Hubbry Logo
Marcan priorityMarcan priorityMain
Open search
Marcan priority
Community hub
Marcan priority
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Marcan priority
Marcan priority
Marcan priority
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Marcan priority
Theory Information
OrderMark
Luke, Matt
Theory History
OriginatorGottlob Christian Storr
Origination Date1786
ProponentsChristian Gottlob Wilke, Christian Hermann Weisse, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, J. C. Hawkins
OpponentsB. C. Butler, William R. Farmer

Marcan priority (or Markan priority) is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the three synoptic gospels to be written, and was used as a source by the other two (Matthew and Luke). It is a central element in discussion of the synoptic problem—the question of the documentary relationship among these three gospels.

Most scholars since the late 19th century have accepted the concept of Marcan priority, although a number of scholars support different forms of Marcan priority or reject it altogether. It forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory.[1][2]

History

[edit]
Gottlob Christian Storr

The tradition handed down by the Church Fathers regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written in Hebrew, which was later used as a source by Mark and Luke.[3] It is seen as early as in Irenaeus's book Against Heresies.[4] Augustine of Hippo wrote in the 5th century: "Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, ...are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John." And: "Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done...".[5]

This view of Gospel origins, however, began to be challenged in the late 18th century, when Gottlob Christian Storr proposed in 1786 that Mark was the first to be written.[6][7]

Storr's idea met with little acceptance at first, with most scholars favoring either Matthaean priority, under the traditional Augustinian hypothesis or the Griesbach hypothesis, or a fragmentary theory (according to which, stories about Jesus were recorded in several smaller documents and notebooks and combined by the evangelists to create the Synoptic Gospels). Working within the fragmentary theory, Karl Lachmann in 1835 compared the Synoptic Gospels in pairs and noted that, while Matthew frequently agreed with Mark against Luke in the order of passages and Luke agreed frequently with Mark against Matthew, Matthew and Luke rarely agreed with each other against Mark. Lachmann inferred from this that Mark best preserved a relatively fixed order of episodes in Jesus's ministry.[8]

In 1838, two theologians, Christian Gottlob Wilke[9] and Christian Hermann Weisse,[10] independently extended Lachmann's reasoning to conclude that Mark not only best represented Matthew and Luke's source but also that Mark was Matthew and Luke's source. Their ideas were not immediately accepted, but Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's endorsement in 1863 of a qualified form of Marcan priority[11] won general favor.

There was much debate at the time over whether Matthew and Luke used Mark itself or some Proto-Mark (Ur-Mark).[12] In 1899 J. C. Hawkins took up the question with a careful statistical analysis and argued for Marcan priority without Proto-Mark,[13] and other British scholars[14][15] soon followed to strengthen the argument, which then received wide acceptance.

Most scholars in the 20th century regarded Marcan priority as no longer a hypothesis but an established fact.[16] Still, fresh challenges from B. C. Butler[17] and William R. Farmer[18] proved influential in reviving the rival hypothesis of Matthaean priority, and recent decades have seen scholars less certain about Marcan priority and more eager to explore all the alternatives.[16]

Dependent hypotheses

[edit]
The two-source hypothesis, one of several built upon Marcan priority, holds that a hypothetical document (the Q source) was used as a source by Matthew and Luke independently.

If Marcan priority is accepted, the next logical question is how to explain the extensive material, some 200 verses, shared between Matthew and Luke but not found at all in Mark—the double tradition. Furthermore, there are hundreds of instances where Matthew and Luke parallel Mark's account but agree against Mark in minor differences—the minor agreements. Different answers to this question give rise to different synoptic hypotheses.[19]

  • The most widely accepted hypothesis is the two-source hypothesis, that Matthew and Luke each independently drew from both Mark and another hypothetical source, which scholars have termed the Q source. This Q, then, was the origin of the double-tradition material, and many of the minor agreements are instances where both Matthew and Luke followed Q's version of a passage rather than Mark's.
  • The foremost alternative hypothesis under Marcan priority is the Farrer hypothesis, which postulates that Mark was written first, then Matthew expanded on the text of Mark, and Luke used both Mark and Matthew as source documents (Mark → Matthew → Luke). The double tradition is then simply portions of Matthew that Luke chose to repeat, so there is no need for Q.[20]
  • A hybrid of these two hypotheses is the three-source hypothesis, which posits three sources for Luke: Mark, Q, and Matthew.
  • The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis is similar to the Farrer hypothesis but has Matthew using Luke as a source (Mark → Luke → Matthew), rather than vice versa. This hypothesis has found a resurgence of support during the 2010s and has entered the mainstream of scholarship.[21][a]
  • A final hypothesis holds that Matthew and Luke have no literary relationship beyond their dependence on Mark, but rather each supplemented the triple tradition with oral sources.[22][23] Where these oral sources overlapped with each other, the double tradition arose, and where they overlapped also with Mark, minor agreements arose. This hypothesis, with few supporters, is usually viewed as a variation on the two-source hypothesis, where Q is not a document but a body of oral material, and thus called the oral Q hypothesis.

Alternatives

[edit]
The Two-Gospel (Griesbach) theory, an alternative to Marcan priority, holds that Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources.

Marcan posteriority states that Mark's correspondence with other synoptics was due to Mark taking from them. The view of the Church Fathers such as Augustine was that the order in the New Testament was also the order of publication and inspiration – Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, then John. This is usually called the Augustinian hypothesis. A modern tweak of this view that maintains Matthaean priority is the two-gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis which holds that Mark used both Matthew and Luke as a source (thus, in order, Matthew—Luke—Mark).[24] This view envisions a Mark who mostly collected the common material shared between Matthew and Luke.

Lucan priority has been revived in recent decades in the complex form of the Jerusalem school hypothesis, which also places Mark in the middle. Here, Mark uses Luke, then Matthew uses Mark but not Luke, while all three Synoptics draw from a hypothetical Greek translation of an earlier Hebrew work.

Some theories deny literary priority to any one of the Synoptic Gospels, asserting that, whatever their chronological order of composition, none of them draws from any of the others. The multi-source hypothesis has each synoptic gospel combining a distinct mix of earlier documents, while the independence hypothesis denies any documentary relationship and regards each gospel as an original composition utilizing oral sources only.

Some variations on Marcan priority propose an additional revision of Mark—a Proto-Mark (Ur-Mark) if earlier than the canonical Gospel, or a Deutero-Mark if later—serving as a source for Matthew and/or Luke.[25]

Evidence

[edit]

Arguments for Marcan priority are usually made in contrast to its main rival, Matthaean priority, bringing into focus the question of whether Matthew was a source for Mark or vice versa. The evidence supporting Marcan priority is entirely internal.

Many lines of evidence point to Mark having some sort of special place in the relationship among the Synoptics, as the "middle term" between Matthew and Luke.[26] But this could mean that Mark is the common source of the other two (priority), or that it derives from both (posteriority), or even that it is an intermediary in transmission from one to the other—in other words, many such arguments can support both Marcan priority and its rivals.[27] Famously, the so-called "Lachmann fallacy", concerning the order of pericopae in Mark, was once used to argue for Marcan priority but is now seen as a largely neutral observation.[27]

Modern arguments for or against Marcan priority tend to center on redactional plausibility, asking, for example, whether it is more reasonable that Matthew and Luke could have written as they did with Mark in hand, or that Mark could have written as he did with Matthew and Luke in hand, and whether any coherent rationale can be discerned underlying the redactional activity of the later evangelists.[28]

Where matters of detailed wording are concerned, there is some uncertainty in the Gospel texts themselves, as textual criticism of the gospels is still an active field, which cannot even decide, for example, on Mark's original ending. Such issues often intersect with the synoptic problem; for example, B. H. Streeter famously dismissed many of the "minor agreements" so troublesome for the two-source theory by appealing to textual corruption driven typically by harmonization.[29]

Marcan style

[edit]

Mark's style of Greek is unique among the Gospels. Some scholars have argued that Mark's style is unsophisticated and unrefined or awkward. But others find Mark's Greek very dense and detailed. Mark is full of Latinisms, in idioms and vocabulary. Mark tends to conjoin verbs and sentences with καὶ (kai, "and"); in fact, more than half the verses in Mark begin with καὶ. Mark is also notably fond of εὐθὺς (euthùs, "immediately") and πάλιν (pálin, "again"), frequently uses dual expressions, and often prefers the historical present.[30] In essence, then, Mark's style is not so much literary as thoroughly colloquial.[31][32]

The parallel passages in Matthew and especially in Luke tend to be in a more polished and eloquent style of literary Greek. Where Mark uses an unusual word or expression, Matthew and Luke often substitute something more natural. Though they often add material of substance, they tend to trim down Mark's redundancies and verbosity and express his meaning more concisely.

