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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Marcan style 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 (, "and"); in fact, more than half the verses in Mark begin with . Mark is also notably fond of (, "immediately") and (, "again"), frequently uses dual expressions, and often prefers the
historical present. In essence, then, Mark's style is not so much literary as thoroughly colloquial. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. So, with Mark's selection process better understood, these omissions per se are no longer viewed as such compelling evidence for Marcan priority.
Content found only in Mark There are very few passages in Mark with no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, which makes them all the more significant: •
The parable of the growing seed •
The healing of the deaf mute of Decapolis •
The healing of the blind man of Bethsaida •
The naked fugitive 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 ), and the naked runaway is an obscure incident with no obvious meaning or purpose. 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. 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. An illustrative example is the
calming of the storm: 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.
Hard readings 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. Notable hard readings unique to Mark include: • "He was to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he because of their unbelief." (), vs. "He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief." (). • Jesus "healed who were sick" (), vs. " who were sick" (). • "When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, 'He is out of his mind.'" ( uniquely). • In the storm at sea, the disciples ask, " that we are about to die?" (), vs. "We are about to die!" (). Jesus replies, "Do you still " (), vs. "ye of little faith" () or "Where is your faith?" (). • The disciples' "hearts were hardened" ( uniquely). • James and John ask to sit beside Jesus in his kingdom (), vs. their mother making the request (). • A hungry Jesus curses a fig tree for lacking fruit (Mark 11:12–14). 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 interprets the incident as a miracle that shows the power of faith. 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 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. Such observations have been studied in detail for centuries, but the difficulty has been in how to interpret them. 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 Mark displays a special fondness for "dualisms" of various kinds, 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. Some prominent examples: • "When it was evening, after sunset" vs "When it was evening" + "As the sun was setting" • "the leprosy left him and he was cleansed" vs "the leprosy left him" + "his leprosy was cleansed" • "the word that was sown in them" vs "the word from their hearts" + "what was sown in his heart" • "They came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho" vs "As Jesus approached Jericho" + "As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed them" • "immediately as you enter it" vs "immediately" + "as you enter it" • "were seeking how to seize him by stealth and kill him" vs "were seeking how they might put him to death" + "conspired to seize Jesus by stealth and kill him" • "Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed" vs "Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread" + "Then came the day for the feast of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed" • "today, on this night" vs "today" + "this very night" • "Now when evening had already come, since it was the day of preparation" (that is, the day before the Sabbath) vs "Now when it was evening" + "It was the day of preparation and the Sabbath was beginning" 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. 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. 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", yet he lapses into calling him "king" at a later verse, apparently because he was copying Mark at that point. Another example is Luke's version of the
Parable of the Sower, regarding the seed sown on rocky ground, 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 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. Several persons are named only in Mark: • Bartimaeus () • Alexander and Rufus () • Salome () 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 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. The earliest relevant source is
Papias (), 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". This account of the origin of Mark is seen as likely genuine by many scholars, though hardly all. If so, Mark's source is not the other two Synoptics but Peter—unless Peter himself drew from them, as some propose. 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. 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. 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.
Ephrem the Syrian () 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," and this is echoed in many later sources such as
Gregory of Nazianzus. Mark writing in Latin may have arisen merely by inference, but it is true that canonical Mark exhibits numerous Latinisms, Most scholars, however, reject this view and consider the Greek original.
Irenaeus (), 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: 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. Elsewhere Irenaeus often prefers the order Matthew—Luke—Mark—John when addressing the Gospels together, and this order thereafter recurs commonly in a wide variety of ancient sources. In fact, early Bibles and canons arranged the four Gospels in many different sequences, though most placed Matthew first among the Synoptics. From
Clement (), 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" (), in contrast to Mark. Farmer touted this as support for Marcan posteriority, but Carlson argued that the word was better interpreted as "openly published", in contrast to Mark's initially private circulation.
Origen (), 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." Most readers then and now have seen this as a clear statement of chronology, though some have doubted that was Origen's intent. In any case, this canonical order was increasingly well established by this time, and subsequent sources accepted this temporal sequence.
Augustine () 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. Later in the same work, Augustine revises his opinion and sees Mark as following not only Matthew but also Luke; Mark "walks with both". 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. 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. 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. ==Notes==