Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
If Mark had access to Luke, and his edition of Luke already included the so-called “Q material,” how can we reasonably explain his failure to include that material in his Gospel?
My question is asked more fully here:
What is Lukan Priority
- Lukan Priority in general refers to the view that Luke was the first of the Synoptic Gospels written
- Lukan Priority over Mark specifically claims that Luke was written prior to Mark (regardless of where Matthew falls in the sequence).
The former is the subject of this related question on the site. I gather that the focus of the OP is specifically the relationship between Luke & Mark.
—
As noted in the OP (and more extensively in the linked blog), the most common objection raised to Lukan Priority over Mark is the struggle to believe that Mark, if using Luke’s Gospel as a source, would leave out so much good content. A review of all of the Lukan content excluded from Mark would result in a post far too long for this site.
Instead I’ll offer links to 2 videos on my channel that address this question in more detail, and then specifically examine here the 3 most popular examples of Lukan content which Mark would have left out, and a case for why it made sense for Mark to do so.
Videos:
Specific Examples
The Nativity
Luke includes a Nativity account; Mark does not. Surely no Christian author writing an account of Jesus could have left this story out?? In fact, 25 of the 27 books of the New Testament do not include any extended account of Jesus’ early years, and most early Christian writers in the following 2 generations say either only a little about it, or nothing at all.
While the Nativity accounts were important to early Christians, there is risk of anachronism here — the Nativity is a cultural icon to modern Christians–it is the subject of our most prominent holiday–in a way it was not in the first few centuries AD.
Even among the Gospels, the Gospel of John (usually held to be the last of the 4 written) does not include a Nativity account. While today it may appear obvious that the Nativity is the place to start an account about Jesus, apparently to a first-century writer where to start was not so obvious. This is substantiated by the fact that none of the 4 Gospels start the same way (Matthew with genealogy, Mark with John the Baptist’s preaching, Luke with John the Baptist’s backstory, John with creation). In many other biographical writings of the time it was common to devote little or no attention to the childhood of the protagonist.
While not all of the Gospels include the Nativity, and none start the same way, it is noteworthy that all 4 do include, early on, prominent attention given to John the Baptist and his connection to Jesus. For many Christians, their journey to believing in a remarkable Preacher from Galilee began with John. Few of Jesus’ followers knew Jesus as a child, but many, many of His followers knew John (and/or knew of Him). John the Baptist’s ministry, laying the foundation for what Jesus would teach, would for these individuals be a very sensible place to start the story.
In fact, when the apostles present in Jesus’ ministry tell the story of Jesus (we have multiple such accounts recorded in the book of Acts), they start the account with John. Apparently then, to at least some early Christians, the role of John the Baptist and his connection to Jesus was a more prominent feature of Jesus’ ministry than were the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. It is thus unsurprising that a Gospel author would choose to start the story there.
—
Post-Resurrection Appearances
Luke records much more detail following the resurrection than does Mark. Especially if one assumes if 16:8 was the originally intended ending of Mark’s Gospel. For the case that 16:8 was not the originally intended ending of Mark’s Gospel, see my video here.
In short, there is enough textual & historical ambiguity around the ending of Mark that we cannot dogmatically claim the author intended to include no post-resurrection appearances, and there is a decent case to be made that throughout the Gospel of Mark the author has built the story to a climax that will be resolved when the predictions of Jesus’ resurrection are fulfilled.
The ambiguous evidence surrounding the ending of Mark is too unstable a foundation from which to claim Mark says much less (or intended to say much less) about the resurrection than Luke did. And if the original ending of Mark’s Gospel has been lost (see a discussion of this possibility in the video link above), no textual argument could be made at all, as we would not have the text.
The Gospel of Mark predicts twice Jesus’ rising from the dead and being reunited with His disciples (14:28, 16:7), and it is a hallmark of the author’s style to show that Jesus’ prophecies are fulfilled.
Arguing based on the post-resurrection appearances that Mark could not have known Luke’s Gospel is not an argument from evidence, but an argument from the absence of evidence.
—
The Sermon on the Mount/Plain
I’ve saved the best for last. Surely, surely, no Christian writer could have made a record of Jesus’ ministry and excluded His most iconic sermon??? This data point alone has led countless individuals to conclude that Mark could not have known Luke’s Gospel (or Matthew’s). Yet there is a remarkably simple explanation:
Mark doesn’t include long sermons. Zero. None. Zilch.