Supporters of Marcan priority see this as Matthew and Luke improving the style of the material they incorporate from Mark. Supporters of Marcan posteriority, however, see Mark as recasting material from Matthew and Luke in his own peculiar style, less like lofty literature and more in a vivid, fast-moving style befitting oral preaching.

Content not present in Mark

[edit]

Mark's gospel is by far the shortest, just over half the length of Luke, and omits much found in Matthew and Luke. In fact, while the majority of Mark is included in the other two Synoptics, the additional material shared between Matthew and Luke only is quite extensive.

While Marcan priority easily sees Matthew and Luke building upon Mark by adding new material, Marcan posteriority must explain some surprising omissions. Mark has no infancy narrative nor any version of the Lord's Prayer, for example.[33]

Nor does Mark have more than a handful of unique pericopes. This is expected under Marcan priority, where Matthew has reused nearly everything he found in Mark, but if Mark was written last, it is harder to explain why so little new material was added.[34]

However, Mark's selection of material must be explained in either case, unless it is to be believed that the author of Mark knew nothing more about Jesus than what was written in Mark. Bauckham argues that Mark's content is limited to what Peter himself had witnessed, or at least learned from trusted associates.[35] Powers argues that Mark's purpose is fundamentally kerygmatic, needing to hold the attention of outsiders hearing the Gospel preached for the first time, and so focuses on who Jesus was and what he did, eschewing the sort of lengthy teachings that dominate the double tradition and most of Special Matthew.[36] So, with Mark's selection process better understood, these omissions per se are no longer viewed as such compelling evidence for Marcan priority.[33]

Content found only in Mark

[edit]

There are very few passages in Mark with no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, which makes them all the more significant:[37]

If Mark is drawn from Matthew and Luke, it is hard to see why so little material would be added, if anything were going to added at all, and the choice of additions is also rather strange. On the other hand, if Mark was written first, it is easier to see why Matthew and Luke would omit these passages. These two healings are the only ones in the Synoptics involving the use of saliva (but cf. the healing of the man born blind in John 9), and the naked runaway is an obscure incident with no obvious meaning or purpose.[37][b]

This does not tell the whole story, for altogether Mark has (depending on the method of counting) about 155 verses included in neither Matthew nor Luke—nearly a quarter of the entire Gospel of Mark.[42] Most of these are details omitted in the parallel passages, rather than distinct pericopes. In fact, apart from sayings material, nearly every pericope in Mark is longer than its parallels in Matthew and Luke.[43] An illustrative example is the calming of the storm:[44]

Mt 8:23–25 Lk 8:22–24 Mk 4:35–38
As he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And a great storm developed on the sea so that the waves began to swamp the boat. But he was asleep. So they came and woke him up saying, "Lord, save us! We are about to die!" One day Jesus got into a boat with his disciples and said to them, "Let's go across to the other side of the lake." So they set out, and as they sailed he fell asleep. Now a violent windstorm came down on the lake, and the boat started filling up with water, and they were in danger. They came and woke him, saying, "Master, Master, we are about to die!" On that day, when evening came, Jesus said to his disciples, "Let's go across to the other side." So after leaving the crowd, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat, and other boats were with him. Now a great windstorm developed and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was nearly swamped. But he was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. They woke him up and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care that we are about to die?"

Mark's unique details tend to be, by necessity, non-essential ones. Marcan priority sees Matthew and Luke trimming away trivial narrative details in favor of the extensive material they wished to add elsewhere. But under Marcan posteriority, these details must have been added to Mark to make the stories more vivid and clear. In either case, Mark must have had an independent source (traditionally, Peter) spanning nearly the entire Gospel; but if so, Marcan posteriority requires a complex and skillful weaving together of this source with both Matthew and Luke, even within individual sentences, which would have been a challenging task.[45]

Hard readings

[edit]

Often the differences in Mark from the parallels in Matthew and Luke are "hard readings" (Lectio Difficilior), which seem to portray Jesus or the apostles in a negative light or in ways that a later redactor would likely find uncongenial. Marcan priority argues that these hard readings were more likely original to Mark and then smoothed out or omitted when Matthew and Luke encountered them, rather than added by Mark to accounts lacking them.[46]

Notable hard readings unique to Mark include:

  • "He was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed because of their unbelief." (Mk 6:5–6), vs. "He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief." (Mt 13:58).
  • Jesus "healed many who were sick" (Mk 1:34), vs. "all who were sick" (Mt 8:16; Lk 4:40).
  • "When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" (Mk 3:21 uniquely).
  • In the storm at sea, the disciples ask, "Don't you care that we are about to die?" (Mk 4:38), vs. "We are about to die!" (Mt 8:25; Lk 8:24). Jesus replies, "Do you still have no faith?" (Mk 4:40), vs. "ye of little faith" (Mt 8:26) or "Where is your faith?" (Lk 8:25).
  • The disciples' "hearts were hardened" (Mk 6:52, 8:17–18 uniquely).
  • James and John ask to sit beside Jesus in his kingdom (Mk 10:35), vs. their mother making the request (Mt 20:20).
  • A hungry Jesus curses a fig tree for lacking fruit (Mark 11:12–14).[47] One scholar notes this not only appears self-serving, but also irrational, as Mark adds that "it was not the season for figs." In contrast, Matthew 21:18–22[48] interprets the incident as a miracle that shows the power of faith.[49]

Marcan posteriority faces the harder task of accounting for these as Marcan changes, but does so by appealing to Mark's fondness for vivid detail and for starkly contrasting Jesus' teachings with the attitudes of those around him.

Order

[edit]

Comparing the sequential order of parallel pericopes among the three Synoptics, the arrangement often varies, but some general patterns emerge. Mark nearly always follows Matthew and Luke where they agree in order and one or the other when they disagree. On the other hand, the double tradition pericopae shared between Matthew and Luke show little agreement in order.[50]

Such observations have been studied in detail for centuries, but the difficulty has been in how to interpret them.[51] Marcan priority views this order as support for Matthew and Luke each building upon Mark; Marcan posteriority, however, sees this order as proof that Mark drew alternately from Matthew and Luke. Even the Augustinian hypothesis can see Mark adapting Matthew's order, then Luke adapting Mark's order.

Dualisms

[edit]

Mark displays a special fondness for "dualisms" of various kinds,[52] one of which is repeating essentially the same thing in two adjacent phrases. In a majority of cases, the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, if any, echo only one of the two, and it often happens that Matthew chooses one and Luke chooses the other.[53][54] Some prominent examples:

  • "When it was evening, after sunset"[55] vs "When it was evening"[56] + "As the sun was setting"[57]
  • "the leprosy left him and he was cleansed"[58] vs "the leprosy left him"[59] + "his leprosy was cleansed"[60]
  • "the word that was sown in them"[61] vs "the word from their hearts"[62] + "what was sown in his heart"[63]
  • "They came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho"[64] vs "As Jesus approached Jericho"[65] + "As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed them"[66]
  • "immediately as you enter it"[67] vs "immediately"[68] + "as you enter it"[69]
  • "were seeking how to seize him by stealth and kill him"[70] vs "were seeking how they might put him to death"[71] + "conspired to seize Jesus by stealth and kill him"[72]
  • "Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed"[73] vs "Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread"[74] + "Then came the day for the feast of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed"[75]
  • "today, on this night"[76] vs "today"[77] + "this very night"[78]
  • "Now when evening had already come, since it was the day of preparation" (that is, the day before the Sabbath)[79] vs "Now when it was evening"[80] + "It was the day of preparation and the Sabbath was beginning"[81]

Supporters of Marcan posteriority advance these as clear cases of Mark conflating the parallel accounts from Matthew and Luke. Supporters of Marcan priority, on the other hand, point to a larger number of instances where both Matthew and Luke have chosen the same half of a Marcan dualism and argue that, when each gospel trimmed down these redundant expressions, sometimes by chance Matthew and Luke made opposite choices.

