Hello Arthur, thanks for taking the time to respond.
You said:
"There is significant more support for Marcan priority than the two items you mention. You didn't address literary dependency and similarity, order of events, and Greek grammar and stylistic features."
You're correct that there is a wider range of evidence brought to bear. Yet the two primary points I highlighted are indeed the two on which it all hinges. Without those two, the argument falls apart.
I addressed literary dependence and similarity at the end of the article.
Given that Mark was transcribing Peter, and transcriptions will inherently miss words and details as the speaker talks faster than the scribe can write, it makes all the sense in the world that Mark would consult Matthew to smooth out his shorthand notes.
This would explain every bit of literary dependence and similarity in the language and grammar.
It also explains why so many passages in Mark are more detailed than in Matthew -- Peter provided more information, and Mark wrote it down as he said it, then smoothed out his notes by consulting Matthew.
You said:
The idea that Mark wrote first is not universally accepted but it is far from simply resting on "assumptions."
Actually, it is.
There is no manuscript evidence nor historical evidence for it.
There are differences between Matthew and Mark, as all acknowledge, but many of these differences favor Matthean priority.
Markan priority rests on the assumption that the differences are best explained by Mark writing first. But there is no hard evidence at all for Mark writing first. It is only an assumption.
Did you know that the early church prized Matthew above all the Gospels, and barely mentions Mark? Why?
If Mark was the first account of Jesus' life, why would it be virtually ignored?
The answer is that it wasn't the first. Matthew came first, as all the historians agree, and the early church loved Matthew because it was their first written record of the life of Jesus.
You said:
"But the larger question, at least for me, is simply this - why does it matter? If you say Matthew came first but I opt for Mark being first, so what? What practical difference is there either way? Intellectual curiosity? Sure. Practically? It really doesn't matter, at least to me. What is your opinion?"
There are a few issues at stake.
First is the reliability of the Gospels. If they really did grow in the telling, they're less reliable as witnesses. But if Matthew wrote first, then they didn't grow. Matthew already records the later details people accuse the writers of growing into.
Second is the issue of historical evidence. To believe Mark wrote first, you have to reject the entire body of historical evidence about how the Gospels came to be written. Any position that relies on rejecting all the historical evidence is not a position worthy of belief.
