later.

So, what are the signs telling us Mark came first, and Matthew is left trying to catch up? First, Matthew snags around 90% of Mark's material—talk about cribbing! Yet, every student or cafeteria copycat knows it’s not just about what you take but how you tweak it. While Matthew adds his razzle-dazzle—the Lord's Prayer, the beatitudes, those famed genealogies—it’s like putting lipstick on a pig when the core content echoes Mark's.

Then there's the matter of literary style. Matthew is polished, like a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, whereas Mark's Gospel is raw and rugged, rough-sawed like a cowboy’s outpost. Some argue Matthew was sprucing up Mark’s rough edges. Other scholars say it could be the reverse—Breitling before Rolex in biblical fashion. But let’s lean into the hypothesis a moment. If Matthew glammed up Mark, why borrow so heavily unless you were writing after?

And don’t even get us started on the order of events. Mark is snappy, quick on the draw, not lingering in one town longer than a traveling rodeo. Matthew? Oh, he's all about expanding the townspeople’s stories and tossing in more teachings. Such narrative expansion suggests revision, not originality, more like a director’s cut than a groundbreaking film. Matthew supposedly got to roam wild, adding depth where Mark chose brevity.

Apocalypse alert! Matthew's eschatological passages sometimes lack the sense of urgency found in Mark. Maybe Matthew didn’t feel the end times were just around the bend, or maybe he thought people would like a more comforting narrative. Perhaps this shows his later standpoint compared to Mark's fiery countdown clock narrative.

What about location? Mark was kings of storytelling, presumably writing for a Gentile audience out in the Roman Empire’s far reaches. Matthew? His Saxon might suggest a Jerusalemite flavor, aiming at a Jewish audience that probably had heard Mark's tales by then. It’s like Matthew was trying to ride a bit of Mark's coattails while adding Jewish spice to the chili.

Don’t miss the Q Source in this melee. The hypothesis also argues Matthew lassoed this mysterious text, a hypothetical gospel thought to have inspired both Matthew and Luke. It’s like the secret sauce liberals want to ignore when dipping their interpretations. But that’s another rabbit hole we won't wander down today.

Why stir this pot then? Because the Matthean Posteriority theory challenges entrenched views and gets folks thinking about who molded the message we hold dear. If Matthew is a second in line rather than a frontrunner, what does that mean for theological interpretation? It raises questions about authorial intent, narrative choices, and the evolution of early Christian communities.

Consider this a call to arms—time to question and to explore the dynamic conservative interpretation the Gospels deserve. It’s not just about nodding in agreement with what’s been taught since childhood Bible studies. It’s about diving deeper, scrutinizing the Word, and championing the tradition of rigorous, right-leaning inquiry. Break the mold and step out of the comfort zone while remaining rooted in traditional values. Matthew as a distant second to Mark? There’s food for thought even the most ardent skeptic will chew on.

The conservative Christian world thrives on challenging norms, and this hypothesis is a testament to that. Matthew might not be the lone wolf innovator here, but he surely adds flair to Mark's groundwork. So, next time you're perusing those blessed books, consider who ran the first lap in this relay, and who polished the baton for us to see.