Riley observes when Matthew has one or both halves of a Marcan dualism, it usually occurs where Matthew and Mark are following the same sequence; when Luke has one or both halves of a Marcan dualism, it always occurs where Luke and Mark are following the same sequence. This is expected under Marcan posteriority, assuming the Marcan account can more easily refer to Matthew from memory, but more difficult to explain under Marcan priority.[53]

Editorial fatigue

[edit]

Goodacre lists a number of occasions where it appears that Matthew or Luke begin by altering Mark, but become fatigued and lapse into copying Mark directly, even when doing so is inconsistent with the changes they have already made.[82][83] Alan Kirk, on the other hand, questions the idea that Matthew and Luke had a deficient concentration. Rather than redacting visually the evangelists used their memories to copy passages from Mark. Kirk argues that such skillful writers should not be accused of carelessness, and the instances of fatigue can be explained as a living reactualization of their sources.[84]

For example, Matthew is more precise than Mark in the titles he gives to rulers, and initially gives Herod Antipas the correct title of "tetrarch",[85] yet he lapses into calling him "king"[86] at a later verse, apparently because he was copying Mark[87] at that point.

Another example is Luke's version of the Parable of the Sower, regarding the seed sown on rocky ground,[88] where Luke omits several elements of the parable, but then follows Mark in the parable's interpretation. Luke says merely that the seed withered for lack of moisture and does not mention the seed springing up quickly, nor the lack of roots, nor being scorched by the sun; yet these omissions remain in the interpretation as, respectively, receiving the word with joy, having no firm root, and the time of temptation.

This phenomenon, along with the lack of counterexamples of fatigue occurring in the opposite direction, supports Marcan priority.

Naming of eyewitnesses

[edit]

Where Mark mentions someone by name, someone not well-known originally who could have been left anonymous, Bauckham argues that it is because his audience at the time could refer to them as living eyewitnesses.[89] Several persons are named only in Mark:

The reverse situation of Matthew or Luke naming those unnamed in Mark never occurs. If, as Bauckham reasons, the reason for the omission of these names in Matthew and Luke is that these persons have since died, this phenomenon lends support to Mark being composed earliest.

External evidence

[edit]
Pasqualotto, St. Mark writes his Gospel at the dictation of St. Peter, 17th century

The early patristic evidence records a few traditions on the origins of the Synoptic Gospels. It never indicates that one gospel used another as a source and shows little concern even for their chronological order; the focus was rather on who composed them and on their apostolic authority. What evidence there is as to the order of composition or publication is seen as virtually unanimous agreement on placing Matthew first.[3]

The earliest relevant source is Papias (c. 105), whose surviving fragments report two notable facts, echoed by most later sources. The evangelist Mark, he says, was Peter's interpreter and compiled his Gospel from the preaching of Peter in Rome, which Peter then sanctioned for use in the churches. Matthew the Apostle, on the other hand, wrote his account himself in the "Hebrew dialect".[90][91]

This account of the origin of Mark is seen as likely genuine by many scholars, though hardly all.[92][93] If so, Mark's source is not the other two Synoptics but Peter—unless Peter himself drew from them, as some propose.[94]

The curious statement that Matthew's logia (as Papias calls it) was written in the "Hebrew dialect"—the ordinary way of referring to either the Hebrew or the Aramaic language—has been much discussed.[95] The difficulty is that canonical Matthew is in Greek and does not appear to be a translation, nor is any such original Hebrew version known. Some scholars have argued that Papias simply meant "a Semitic style" in Greek.[96] Other synoptic theorists have speculated on some role of this logia as a source for the canonical Gospels; the hypothesis, for example, that canonical Matthew was a recension of the logia making use also of Mark's Gospel was the original foundation for the two-source theory.[97][98]

Ephrem the Syrian (c. 350) is more explicit about the Gospels' languages: "Matthew the Hebrew wrote this, and behold it was turned into Greek. [...] Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, Mark in Latin from Simon in the city of Rome, Luke in Greek,"[99] and this is echoed in many later sources[100] such as Gregory of Nazianzus.[101][102] Mark writing in Latin may have arisen merely by inference, but it is true that canonical Mark exhibits numerous Latinisms,[103][104][105] and some have argued that indeed canonical Mark was translated from a Latin original.[104][105] Most scholars, however, reject this view and consider the Greek original.[106]

Irenaeus (c. 185), who knew the work of Papias, gives the first extant account of the origins of Luke (to which later sources add little) and of all four Gospels together:

So Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own dialect, brought forth a writing of the Gospel, while Peter and Paul in Rome were evangelizing and founding the church. But after their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed what was preached by Peter down to us in writing. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the Gospel that was preached by him. Then John, the disciple of the Lord and also the one who leaned against his chest, also published the Gospel when residing in Ephesus of Asia.[107]

It is doubtful whether Irenaeus intends a chronological order in this passage; "while" need not be understood temporally, and "after their departure" need not indicate the time of composition, but simply that the apostles' testimony survived in writing even after they themselves were gone.[108] Elsewhere Irenaeus often prefers the order Matthew—Luke—Mark—John when addressing the Gospels together,[109] and this order thereafter recurs commonly in a wide variety of ancient sources.[110] In fact, early Bibles and canons arranged the four Gospels in many different sequences, though most placed Matthew first among the Synoptics.[111]

From Clement (c. 195), who probably also knew the work of Papias, comes a unique and much-discussed statement that the gospels with genealogies (i.e., Matthew and Luke) were "written before" (progegraphthai), in contrast to Mark.[112] Farmer touted this as support for Marcan posteriority,[113] but Carlson argued that the word was better interpreted as "openly published", in contrast to Mark's initially private circulation.[114]

Origen (c. 250), a pupil of Clement who also knew the work of Irenaeus well, enumerates the Gospels as follows: "As learned by tradition… the first written was Matthew… the second, Mark… the third, Luke… after all of them, John."[115] Most readers then and now have seen this as a clear statement of chronology,[116] though some have doubted that was Origen's intent.[117][3] In any case, this canonical order was increasingly well established by this time, and subsequent sources accepted this temporal sequence.

Augustine (c. 400) recites this traditional chronological order and adds his own influential inferences. Denying that each evangelist wrote in ignorance of his predecessors, he describes Mark as "seemingly an attendant and epitomizer" of Matthew.[118] Later in the same work, Augustine revises his opinion and sees Mark as following not only Matthew but also Luke; Mark "walks with both".[119] This is sometimes seen as the first suggestion that one Gospel used another as a source, but it is not at all clear whether Augustine had literary dependence in mind.[120]

In summary, the external evidence stands against Matthew using Mark, inasmuch as Matthew was written first, and against Mark directly using Matthew, unless perhaps either of these canonical Gospels is a translation into Greek influenced by the other. The patristic consensus, rather, was literary independence.[121][122] However, the value of this external evidence is uncertain; most synoptic scholars regard it as being of little help and focus almost entirely on the internal evidence instead.[123]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Marcan priority

