Markan Priority Hypothesis

Arguing for Markan priority is surprisingly harder than it looks,

and most of the arguments in the textbooks are seriously flawed.

-Stephen Carlson

Flawed Arguments

Order of passages supposedly dependent on Mk’s order. But see David J. Neville,

Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique (Macon:

Mercer University Press, 1994).

Christology supposedly ‘lower’ in Mark (e.g. with less use of the vocative ) –

Besides the idea merely presupposing the solution, can mean simply “sir”. Note

also more ‘developed’ Christology in some letters of Paul (i.e. even earlier than Mk).

See Peter M. Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan

Priority (Cambridge, 1997), and review by C.D.F. Moule JTS 49 pt2 (Oct 1998), 739-

41.

Markan passages longer relative to parallels in Matthew and Luke – But

Markan passages are relatively shorter after Jesus enters Jerusalem. Writers

sometimes enlarge and sometimes condense their sources with no known

predictable patterns. See E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition

(Cambridge, 1969).

Inconclusive Arguments

Mk has more theologically difficult passages in the portrayal of Jesus and the

twelve disciples, making Mk more original if the more difficult reading is likely

to be more original. Not only does this depend on a subjective estimation on what

counts as more difficult, but the principle that “more difficult is original” is based on

the results of redaction studies (ascertaining the individual editorial changes &

agendas of the Evangelists) which already presuppose Markan priority! However, it

is true that there are more reasons that can be given for writers wishing to edit Mk’s

Gospel than vice-versa. E.g. see Mark A. Matson, “Rhetoric in Matthew: An

Exploration of Audience Knowledge Competency” who suggests Mt answers

questions caused by Mk.

Mk’s ‘poorer’ grammar improved by Mt & Lk merely fits a presupposed solution

whereas writers sometimes improve their source’s grammar and sometimes spoil it.

Aramaic phrases in Mk were more likely avoided by Mt & Lk rather than

added to Mt & Lk. In fact all three have Aramaic expressions unique to each!

Markan vocabulary being found in Mt & Lk parallel passages. Unfortunately

characteristicly Markan vocabulary is missing from Mt and Lk but one study has

shown that vocab occurring in Mt and Lk has a higher relationship to general Mk

vocab in parallel passages (indicating either a Mark-like source or Mk as source).

See http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html (but is the vocabulary pool

statistically significant enough to be able to sufficiently test such things?)

Date of composition - it appears that when Mt and Lk were written, Jerusalem

lay in ruins. Both Mt and Lk (Mt 23:27-39//Lk 13:34-35) relay a prophecy of doom

(“behold you house is forsaken”) naturally written down after the event was fulfilled

(to publicly affirm that the prophet was true) whereas Mk gives no explicit indication

of this. Conversely, the Roman-Jewish war seems to provide a reasonable context for

Mark’s subtle anti -war themes (e.g. Mk 5:1-20; 9:14-29).

Mk’s shorter description of Jesus’ crucifixion (Mt 27:31b-54 // Mk 15:20b-39//

Lk 23:26-48) [i.e. word count = 348, 278, 358] is all the more striking and more

understandable if written first given that Mark’s Gospel primarily depicts Jesus as a

alternate type of warrior who challenges contemporary understandings of violence

and “power” under God’s reign with the cross climactically demonstrating Jesus

facing death and violence head on. Mk’s relative brevity in comparison to Mt & Lk

here would make more sense if written closer in time to the use of, or memory of

(and/or threat of) crucifixion if written sometime during the Roman-Jewish war 66-

73.

Mark’s Gospel is shorter so Mt and Lk must have supplemented Mk – It is

perhaps more likely that more material would have been added to (rather than

deleted from) a source assuming that writers tended to use as much source

material as they could. But many 2nd-century Gospels were shorter than Mt and

Lk. It is true that large-scale features (like Mk’s overall length) relative to Mt & Lk

are easier to explain if Mk is earlier. In terms of explaining the whole of each

Gospel, other source theories positing Mk as dependent on Mt and/or Lk have more

difficulty. A satisfactorily theological, historical and literary portrait of Mk as

posterior has yet to be written—only two books have ever been written on the

supposition that Mk is based on Mt and Lk.

Substantial Arguments

Evidence of editorial fatigue – Certain inconsistencies in Mt & Lk appear to have

been caused by using a source resembling Mk (perhaps the reason why Mt 14:15-23

has two evenings in one day!). Mt 8:1-4// Mk 1:40-45 unnecessarily reproduces Mk’s

secrecy theme and looks to be from a source without “crowds” as in Mk. In Mt 14:5

it is Herod who wishes to kill John (unlike Mk 6:19 where it is Herodias, c.f. 6:20) so

it makes less sense when Mt says Herod “was grieved” unless due to fatigue from

copying Mk 6:26 as his source; also Mk always call’s Herod “king” which Mt appears

to follow inadvertently instead of calling him tetrarch as he had introduced him in

verse 1. Cf. also Lk’s setting of the miraculous feed set in a city but then calls it a

wilderness place in line with Mk’s version. See Mark Goodacre, “Fatigue in the

Synoptics” NTS 44 (1998), 45-58.

The tight plotting of Mark’s Gospel causes many scholars to doubt that it would

have been constructed from something like Mt or Lk.