Markan Priority 35
Markan Priority
Until the nineteenth century, most Christians assumed that Matthew was the first gospel to be written. 36This tradition, which became the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, must be respected, particularly since it appears to be bolstered by the second-century testimony of Papias, as cited by Eusebius (see below). Nevertheless, it does not settle the issue. Many gave Matthew the priority on the inadequate grounds that he was the only apostle among the synoptic evangelists. Another, equally strong tradition holds that Mark wrote his gospel based on the preaching of Peter (see the introduction to Mark), and this makes Markan dependence on Matthew difficult. Since Lukan priority is rarely argued, 37the main alternative to Matthean priority is Markan priority. Why have so many scholars been convinced that Mark is the gospel that lies at the basis of both Matthew and Luke? The following are the most important arguments. 38
The brevity of Mark. Mark is considerably shorter than both Matthew and Luke:
11,025 words as against 18,293 and 19,376, respectively. It is not Mark’s relative brevity per se that provides evidence for Mark’s priority (it cannot be demonstrated that the shorter is necessarily the earlier), but its brevity taken in conjunction with its close relationship to Luke, and especially Matthew. Over 97 percent of Mark’s words have a parallel in Matthew; over 88 percent in Luke. 39It therefore makes more sense to think that Matthew and Luke have taken over much of Mark, expanding it with their own material, than that Mark has abbreviated Matthew and/or Luke with the omission of so much material. To be sure, it is possible to argue that Mark is a deliberate condensation of Matthew and Luke—as proponents of the two-gospel theory maintain. 40But it would be a strange condensation that generally lengthens the narratives taken from these other gospels while omitting things like the Sermon on the Mount, the birth narratives, and the appearances of the risen Lord. Put simply, this argument runs: "Given Mark, it is easy to see why Matthew was written; given Matthew, it is hard to see why Mark was needed.” 41
The verbal agreements among the Gospels. As we illustrated earlier, at many places the three Synoptic Gospels manifest a remarkable degree of verbal parallelism. But careful study reveals that, while all three accounts sometimes agree (as in table 2), Matthew and Mark frequently agree, as do Mark and Luke, but Matthew and Luke only rarely agree. As with the argument from order, this phenomenon can be explained as long as Mark is the middle term of the three. It is much more difficult to explain if Mark is not the first, however, because on any other hypothesis, recourse must be had to the supposition of a deliberate and unlikely method of composition. With the Augustinian hypothesis, we would have to think that Luke almost always chose to use Mark’s wording rather than Matthew’s; with the two-gospel hypothesis, we would have to assume that Mark almost never introduced any wording of his own. While possible, both procedures are unlikely. (The minor agreements between Matthew and Luke are discussed below.)
The order of events. We noted above that a comparison of the order of events in the Synoptic Gospels reveals a situation similar to what is observed about the verbal agreements: Matthew and Luke do not agree against Mark. This phenomenon was noted by Lachmann, who argued, furthermore, that this situation was best explained if Mark was the prior gospel. As with the verbal agreements, the phenomenon of order can be explained by other hypotheses; for example, Luke determined to follow Mark’s order when he diverged from Matthew (on the Augustinian explanation), or Mark decided never to deviate from Matthew and Luke when they agreed. Again, the virtue of Markan priority is that it provides a natural explanation for this phenomenon, rather than having to postulate an unlikely compositional procedure on the part of one of the evangelists.
Mark’s awkward and more primitive style. It is generally agreed that Mark has more grammatical irregularities and awkward constructions than do Matthew and Luke. This, it is argued, favors Markan priority, because the natural tendency would have been for later authors to smooth out such irregularities (a similar criterion is used in textual criticism). Similarly, Mark preserves more Aramaic expressions than does either Matthew or Luke in their parallels with Mark. It is easier to see, it is argued, why Matthew and Luke would eliminate or translate Aramaic expressions that would be unintelligible to their Greek-speaking readers than why Mark would have added such Aramaic expressions without a basis in his sources.
Mark’s more primitive theology. Many scholars find many more theologically difficult statements in Mark than in Matthew and Luke, and this suggests (again, paralleling textual-critical principles) that Mark is the earliest. An example is Mark 6:5, where the evangelist claims that, because of the unbelief of the people in Nazareth, Jesus "could not do any miracles there.” In the parallel verse, Matthew says that Jesus “did not do many miracles there” (Matt. 13:58). It is argued that it is more likely that Matthew has removed the potentially troublesome implication that Jesus was incapable of working a miracle than that Mark has added it. This argument has some weight, but it is not as decisive as the ones above. Not only could one argue about which evangelist has the more difficult statements, but one also must take into account the effect of each evangelist’s compositional purposes and theology. This makes it much harder to be sure about the direction of borrowing. The same objection applies to the related argument that redaction critics have found it more plausible to explain Matthew on the basis of Mark than vice versa. At least in some pericopes, there would be disagreement about this, 42and the sparsity of redactional studies assuming Matthean priority means that most of the data will be on one side in any case.