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Marcan priority, also known as Markan priority, is the in biblical scholarship that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the three —Mark, Matthew, and Luke—to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke drew upon Mark as a major source for their narratives, often expanding or refining its content while incorporating additional material from other traditions. This view forms a cornerstone of the widely accepted two-source theory for solving the Synoptic Problem, which posits that a hypothetical sayings source known as "Q" (from the German Quelle, meaning "source") supplemented Mark in providing the shared material between Matthew and Luke. The concept of Marcan priority emerged in the 19th century amid growing critical analysis of the Gospels' literary relationships, first proposed independently by German scholars Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838 and Christian Gottlob Wilke in the same year, who argued for Mark as the foundational narrative framework. It gained significant traction through Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's influential 1863 work Die synoptischen Evangelien, which refined the theory by distinguishing between Markan and other source materials, and by the early , British scholars like William Sanday and further solidified its place in academic consensus. This marked a departure from the early church tradition, which attributed primacy to Matthew based on patristic testimonies from figures like and , favoring instead an empirical approach to textual dependencies. By the mid-, Marcan priority had become the dominant position among New Testament scholars, influencing historical-critical methods and quests for the . Key arguments supporting Marcan priority include the patterns of verbal and sequential agreement among the Synoptics, where Matthew and Luke rarely diverge from each other in ways that contradict wording or order in shared pericopes, suggesting they edited a rather than vice versa. Additionally, the overall sequence of events in Mark is largely preserved in Matthew and Luke for material present in all three, while non-Markan elements (such as the ) are inserted variably, indicating Mark provided the structural backbone into which other traditions were integrated. A third major argument rests on stylistic characteristics: Gospel is notably shorter (about 661 verses compared to Matthew's 1,071 and Luke's 1,151), features more primitive and unpolished Greek, and includes awkward theological elements—such as displays of emotion or apparent ignorance—that are often softened or omitted in Matthew and Luke, consistent with later evangelists improving upon an earlier text. These factors collectively explain why approximately 90% of content appears in Matthew and about 50% in Luke, often in expanded form. Despite its prevalence, Marcan priority is not without challenges; alternative theories, such as the Griesbach (or two-Gospel) hypothesis, propose Matthean priority with Mark as a later conflation of Matthew and Luke, citing early patristic evidence and perceived difficulties in Mark's abrupt ending or secondary expansions. Critics like William R. Farmer and David Laird Dungan have highlighted logical fallacies in priority arguments, such as the "Lachmann fallacy" of assuming brevity equates to originality, and questioned the two-source model's reliance on the unprovable Q document. More recent scholarship, including the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis, upholds Marcan priority while dispensing with Q, arguing that Luke directly used Matthew for non-Markan material based on patterns of minor agreements and Luke's apparent redactional creativity. Nonetheless, surveys of biblical scholars indicate that Marcan priority remains the majority view as of the early 21st century, underpinning much of modern Gospel interpretation and informing debates on the historical development of early Christian literature.

Overview

Definition

Marcan priority, also known as Markan priority, is the scholarly hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first among the three to be composed, serving as a for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The —Matthew, Mark, and Luke—are so named because they share substantial similarities in content, wording, and , allowing them to be viewed "together" (from synoptikos, meaning "seen together"). Under this hypothesis, approximately 90% of Mark's material appears in Matthew and over 50% in Luke, often with expansions or modifications, indicating that the later evangelists drew directly from Mark as their foundational narrative framework. The term "priority" in this context refers specifically to chronological precedence in the composition of the texts, positing that Mark was written around 70 CE, followed by Matthew and Luke in the range of 80–100 CE. "Marcan" derives from the Marcus, the name traditionally associated with the evangelist Mark, who is regarded in early as the author of the second , combined with the English -an to form an adjective denoting attribution to Mark. While Marcan priority forms a key component of broader in —which examines the literary relationships and hypothetical sources behind the Gospels—it specifically emphasizes Mark's role as the earliest and primary written source among the Synoptics, independent of debates over additional sources like the hypothetical document. This focus on Mark's primacy addresses a central aspect of the Synoptic Problem, the longstanding puzzle of how the three Gospels came to share so much material while differing in significant ways.

Significance in the Synoptic Problem

The Synoptic Problem refers to the challenge of explaining the extensive similarities and differences in content, wording, and narrative order among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These gospels share large blocks of material—such as accounts of ' , temptations, healings, and passion—often in nearly identical phrasing, while also featuring unique elements and rearrangements that suggest literary interdependence rather than independent composition. Marcan priority provides a foundational solution by positing Mark as the earliest , serving as a for both Matthew and Luke, thereby accounting for the directional flow of shared traditions from a common literary base to expanded versions. A key aspect of Marcan priority's explanatory power lies in the quantitative overlaps: approximately 90% of content appears in Matthew, and over 50% in Luke, with Mark being the shortest at around 661 verses compared to Matthew's 1,068 and Luke's 1,151. This pattern supports the view that Matthew and Luke expanded and edited Mark's more concise, sometimes rougher narrative, incorporating additional details and smoothing stylistic issues like grammatical irregularities or repetitions found in Mark. By framing Mark as the source, the hypothesis resolves apparent contradictions in order—such as Mark's abrupt ending or unique pericopes— as original features later modified by the other evangelists, rather than derivative losses. The acceptance of Marcan priority has profound implications for scholarship, shaping interpretations of gospel authorship, dating, and the development of early Christian traditions. It typically places Mark's composition around 65-70 CE, shortly before or during the First Jewish-Roman War, influencing estimates for Matthew and Luke as subsequent works in the 70s-80s CE and highlighting an evolving oral-to-written transmission process within emerging Christian communities. This framework underscores how the evangelists adapted Mark's material to address distinct audiences—Matthew for Jewish-Christian readers, Luke for Gentiles—reflecting theological priorities like fulfillment of or universal salvation. Since its emergence in the mid-19th century through scholars like Karl Lachmann and Christian Hermann Weisse, Marcan priority has achieved broad scholarly consensus, viewed as an "assured result" of modern by the mid-20th century and endorsed by the majority of contemporary experts. This dominance stems from its ability to parsimoniously explain the synoptic data without invoking more complex multi-source models, though it continues to inform debates on and redactional intent.

Historical Development

Patristic and Medieval Views

In the early Christian era, (c. 60–130 CE) provided one of the earliest attestations regarding the Gospel of Mark, describing it as derived from the preaching of the apostle Peter without specifying its position in the sequence of composition. According to Papias, as quoted by , Mark served as Peter's interpreter and "wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ," emphasizing fidelity to rather than chronological or literary precedence among the gospels. This account highlights Mark's apostolic connection through Peter but does not address whether it preceded or followed other gospels, reflecting an early focus on authoritative origins over writing order. By the late fourth century, Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) articulated a more defined view on the composition order in his Harmony of the Gospels, positing that Matthew was written first, followed by Mark as an abbreviator of Matthew, and then Luke, who epitomized both Matthew and Mark. Augustine argued that this sequence aligned with the canonical arrangement, with Mark condensing Matthew's narrative while Luke synthesized elements from the prior two to address a broader audience. He maintained that the evangelists' variations stemmed from their intended emphases—Matthew on Christ's kingship, Mark reinforcing that theme, and Luke on his priesthood—rather than contradictions, underscoring divine harmony without debating literary dependencies in modern terms. The second-century Diatessaron by (c. 120–180 CE) exemplifies early approaches to the gospels as complementary sources, weaving into a single narrative harmony without implying any specific order of original composition. integrated material from all four equally, including unique Markan elements, treating them as authoritative and coexistent texts to be harmonized for liturgical use in Syrian . This method avoided debates on priority, prioritizing a unified presentation of the life of Christ over questions of derivation. Throughout the medieval period, the Augustinian order of composition—Matthew first, followed by Mark and Luke—remained the dominant consensus among theologians and scholars, with little exploration of alternative literary sequences. Harmonistic works, building on models like the Diatessaron, continued to view the synoptics as interdependent yet equally inspired, emphasizing apostolic authorship and doctrinal consistency over analytical concerns about which gospel influenced others. The era's theological focus on the gospels' canonical authority and spiritual unity largely precluded concepts of literary priority, sustaining patristic assumptions until the Enlightenment.

