hatsoff

Hi, all. This is my first thread, here, so I hope you folks enjoy the discussion.

This is a pretty common issue, but when it came up in another thread I realized how little I knew about it. Somebody mentioned Matthew as drawing from Mark, and insisted most scholars accept this as true. But my understanding is that the Synoptic Problem has no definitive explanation, and Markan priority is only one hypothesis among many. Am I mistaken about this, or was Mark really the first Gospel?

S.C.Carlson

"Definitive" may be asking for too much in historical scholarship, but most scholars of the gospels have accepted the Markan priority hypothesis, and it can safely be assumed without argument in peer-reviewed publications.

Stephen

Toto

Why reinvent the wheel?

Here's the Synoptic Problem homepage by Stephen Carlson, which lays out different theories.

Actually, almost all scholars agree that Matthew drew from Mark. The "problem" is whether Luke knew Matthew, or whether Luke and Matthew had independent access to a separate source document known as Q, or some combination or variant of those.

RUmike

As far as I know, the following two things are virtually certain in the scholarly community: that Mark wrote first, and Matthew and Luke both drew from Mark.

After that you get two main ideas. The overall consensus is that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark indepedently, and also drew from a now-lost sayings gospel (Q). This is by far the majority opinion of scholars, and probably upwards of 90% of them (my own guesstimate).

The only other competing theory as far as I can tell that people take seriously is the Farrer theory, which dispenses entirely with Q. It states that Matthew drew on Mark, and then Luke drew on both Mark and Matthew. I think this is a very small minority opinion, but I could be wrong. Mark Goodacre, a professor at Duke University, wrote a book "The Case Against Q" which I've been meaning to read. He supports this theory. And to be honest, it sounds promising from an initial glance of his website. But as far as I can tell, it has persuaded few scholars.

Chris Weimer

Note: there are some out of the mainstream who still posit different non-Marcan priority. Yuri Kuchinsky and Richard Anderson (both Lucan prioritists) come to mind.

Otherwise Marcan priority definitely, in most's opinion, has the evidence going for it.

hatsoff

Okay, that all sounds reasonable, but I must ask: Why have most scolars accepted Markan priority? I once read that of the content allegedly borrowed from Mark, Matthew's and Luke's retellings lacked some detail. Supposedly that is evidence in support of the MPH, but is it enough? I know of nothing else which might help us determine comparative dates.

RUmike

For most of the triple tradition material (material common to Mk, Mt and Lk), either Matt and Mark agree and Luke diverges from the other two, or Luke and Mark agree and Matt diverges. Clearly, Mark is the middle term, and so must have come first.

Also, if Mark came later, that means he omitted the birth narratives, the genealogies, the resurrection accounts, a ton of sayings material including the sermon on the mount (Matt) or plain (Luke), etc. In addition, Mark would have had to ruin the good grammar and style of both Matt and Luke. These things seem unlikely.

Another thing that pops into mind is that Luke also seems to know more advanced information about the siege of Jerusalem than Mark does.

yalla

The most convincing reason for "Markan Priority", IMO, is that both "Matthew" and "Luke" CORRECT, either by omission or amending, bits of ''Mark" perceived to be "incorrect', either factually [eg Herod as king/ethnarch] or theologically [eg JC being UNABLE to do any mighty works etc.].
The correctors have to follow that which is corrected.

mikem

If the gospel of Mark disappeared tomorrow, most of his gospel could be reconstructed from the other two synoptics. Also, most scholars tend to the view that it makes more sense to see an EXPANSION of gospel material, rather than a CONTRACTION, which is what you would have if Mark came later than Matthew and /or Luke. After all, why would anyone want to rewrite what had already been written, and leave huge chunks out?

Yuri Kuchinsky

This is not clear at all.

All three Synoptics depend on an earlier proto-gospel, that was rather short.

This is the best explanation for the evidence we have.

All three Synoptics emerged ca. 100 CE.

Regards,

Yuri.