The problem of the relationship between the first three gospels still awaits a final solution. Even the priority of Mark, the keystone of Synoptic criticism as it was developed by such scholars as B. H. Streeter, has been challenged in recent years. However, the majority of critical scholars are agreed that the careful study of the discrepancies between Mark itself, and those sections of Matthew and Luke which are closest to Mark, leads to the conclusion that St Matthew and St Luke worked directly from the written text of that gospel. Even Abbot Butler, the most thoroughgoing of the protagonists of the priority of Matthew, does not in fact deny that Matthew and Luke frequently offer what appears to be an ‘improved’ version of Mark. No doubt it is possible to explain the more primitive character of Mark as Butler does, by supposing that St Peter may have made Matthew the basis of his preaching, and that Mark therefore represents a Petrine version of Matthew. Nevertheless, the majority of scholars are (rightly) agreed in adopting the more economical explanation that the Matthean and Lucan ‘improvements’ upon the text of Mark indicate that both St Matthew and St Luke had a copy of that gospel before them as they wrote.