Modern Emergence and Key Figures

The modern emergence of Marcan priority began in the late amid Enlightenment-era critical scholarship on the Gospels, contrasting with the patristic assumption of Matthean priority. and , in Lessing's 1784 work Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten, first proposed that Matthew and Luke might derive from a akin to Mark, suggesting an early form of Markan precedence over the traditional view. Shortly thereafter, Christian Friedrich Koppe in 1786 argued explicitly that Mark was not a mere of Matthew but an independent composition potentially prior to it, in his treatise Marcus non epitomator Matthaei. However, Johann Jakob Griesbach's influential Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium (1789–1805) initially reinforced Matthean priority by positing Mark as a of Matthew and Luke, temporarily overshadowing these nascent ideas. The theory gained formal traction in the through Christian Hermann Weisse's 1838 publication Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und historisch bearbeitet, where he systematically articulated the : Mark as the primary narrative source for Matthew and Luke, supplemented by a shared sayings source (later termed ). Weisse's framework built on earlier suggestions but provided a comprehensive model, emphasizing Mark's stylistic roughness as of its . This was further solidified by Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's 1863 Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und historischer Charakter, which offered rigorous linguistic and content-based arguments for Markan priority, establishing it as a viable alternative to Griesbach's hypothesis and influencing subsequent German scholarship. Bernhard Weiss, in works such as his 1882 Das Leben Jesu and later refinements in 1887–88, accepted and honed the two-source model, integrating theological considerations while defending Mark's foundational role against conservative critiques. In the 20th century, Marcan priority achieved widespread consolidation, particularly through Burnett Hillman Streeter's 1924 The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, which expanded the two-source theory into the by incorporating special sources (M and L) alongside Mark and Q, thereby explaining unique materials in Matthew and Luke. Post-World War II, the approach dominated via , pioneered by in his 1921 Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition and Martin Dibelius in 1919 Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, which presupposed Markan priority to analyze pre-literary oral units and their redaction in Mark as the earliest written Gospel. This methodological synergy reinforced Marcan priority as the scholarly consensus for understanding Synoptic interrelations. As of 2025, Marcan priority remains the predominant view in studies, supported by the majority of scholars for its explanatory power regarding triple tradition agreements and editorial expansions in Matthew and Luke. While minor challenges persist from advocates of models—such as those emphasizing eyewitness testimony over strict literary dependence—no major paradigm shifts have occurred in recent scholarship, with ongoing refinements focusing on digital textual analysis rather than overturning the core hypothesis.

Solutions Based on Marcan Priority

Two-Source Hypothesis

The (2SH) is a foundational solution to the Synoptic Problem, asserting that the Gospel of Mark was composed first, circa 65–70 CE, and served as the primary narrative source for both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This model introduces a hypothetical second source, designated "" (from the German Quelle, meaning "source"), to account for the extensive agreements between Matthew and Luke in material not present in Mark, such as sayings of , parables, and . Q is envisioned as a written collection of primarily ' teachings, likely a sayings gospel lacking narrative elements like the passion story, and possibly originally composed in before being translated into Greek. This framework assumes independent use of these sources by Matthew and Luke, avoiding the need for one evangelist to have directly consulted the other's work. The hypothesis originated in the 19th century amid growing critical scholarship on the Gospels. It was first systematically proposed by Christian Hermann Weisse in his 1838 work Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, where he combined an earlier idea of a proto-Mark with a sayings source to explain Synoptic interrelations. The theory gained prominence through Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's influential 1863 monograph Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und historischer Charakter, which refined Weisse's formulation by emphasizing priority and Q's role in the double tradition, solidifying the 2SH as the dominant view in continental Protestant scholarship by the late . Holtzmann's analysis highlighted linguistic and structural dependencies, portraying Mark as a concise, primitive narrative that Matthew and Luke expanded and polished. A key strength of the 2SH lies in its parsimonious explanation of the Synoptic relationships: it accounts for the "triple tradition" (over 600 verses where all three Gospels closely parallel Mark's wording and order) as direct borrowing from Mark, while the "double tradition" (approximately 230 verses of Matthew-Luke agreements absent from Mark, including the /Plain material) stems from shared access to . This avoids positing complex redactional chains, such as Luke consulting Matthew, and aligns with observations of Matthew and Luke's tendency to smooth Mark's rough Greek style and omit embarrassing details, like Jesus' ignorance in :32. The hypothesis also accommodates minor agreements against Mark without requiring mutual dependence between Matthew and Luke. Despite its explanatory power, the 2SH faces internal criticisms, particularly regarding Q's hypothetical status. No physical manuscripts, fragments, or patristic references to Q exist, leading some scholars to question its historicity and suggest it may represent oral traditions or lost sources rather than a single document. Additionally, reconstructions of Q reveal a theology centered on wisdom sayings (e.g., "Blessed are the poor") and prophetic warnings of , which contrast with Mark's emphasis on as a suffering messiah; this has sparked debates over whether Q reflects an early, non-passion-focused Christian community or if later layers introduced apocalyptic elements to harmonize with Markan themes.

Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis

The Farrer-Goulder hypothesis, a solution to the Synoptic Problem that upholds Marcan priority without invoking the hypothetical , posits that the Gospel of Mark was composed first, serving as the primary source for both Matthew and Luke. Matthew then expanded upon Mark, incorporating additional material from oral traditions and scriptural allusions, while Luke subsequently drew directly from both Mark and the finished . This sequence accounts for the double tradition—sayings and narratives shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark—as resulting from Luke's adaptation and reworking of Matthean expansions, rather than a common lost document. The hypothesis originated with British theologian Austin Farrer, who first articulated its core ideas in his 1955 essay "On Dispensing with Q," published in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Farrer argued that the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark in the double tradition could be explained by Luke's familiarity with Matthew, rendering Q unnecessary and simplifying the source relationships among the Synoptics. Michael Goulder, Farrer's student at , further developed and defended the theory in his 1974 monograph Midrash and Lection in Matthew, where he proposed that Matthew's composition involved midrashic interpretation of Mark aligned with Jewish cycles, and that Luke then built upon this by similarly expanding Mark while incorporating Matthean elements to suit his theological and narrative purposes. Goulder's work emphasized how both evangelists independently elaborated on Mark's framework, with Luke occasionally preserving earlier forms of sayings due to selective editing. Proponents of the hypothesis highlight its advantages in avoiding the postulation of undocumented sources like Q, which they view as an unnecessary complication given the evident literary interconnections among the canonical Gospels. It explains Matthew and Luke's agreements against Mark—such as expanded teachings or alternative phrasings in the double tradition—as instances of secondary development, where Luke either emulates Matthew's improvements on Mark or draws from shared oral traditions accessed independently. In contrast to the , which attributes the double tradition to a separate sayings source, the Farrer-Goulder model relies solely on direct dependence between the Gospels, promoting a more parsimonious explanation of their interrelations. In the , the gained renewed scholarly traction through the work of , particularly in his 2002 book The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem, where he critiques Q's reconstruction for inconsistencies, such as the divergent ordering of double material in Matthew and Luke, which undermines claims of a unified Q text. Goodacre argues that phenomena like "editorial fatigue"—where Luke's wording shifts toward Matthew's in prolonged agreements—indicate direct copying rather than parallel use of Q, and he points to the lack of early attestation for Q as further evidence against its existence. These developments have positioned the Farrer-Goulder as a viable alternative emphasizing observable textual dependencies over hypothetical reconstructions.

Alternative Theories

Matthean Priority

Matthean priority posits that the Gospel of Matthew was the first among the to be composed, with the Gospel of Mark subsequently abbreviating and adapting material from it, while the Gospel of Luke drew upon both Matthew and independent sources. This view traces its roots to the patristic era, particularly the hypothesis attributed to in the fourth century, which envisioned an order of composition as Matthew, Mark, and Luke, with Mark serving as a condensed version of the fuller Matthean narrative. This traditional understanding was largely set aside in modern scholarship but experienced a revival in the late eighteenth century through the work of Johann Jakob Griesbach. In his 1789 Commentarius and related publications, Griesbach proposed a sequence where Matthew was written first in for a Jewish audience, Luke then utilized Matthew along with other traditions for a readership, and Mark finally conflated elements from both to create a harmonized summary aimed at a broader Roman context. In the twentieth century, the Griesbach hypothesis—often synonymous with Matthean priority in its modern form—gained renewed scholarly attention, particularly among Catholic and conservative Protestant theologians. A pivotal contribution came from William R. Farmer's 1964 book The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis, which systematically critiqued the dominant two-source theory favoring Markan priority and argued for the literary dependence of Mark on both Matthew and Luke, emphasizing the elegance of a Matthew-first model in explaining textual agreements and divergences. Similarly, Edgar J. Goodspeed, in his 1959 monograph Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist, defended Matthean authorship and priority by highlighting the gospel's Jewish-Christian orientation and its role as the foundational text from which later evangelists expanded. Other proponents, including scholars like Bernard Orchard and David Flusser, have built on this framework, often within Catholic circles where preserving Matthew's apostolic origins aligns with ecclesiastical tradition. Proponents of Matthean priority advance several key arguments rooted in historical testimony and literary analysis. Central to this is the early church father (c. 60–130 CE), who reported that "Matthew arranged the logia [sayings or oracles] in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted them as he was able," suggesting an original composition by the apostle Matthew that carried authoritative weight for subsequent writers. This apostolic provenance underscores Matthew's primacy as a direct eyewitness account, contrasting with Mark's reputed reliance on Peter's preaching. Additionally, Mark's omissions of major Matthean discourses, such as the , are interpreted not as evidence of an earlier source but as deliberate editorial choices by Mark to streamline the narrative for a Roman audience less familiar with Jewish customs, thereby "improving" or simplifying the material for brevity and accessibility. Theories of an Aramaic proto-Matthew further support this, positing that translation challenges could account for verbal differences in the Synoptics, with Mark potentially working from a Greek version of the original. Despite these arguments, Matthean priority faces significant challenges that have limited its acceptance in mainstream scholarship. A primary weakness lies in explaining Mark's notably primitive and unpolished style—characterized by grammatical awkwardness, redundancies, and vivid, unrefined details—which appears less likely as a product of abbreviation from the more structured and theologically refined Matthew than as the raw source material itself. Furthermore, Mark's shorter length, comprising about 90% overlap with Matthew yet omitting key ethical teachings and infancy narratives, strains the notion of it as a purposeful summary, as it would imply Mark discarded substantial authoritative content without clear motivation, whereas the reverse (Matthew expanding Mark) aligns more readily with patterns of evangelistic . These issues, combined with the broader consensus on Markan priority derived from order-of-agreement analysis, have relegated Matthean priority to a minority position.