Matthew & John each devote a great deal of space to long sermons. Luke less so. Mark none. Mark is the action-oriented, fast-paced Gospel, focusing very heavily on what Jesus did. When Mark reports what Jesus said it is always brief.
There is a straightforward explanation for this authorial behavior, and it aligns with the stylistic features of Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s Gospel is written the way one would tend to speak a story rather than the way one would write a story. When you write you can go back and edit & polish, when you speak live sometimes things come out more awkwardly (such as the “hard sayings” and “less-polished” Greek of Mark). The genius of Mark is the storytelling, not the semantics.
In the videos linked above I argue that Mark is exactly what one would expect if a dynamic Christian preacher, very familiar with the stories in Matthew & Luke, gave a sermon and someone wrote it down (and Greek shorthand did exist in the first century).
Once we acknowledge the oral nature of Mark (if Matthew & Luke are the peer-reviewed literature, Mark is the powerful preaching), the conundrum of Mark’s exclusion of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain goes away. A storyteller–especially one working largely from memory–will focus more on what happened than what was said. A series of events that can be recalled with detail make a better story (and are more memorable) than a recitation of a long monologue. This is exactly what we see in Mark. Where Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the same story, Mark tends to be the most verbose, he goes into extra detail about what happened, who was there, etc., he uses the most words to tell a story. But when it comes to preaching, Mark is the most concise: he does not report long sermons. Not once.
Why then did Mark exclude the Sermon on the Mount/Plain? The same reason he excluded all of the other long sermons.
—
Proto Luke
An alternative to Lukan Priority that is occasionally suggested is Proto-Luke – a hypothetical document that contained the core of Luke, preceded Mark, may or may not have been used by Mark, and was then augmented by content from Mark to become the Gospel of Luke we know today.
Proto-Luke suffers from some shortcomings:
- There is no manuscript, patristic, or historical evidence for it.
- The stylistic features that led Robert Lindsay and others to conclude Luke must have preceded Mark are features that are found both in parts of Luke that are shared with Mark, and parts of Luke that are not shared with Mark.
- It violates Occam’s razor by multiplying entities beyond necessity. If no explanation is possible without a hypothetical document, it may be appropriate to assume a hypothetical document. But if an explanation is possible without a hypothetical document, that explanation is to be preferred.
—
Conclusion
There are straightforward reasons why an author in Mark’s position would exclude some of what are today among the most iconic parts of the Gospel of Luke. Mark did not intend to recreate his sources, but to use them to tell a powerful story. At the heart of Mark’s Gospel is a dynamic, energetic, fast-paced storyteller, who has put together a powerful arc from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry through to the resurrection.
It is possible to conclude that such a teacher knew prior accounts of Jesus’ ministry but did not feel obligated to recite them in full when teaching. In fact, most preachers today do just this: rather than reading a full chapter verbatim, many will read select verses and comment upon them. This is exactly what we find in the Gospel of Mark.
https://donaldtraxlerpoetry.blogspot.com/2023/03/synoptica-xxxvi-about-luke.html
Troy Day
@highlight What is Lukan Priority
Lukan Priority in general refers to the view that Luke was the first of the Synoptic Gospels written
Lukan Priority over Mark specifically claims that Luke was written prior to Mark (regardless of where Matthew falls in the sequence).
The former is the subject of this related question on the site. I gather that the focus of the OP is specifically the relationship between Luke & Mark.
—
As noted in the OP (and more extensively in the linked blog), the most common objection raised to Lukan Priority over Mark is the struggle to believe that Mark, if using Luke’s Gospel as a source, would leave out so much good content. A review of all of the Lukan content excluded from Mark would result in a post far too long for this site.
Instead I’ll offer links to 2 videos on my channel that address this question in more detail, and then specifically examine here the 3 most popular examples of Lukan content which Mark would have left out, and a case for why it made sense for Mark to do so.
Videos:
Did the Gospels Copy Each Other?
Deconstructing Markan Priority – a Simpler Solution
Specific Examples
The Nativity
Luke includes a Nativity account; Mark does not. Surely no Christian author writing an account of Jesus could have left this story out?? In fact, 25 of the 27 books of the New Testament do not include any extended account of Jesus’ early years, and most early Christian writers in the following 2 generations say either only a little about it, or nothing at all.
While the Nativity accounts were important to early Christians, there is risk of anachronism here — the Nativity is a cultural icon to modern Christians–it is the subject of our most prominent holiday–in a way it was not in the first few centuries AD.
