Finding the Shards #11
Despite the logic of the two-source hypothesis, it was not immediately accepted by the scholarly community. The main reason for resistance had less to do with the idea of a sayings source, however, than with a reluctance to acknowledge the priority of Mark. Preference for Matthew was very strong. Matthew had always enjoyed a position of privilege as the charter for the church. And besides, the Gospel of Matthew was much better suited for the quest of the historical Jesus. Mark was simply too skimpy on the one hand, and too miraculous on the other, to serve as a basis for a plausible life of Jesus. Matthew was made to order. The portrait of Jesus was more accept- able, the purpose of his teachings seemed clearer, and his life unfolded on cue just as a good biography should. When Albert Schweitzer summarized the Jesus quest at the end of the century, and then went on to propose his own life of Jesus, he had no qualms at all about basing his account on the Gospel of Matthew. Even today there are scholars who continue to resist the two-source theory and to favor Matthew as the earliest gospel.