Other Non-Mark Priority Views

Oral tradition models propose that the similarities among the arise primarily from shared oral sources rather than direct literary dependence between the written texts. These views emphasize the role of early Christian communities in transmitting ' teachings and narratives verbally before they were committed to writing, allowing for variations that explain differences in wording and order across Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A seminal contribution came from Jeremias in his 1947 work Die Gleichnisse Jesu, where he argued that the parables in the Synoptics preserve authentic oral traditions from , traceable to an original and shaped by Palestinian Jewish oral practices before Greek literary fixation. Jeremias' analysis highlighted how oral transmission maintained core theological elements while permitting contextual adaptations, challenging assumptions of wholesale copying among evangelists. Building on such foundations, recent scholarship in the has integrated performance criticism to further explore these oral dynamics, viewing the Gospels not as static texts but as scripts for communal performance and aural reception. This approach, as surveyed by Peter S. Perry, examines how ancient audiences experienced Gospel narratives through oral delivery, emphasizing performative elements like repetition, gesture, and audience interaction that could account for synoptic parallels without invoking literary borrowing. Scholars such as David Rhoads have applied this to the Synoptics, arguing that Mark's vivid style reflects oral storytelling techniques, while Matthew and Luke adapted these for their communities, thus prioritizing performative over written priority. Werner Kelber's earlier work on oral-scribal transitions complements this, positing fluid oral phases that persisted into the written era, reducing the need for Marcan literary primacy. Proto-gospel theories posit the existence of a hypothetical Ur-Gospel or primitive document preceding the Synoptics, serving as a for all three without establishing Mark's priority. Edwin A. Abbott advanced this in his 1884 study The Common Tradition of the , reconstructing a pre-existing oral or proto-written tradition underlying the triple tradition material, which he viewed as earlier than any individual and reflective of eyewitness accounts. Abbott's method involved aligning verbatim agreements to isolate this "common tradition," suggesting it was an independent or Hebrew source adapted by each evangelist. Modern variants, such as those exploring a proto-Mark or broader Ur-Gospel, refine this by incorporating archaeological and evidence, though they remain marginal; for instance, some propose an early sayings collection or narrative core predating Mark by decades. Independence hypotheses, though rare, argue that the Synoptics derive separately from diverse eyewitness or communal testimonies, minimizing interdependence and thus Marcan priority. Pierson Parker's 1953 theory in The Gospel Before Mark contended that Mark conflates two earlier, independent proto-gospels—one akin to Matthew's tradition and another to Luke's—stemming from distinct oral streams rather than direct copying. Parker supported this with linguistic analysis showing Mark's "secondary" style as a synthesis, allowing Matthew and Luke to draw from primary eyewitness sources autonomously. Similarly, J. M. Rist's 1978 proposal viewed Matthew and Mark as independent compositions from separate s, with Luke bridging them, emphasizing eyewitness reliability over literary chains. In contemporary debates, these non-Mark priority views see minor revivals, particularly in evangelical circles, where scholars like Rainer Riesner highlight in oral cultures to affirm historical reliability without Marcan dominance. However, no major shifts have occurred in 2020–2025 scholarship, with Marcan priority remaining the consensus; instead, discussions in forums like the 2022 Synoptic Problem conference focus on integrating oral models as supplements rather than alternatives. Evangelicals such as David A. Carson occasionally reference elements to uphold inerrancy, but these remain peripheral to mainstream critical analysis.

Evidence for Marcan Priority

Stylistic and Linguistic Features

One key piece of evidence for Marcan priority lies in the stylistic and linguistic characteristics of the Gospel of Mark, which exhibit a rougher, more primitive quality compared to the polished versions in Matthew and Luke. narrative frequently employs redundancy, such as the adverb euthys ("immediately"), used 41 times—far more than in any other book—to create a sense of urgency but resulting in repetitive phrasing that later evangelists often omit or streamline. Additionally, Mark displays unpolished grammar, including awkward sentence constructions and limited connective variety (e.g., overreliance on kai for "and"), alongside vivid, details that suggest an oral or early written tradition. influences are evident in syntax and occasional transliterations, such as talitha koum (Mark 5:41), indicating a composition close to -speaking communities and supporting its role as an earlier source. In contrast, Matthew and Luke demonstrate consistent improvements upon these features, suggesting they edited Mark to enhance readability and literary sophistication. Both evangelists employ smoother syntax, reduce Markan repetitions (e.g., omitting multiple instances of euthys), and introduce more varied structures, such as extended teaching blocks, to organize material more logically. Quantitative analyses of further underscore this: Mark utilizes approximately 1,320 unique words across its shorter text, reflecting lower lexical sophistication, while Matthew employs about 1,900 and Luke around 2,000, incorporating richer terminology and synonyms to refine the base narrative. A representative example is the storm-stilling miracle, where Mark 4:38 describes "asleep on the cushion" in the boat's —a vivid but potentially puzzling detail omitted in Matthew 8:24, which simply states he "was asleep" amid the waves, prioritizing clarity and narrative flow over Mark's concrete imagery. Such patterns align with broader scholarly assessments of Mark's style as the foundational layer, as articulated in Vincent Taylor's seminal commentary, which identifies Mark's unliterary vigor and grammatical imperfections as hallmarks of priority, later refined by the other synoptics.

Unique Content in Mark

The unique content in the Gospel of Mark encompasses passages absent from Matthew and Luke, representing roughly 10% of total material and highlighting raw, unpolished traditions that later evangelists likely omitted for theological refinement. This material often features vivid, concrete details or elements that could be seen as embarrassing to a more developed , such as incomplete or multi-step , suggesting Mark drew from early oral sources rather than inventing them. Scholars argue that such content supports priority, as Matthew and Luke, assuming access to Mark, would have streamlined these narratives to emphasize ' immediate power and avoid potential criticisms. A key example is the of the Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26–29), unique to Mark, which depicts the kingdom of God as a that sprouts and grows mysteriously overnight, even while the sower sleeps, underscoring divine agency beyond human control. This simple, agrarian image lacks the interpretive layers found in other parables and may have been excluded by Matthew and Luke to focus on more explicit teachings, preserving in Mark an authentic piece of early tradition. Another instance is the healing of the man (:31–37), where uses physical actions like on the man's and groaning in exertion, resulting in the man's speech being described as "like a " rather than perfectly articulate. These sensory details, including the unconventional use of , evoke a primitive, folkloric style unlikely to be fabricated later, as they contrast with the more dignified portrayals in Matthew and Luke. Particularly illustrative is the two-stage healing of the blind man at (Mark 8:22–26), where first applies spit to the man's eyes, enabling partial vision ("people like trees walking"), before a second touch restores full sight; then instructs the man to avoid the village. This gradual miracle introduces an element of apparent limitation in ' power, which could embarrass readers expecting instantaneous divine intervention, explaining its omission in the other Synoptics and reinforcing Mark's role in capturing unedited eyewitness or oral accounts from the 40s to 60s CE.