While not all of equal weight, these arguments taken together make a strong case for thinking that Matthew and Luke have independently used Mark’s gospel in writing their own.
“Q.” As we noted above, Schleiermacher was the first to posit the existence of a collection of Jesus’ sayings as a source for the Gospels. His suggestion was taken up by Weisse, as the second main source of the two-source hypothesis. Like Schleiermacher, some critics think that Papias refers to this document in his famous statement about the logia, but this is doubtful (see the discussion in the introduction to Matthew). At some point toward the end of the nineteenth century, the source became known as "Q,” just how and where being a matter of debate. 43Most proponents of Markan priority think that a sayings source such as Q must have been used by both Matthew and Luke.
The reason for positing the existence of such a written collection of Jesus’ teaching is that there are approximately 250 verses common to Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark. Most, though not all of this material, consists in teachings of Jesus. Many
of these verses exhibit a degree of verbal parallelism that favors the existence of a common written source in Greek (see the example in table 3 above). The simplest explanation for this phenomenon would be dependence of one gospel on the other. Against this, however, is the lack of agreement between Matthew and Luke in their ordering of events and the general lack of verbal agreements between them. These factors strongly suggest that Matthew and Luke did not use one another; hence, the need to posit an additional source. Considerable effort has been expended in seeking to reconstruct this hypothetical source, 44and the degree of certainty with which the hypothesis is entertained by some may be gauged from the fact that there has even been written a book entitled A Theology of Q. 45Nevertheless, there is considerable debate about Q, and we must consider below some of main arguments for and against the hypothesis.
In addition to the argument from verbal agreement in non-Markan material, there are three main arguments for the existence of the Q source.
The agreement in order. A number of scholars have discerned in the non-Markan material common to Matthew and Luke (sometimes called the double tradition) a similar order. 46Such a similar order would argue for a single written source. But the agreement in order is not all that clear, and this argument has limited force at best. 47
Doublets in Matthew and Luke. "Doublets” are accounts that appear more than once in a single gospel. It is argued that these occur because the evangelist in question is following Mark at one point and Q at the other. An example is Luke 8:17 and 12:2, in both of which Jesus says "there is nothing hidden [concealed] that will not be disclosed, and [or] nothing concealed [hidden] that will not be known.” The first is paralleled only in Mark 4:22 and the second in Matthew 10:26, the assumption then being that Luke has taken the first from Mark and the second from Q. 48Such doublets suggest the existence of a common source in addition to Mark; they are insufficient to show, however, that Q must have been a single written source.
Different placement of Q material. The non-Markan material shared by Luke and Matthew is put in different contexts, Matthew grouping much of it in his five great discourses, Luke generally leaving it scattered throughout the gospel (mainly in Luke 6:20-8:3 and 9:51-18:14). This phenomenon is easier to explain if both were making independent use of a common source then if Luke was using Matthew.
These arguments have convinced most scholars that Matthew and Luke have access to a common non-Markan tradition. Probably most of these think of Q as a single written document, but there is considerable disagreement over this. Many prefer to think of Q as a series of written fragments or as a combination of written and oral traditions. But many scholars are not convinced that we need to posit the existence of any such tradition, arguing that it is far simpler to think that Luke has used Matthew. Since Luke’s knowledge of Matthew would seriously undermine the evidence for Markan priority, most of those who deny the existence of Q also deny Markan priority. But some maintain both Markan priority and the use of Matthew by Luke. 49
The strongest argument in favor of Luke’s use of Matthew, and therefore against the two-source theory as a whole, is the existence of what have been called minor agreements between Matthew and Luke and against Mark. These consist both of agreements in the order of particular verses or sayings and of wording. 50How can these be explained if Luke and Matthew have not used one another? Whether we even
attempt such an explanation will depend on how convinced we are by the arguments above that Luke did not know Matthew. If we concede the strength of these earlier arguments, then several such explanations are possible: (1) Overlap of Mark and Q, with the agreement of Matthew and Luke being the result of their common use of Q; (2) coincidental redaction of Mark in the same way; (3) textual corruption, based on the known tendency of scribes to harmonize gospel accounts; and (4) common use of oral traditions that may have overlapped with Mark. 51
These minor agreements demonstrate that the history of gospel origins was probably more complex than any single-source hypothesis can explain. But they do not overthrow the strength of the case in favor of the two-source hypothesis. A source like Q remains the best explanation for the agreements between Matthew and Luke in non-Markan material. Almost certainly some, if not a substantial portion, of Q was in written form. But we must probably allow for more than one written source, and some mixture of oral traditions as well.