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.