There seems to be good arguments for both sides, but most modern scholars favor Mark over Matthew.
i’d’d always heard mark is the "oldest gospel’’
board experts… ?
Matthew seems to be heavily semitic, and there seems to be no attempt to explain to the audience what the Jewish terms mean. I feel like Matthew is older because I feel like it was written closer to the time and the source material. THAT being said, I don’t think the Church makes us chose one theory over the other. Ultimately, I think what matters more is that those books are IN the Bible.
Eusebius, of course, said it was Matthew. Modern scripture scholars contend it is Mark.
I always told my students that they could believe whatever they wished on the matter – but they had to be able to defend their position to my satisfaction…and cogently articulate the other positions as well.
I haven’t particularly changed my thought in retirement.
Depends on whether you are referring to Aramaic Matthew or Greek Matthew. I think Aramaic Matthew came before Mark but Mark came before Greek Matthew.