Content Absent from Mark

In the two-source hypothesis, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are understood to expand upon the Gospel of Mark by incorporating substantial additional material, which is absent from Mark and reflects subsequent evangelistic developments. This non-Markan content, drawn from hypothetical sources such as Q (a shared sayings collection) and special traditions denoted as (peculiar to Matthew) and (peculiar to Luke), is interpreted as deliberate insertions that enhance Mark's narrative framework with theological depth suited to their respective audiences. Prominent examples of such additions include Matthew's extended (–7), a comprehensive on ethical teachings and kingdom principles that far exceeds any parallel in Mark, and Luke's (Luke 10:25–37), which illustrates themes of neighborly love through a narrative unique to Luke's travel section. Both evangelists also introduce infancy narratives: Matthew's account of the and flight to (–2) emphasizes Jewish messianic fulfillment, while Luke's detailed birth story (–2) highlights Mary's role and prophetic announcements, material entirely lacking in Mark's abrupt beginning at Jesus' baptism. These expansions are seen as later elaborations, building on Mark's concise outline to address community needs. The added content underscores evolving theological emphases: Matthew's insertions often accentuate a Jewish-Christian focus, such as intensified apocalyptic expectations and adherence to Torah (e.g., Matthew 24:20's reference to sabbaths alongside winter flight), portraying Jesus as a new Moses for a synagogue-oriented audience. In contrast, Luke's additions promote Gentile inclusion and social compassion, evident in parables like the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32) and the emphasis on marginalized groups, aligning with a broader Hellenistic context that delays the parousia and universalizes salvation. These developments suggest Matthew and Luke adapted Mark's urgent, messianic framework to later ecclesial realities. Evidence of dependence on Mark is apparent in the clustering of non-Markan material around parallel Markan pericopes, indicating systematic insertion rather than independent composition. For instance, Matthew groups miracles from scattered Markan episodes into concentrated discourses (Matthew 8–9), while Luke assembles Q-derived sayings into blocks like the (Luke 6:20–49), often flanking Markan narrative sequences such as the Galilean ministry. This pattern implies the evangelists used Mark as a structural skeleton, weaving in expansions at thematic junctures to enrich the story without disrupting its core order. Quantitatively, Matthew incorporates approximately 90% of Mark's content but adds about 8,200 words of non-Markan material, primarily in cohesive blocks like the five major discourses; Luke includes roughly 50% of Mark while adding around 13,800 words, mostly in extended sections such as the journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51–19:27). These figures highlight the selective augmentation, with non-Markan elements comprising over half of each gospel's length and reinforcing the view of Mark as the foundational source.

Preservation of Narrative Order

One key piece of evidence for Marcan priority is the high degree of correspondence in narrative sequence between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, particularly in the triple tradition material shared by all three. Scholars have noted that Matthew and Luke preserve approximately 80% of order in their parallel pericopes, with deviations typically occurring where one evangelist inserts unique material or rearranges for thematic reasons. For instance, large blocks of the triple tradition, such as the accounts of ' Galilean ministry in –8, appear in a similar sequence in both Matthew (e.g., Matthew 8–12) and Luke (e.g., Luke 4–9), demonstrating a shared structural framework that aligns closely with progression from teaching and to conflict with authorities. This alignment extends to Mark's overall structure, which divides roughly into chapters 1–10 (focusing on ' ministry in and surrounding areas) and chapters 11–16 (the journey to and the Passion narrative). Both Matthew and Luke mirror this division, incorporating nearly all of Mark's Passion material in the same order while inserting non-Markan sections, such as the /Plain or birth narratives, without disrupting the core derived from Mark. , in his seminal work, emphasized that "the order of incidents in Mark is clearly the more original," pointing out that whenever Matthew deviates from Mark's , Luke adheres to it, and vice versa, with no instances where Matthew and Luke jointly oppose Mark's order. This pattern suggests that Mark served as a template, as independent composition would unlikely yield such consistent agreement. The improbability of random convergence in order further bolsters this view. Streeter argued that the probability of Matthew and Luke independently reproducing sequence by chance is exceedingly low, given the complexity of the flow; instead, it indicates dependence on a —Mark itself. Exceptions to this preservation, such as Luke's "great omission" of :45–8:26 (encompassing events like the walking on water and the feeding of the four thousand), are interpreted as deliberate choices rather than against priority, possibly to avoid repetition with earlier miracles or to streamline the for Luke's audience. These omissions highlight secondary adaptation rather than primary invention.

Difficult Readings and Dualisms

One key argument for Marcan priority posits that Mark contains "difficult readings" or "hard sayings"—theologically or historically challenging passages—that Matthew and Luke appear to mitigate or omit, suggesting these later evangelists edited an earlier, more primitive text to align with their theological emphases. This principle aligns with textual criticism's preference for the "harder reading" as more likely original, as scribes or authors tend to smooth out embarrassing or problematic elements rather than introduce them. In the , such readings often portray in ways that could undermine later Christological developments, supporting the view that Mark's unpolished style reflects an earlier composition. A prominent example is Mark 10:18, where Jesus responds to a rich man's address by asking, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone," a statement that could imply a separation between Jesus and divine goodness. In the parallel, Matthew 19:17 softens this by rephrasing to "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only one who is good," avoiding potential implications of Jesus distancing himself from divinity. Similarly, Mark 13:32 states that concerning the day and hour of the end, "no one knows... not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," attributing ignorance to Jesus in a manner embarrassing for later Trinitarian theology; Matthew 24:36 omits "nor the Son," while Luke 21:32-33 shifts focus without the admission of ignorance. Another instance appears in Mark 4:11-12, where Jesus explains parables to disciples as intended "so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven,'" quoting Isaiah 6:9-10 in a way that suggests divine obfuscation; Luke 8:10 mitigates this by emphasizing revelation to disciples without the punitive "lest" clause, presenting parables as tools for enlightenment rather than exclusion. Mark's stark dualisms further underscore its primitiveness, portraying the world in binary terms of conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, a framework more pronounced than in the nuanced versions of Matthew and Luke. For instance, in Mark 3:23-27, Jesus counters accusations of demonic power by describing his exorcisms as binding "the strong man" (Satan) to plunder his house, framing the ministry as an apocalyptic assault on Satanic dominion without the ethical subtleties found in Matthew 12:25-28 or Luke 11:17-20, which integrate broader discussions of division and blasphemy. This cosmic dualism reflects an early Christian apocalyptic worldview, where God's irruption urgently displaces Satanic rule, unlikely to be a later invention amid evolving theological sophistication. Such elements collectively argue that Matthew and Luke, as secondary authors, avoided Mark's raw embarrassments and binary intensities to craft more palatable narratives, reinforcing Mark's foundational role.

Editorial and Theological Indicators

One key indicator of Marcan priority lies in instances of editorial fatigue, where Matthew or Luke initially alters Mark's narrative for theological or stylistic reasons but later reverts to Markan phrasing or details, creating inconsistencies that suggest dependence on Mark as a source. For example, in recounting ' journey following the encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew modifies Mark's itinerary—omitting the detour through and the (:24–31) to keep primarily in Jewish territory—but then fatigues by having the crowds approach from "the whole district" after the healing (Matt 15:29–31), echoing Mark's broader geographical scope without fully reconciling the change. Similarly, in the story of eating the , both Matthew and Luke omit Mark's erroneous reference to "the days of the " (:26), as was not high priest during that event (1 Sam 21:1–6 identifies ), indicating independent corrections that align with awareness of Mark's mistake while preserving the core tradition. Theological motifs in Matthew and Luke further reveal their redactional engagement with Mark, often expanding or softening Markan elements to fit their distinct emphases. Luke, for instance, attenuates Mark's prominent "messianic secret" theme, where Jesus repeatedly commands silence about his identity; in the parallel to Peter's confession, both warn the disciples not to tell (Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21), but Luke omits several secrecy injunctions found in Mark, such as the command to demons in Mark 1:34 (absent in Luke 4:41), suggesting a deliberate theological softening to portray a more openly revealed Christ. Likewise, Mark's inclusion of specific names like Bartimaeus in the healing of the blind man near Jericho (Mark 10:46) is retained in structure by Matthew and Luke, who adapt it to two unnamed blind men (Matt 20:29–34; Luke 18:35–43), implying they copied the detail but generalized it for broader applicability, consistent with Mark's access to eyewitness traditions. Another trace of dependence appears in the treatment of the "Son of Man" title, which Mark employs in a raw, multifaceted manner—encompassing earthly authority, suffering, and future coming (e.g., :10, 8:31, 13:26)—while Matthew and Luke expand it theologically, adding layers of divine authority and eschatological judgment to align with their Christological developments. For instance, parallels to :62 show Matthew and Luke amplifying the Son of Man's role in judgment (Matt 26:64; Luke 22:69), transforming Mark's concise apocalyptic reference into more elaborate depictions of vindication and kingship. These expansions, rather than inventions, indicate redactional enhancement of Markan material to emphasize ' messianic fulfillment.

External Attestation

Early Christian writers provided some of the earliest external attestations to the origins of the , often linking it to the apostolic preaching of Peter and portraying it as a foundational text predating the other . , writing around 110–130 CE, described Mark as Peter's interpreter who recorded Peter's reminiscences of ' words and deeds accurately, though not in chronological order, emphasizing that Mark's composition relied on memory rather than direct eyewitness experience. This account, preserved in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (ca. 325 CE), positions Mark's Gospel as an early derivative of Petrine tradition, composed to preserve oral teachings without intent to create a systematic narrative. Similarly, (ca. 200 CE) reported that Mark wrote his Gospel in at the urging of listeners who had heard Peter's public preaching, after which Peter neither endorsed nor opposed the work, further underscoring its prompt emergence from apostolic circles. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 180 CE), in his Against Heresies, described an early timeline by stating that Matthew issued a written Gospel among the during Peter and Paul's preaching in , and after their deaths (~64–67 CE), Mark—the disciple and interpreter of Peter—committed to writing the substance of Peter's preaching, followed by Luke. This patristic tradition supports Matthean priority but attests to Mark's early composition shortly after Peter's ministry, around 65 CE, aligning with modern scholarly dating for Mark while differing from the internal evidence favoring its precedence over Matthew and Luke. These references, drawn from second-century traditions, consistently treat Mark as a primitive record rooted in Petrine testimony. The manuscript tradition bolsters this view, with the earliest surviving fragments of Mark dating to the third century CE, reflecting a stable and widespread circulation consistent with an early origin. (P45), a from around 250 CE containing portions of Mark 4–9 and 11–12, represents the oldest substantial witness to , showing textual affinities to pre-Caesarean traditions in and preserving readings indicative of a primitive form. In contrast, while fragments of Matthew (e.g., P104 from ca. 150–200 CE) and Luke (e.g., P75 from ca. 175–225 CE) exist, none predate the inferred composition of Mark around 65–70 CE, nor do they suggest an earlier redactional priority for those Gospels; instead, the papyrological evidence aligns with Mark's role as a in the Synoptic tradition. Modern textual critics, building on these ancient attestations, affirm the antiquity and reliability of Mark's transmitted text. Bruce Metzger, in his surveys of textual history, highlighted P45 as a key early witness to Mark's primitive text, noting its 55 variant readings that align with pre-Caesarean manuscripts against later Byzantine forms, thus attesting to a stable Egyptian transmission from the third century onward. The 28th edition of the (NA28, 2012) maintains this textual stability for Mark, introducing no significant changes to the Gospel's core readings since the 27th edition (NA27, 1993), with alterations confined largely to the . Archaeological and textual discoveries between 2020 and 2025, including new papyri fragments and analyses, have not altered this external framework for Mark's priority; ongoing excavations and publications, such as those from the site, continue to yield post-second-century materials without evidence challenging the early patristic or manuscript chronology. The absence of pre-100 CE Gospel manuscripts overall reinforces the view that Mark's composition preceded Matthew and Luke, as no artifacts suggest an alternative sequence.

References

  1. https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2053&context=asburyjournal
  2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/history-and-criticism-of-the-marcan-hypothesis/
  3. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2835&context=auss
  4. https://www.gotquestions.org/Synoptic-Gospels.html
  5. https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/bitstreams/46c0f6ae-ec7c-46cf-b3e5-420e76d3a974/download
  6. https://www.bartehrman.com/synoptic-problem/
  7. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Marcan
  8. https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/monopoly.htm
  9. https://directionjournal.org/10/2/synoptic-problem-and-genre-question.html
  10. https://www.academia.edu/36110707/Markan_Priority_and_the_Synoptic_Problem
  11. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-gospel-of-mark-who-when-and-why/
  12. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602103.htm
  13. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=fac_staff_papers
  14. https://www.votf.org/wp-content/uploads/Origins_appendix.pdf
  15. https://tyndale.tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj10e.pdf
  16. https://www.academia.edu/98999933/The_History_and_Prospects_of_the_Synoptic_Problem
  17. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bernhard-Weiss
  18. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Four-Gospels-A-Study-of-Origins
  19. https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Form-criticism
  20. https://textandcanon.org/b-h-streeters-four-gospels-at-one-hundred/
  21. https://themultidisciplinarian.com/2025/07/28/the-gospel-of-mark-a-masterpiece-misunderstood/
  22. https://www.pharosjot.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_3_vol_101__2020__nigeria.pdf
  23. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004671768/B9789004671768_s020.pdf
  24. https://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/
  25. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/problems-with-the-synoptic-problem
  26. https://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html
  27. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-revival-of-the-griesbach-hypothesis/
  28. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Synoptic_Problem.html?id=hdQqF-9hZ00C
  29. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/patristic-traditions-about-evangelist-matthew
  30. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X7900200303
  31. https://archive.org/details/diegleichnisseje0000jere
  32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1458041
  33. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/synoptic-studies-some-recent-methodological-developments-and-debates/
  34. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/making-of-the-synoptic-gospels/introduction/1B2041DE73BAAB4298C111BBA2D6E263
  35. https://theo.kuleuven.be/apps/press/theologyresearchnews/2023/10/05/the-synoptic-problem-2022/
  36. https://translation.bible/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ellingworth-1978-how-soon-is-immediately-in-mark.pdf
  37. https://archive.org/details/gospelaccordingt0000unse_v4o0
  38. https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html
  39. https://ehrmanblog.org/was-mark-the-first-gospel-evidence-for-markan-priority/
  40. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-heal-blind-man-two-stages-mark-8/
  41. https://vridar.org/2010/12/26/marks-language-priority/
  42. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/the-healing-of-a-blind-man/
  43. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/4gospels_streeter/complete.pdf
  44. https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT-Statistics-Greek.htm
  45. http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch7.htm
  46. https://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com/processed/esource-assets/files/2243/original/8.3.Passages_from_Mark_Omitted_by_Luke.pdf?1526588092
  47. https://www.academia.edu/1624570/Introduction_to_the_Synoptic_Problem
  48. https://www.academia.edu/2327258/The_Kingdom_of_God_in_the_Gospel_of_Mark
  49. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-the-gospels/approaching-the-gospels/D59BC00233C2F6076F92FAF9FF1A1B9A
  50. https://www.markgoodacre.org/fatigue.pdf
  51. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/revisiting-the-time-of-abiathar-the-high-priest/
  52. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/editorial-fatigue-and-the-existence-of-q/F8CFDBFDDF266D02F71E0E57B20ED6A4
  53. https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1178891.pdf
  54. https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/29184-the-coming-of-the-son-of-man-in-mark-s-gospel.pdf
  55. https://rsc.byu.edu/thou-art-christ-son-living-god/matthews-portrayal-jesus-son-david-new-moses-son-god
  56. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
  57. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm
  58. https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/synoptic-gospels
  59. https://uasvbible.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Chapters-in-the-History-of-New-Testament-Textual-Criticism-Bruce-M.-Metzger.pdf
  60. https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/08/nestle-aland-edition-28-cracks-in-text.html
  61. https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2025/07/10/top-three-reports-in-biblical-archaeology-june-2025/
  62. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/12/top-10-biblical-archaeology-disovery-list-2024/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.