Even among the Gospels, the Gospel of John (usually held to be the last of the 4 written) does not include a Nativity account. While today it may appear obvious that the Nativity is the place to start an account about Jesus, apparently to a first-century writer where to start was not so obvious. This is substantiated by the fact that none of the 4 Gospels start the same way (Matthew with genealogy, Mark with John the Baptist’s preaching, Luke with John the Baptist’s backstory, John with creation). In many other biographical writings of the time it was common to devote little or no attention to the childhood of the protagonist.
While not all of the Gospels include the Nativity, and none start the same way, it is noteworthy that all 4 do include, early on, prominent attention given to John the Baptist and his connection to Jesus. For many Christians, their journey to believing in a remarkable Preacher from Galilee began with John. Few of Jesus’ followers knew Jesus as a child, but many, many of His followers knew John (and/or knew of Him). John the Baptist’s ministry, laying the foundation for what Jesus would teach, would for these individuals be a very sensible place to start the story.
In fact, when the apostles present in Jesus’ ministry tell the story of Jesus (we have multiple such accounts recorded in the book of Acts), they start the account with John. Apparently then, to at least some early Christians, the role of John the Baptist and his connection to Jesus was a more prominent feature of Jesus’ ministry than were the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. It is thus unsurprising that a Gospel author would choose to start the story there.
—
Post-Resurrection Appearances
Luke records much more detail following the resurrection than does Mark. Especially if one assumes if 16:8 was the originally intended ending of Mark’s Gospel. For the case that 16:8 was not the originally intended ending of Mark’s Gospel, see my video here.
In short, there is enough textual & historical ambiguity around the ending of Mark that we cannot dogmatically claim the author intended to include no post-resurrection appearances, and there is a decent case to be made that throughout the Gospel of Mark the author has built the story to a climax that will be resolved when the predictions of Jesus’ resurrection are fulfilled.
The ambiguous evidence surrounding the ending of Mark is too unstable a foundation from which to claim Mark says much less (or intended to say much less) about the resurrection than Luke did. And if the original ending of Mark’s Gospel has been lost (see a discussion of this possibility in the video link above), no textual argument could be made at all, as we would not have the text.
The Gospel of Mark predicts twice Jesus’ rising from the dead and being reunited with His disciples (14:28, 16:7), and it is a hallmark of the author’s style to show that Jesus’ prophecies are fulfilled.
Arguing based on the post-resurrection appearances that Mark could not have known Luke’s Gospel is not an argument from evidence, but an argument from the absence of evidence.
—
The Sermon on the Mount/Plain
I’ve saved the best for last. Surely, surely, no Christian writer could have made a record of Jesus’ ministry and excluded His most iconic sermon??? This data point alone has led countless individuals to conclude that Mark could not have known Luke’s Gospel (or Matthew’s). Yet there is a remarkably simple explanation:
Mark doesn’t include long sermons. Zero. None. Zilch.
Matthew & John each devote a great deal of space to long sermons. Luke less so. Mark none. Mark is the action-oriented, fast-paced Gospel, focusing very heavily on what Jesus did. When Mark reports what Jesus said it is always brief.
There is a straightforward explanation for this authorial behavior, and it aligns with the stylistic features of Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s Gospel is written the way one would tend to speak a story rather than the way one would write a story. When you write you can go back and edit & polish, when you speak live sometimes things come out more awkwardly (such as the “hard sayings” and “less-polished” Greek of Mark). The genius of Mark is the storytelling, not the semantics.
In the videos linked above I argue that Mark is exactly what one would expect if a dynamic Christian preacher, very familiar with the stories in Matthew & Luke, gave a sermon and someone wrote it down (and Greek shorthand did exist in the first century).
Once we acknowledge the oral nature of Mark (if Matthew & Luke are the peer-reviewed literature, Mark is the powerful preaching), the conundrum of Mark’s exclusion of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain goes away. A storyteller–especially one working largely from memory–will focus more on what happened than what was said. A series of events that can be recalled with detail make a better story (and are more memorable) than a recitation of a long monologue. This is exactly what we see in Mark. Where Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the same story, Mark tends to be the most verbose, he goes into extra detail about what happened, who was there, etc., he uses the most words to tell a story. But when it comes to preaching, Mark is the most concise: he does not report long sermons. Not once.
Why then did Mark exclude the Sermon on the Mount/Plain? The same reason he excluded all of the other long sermons.
—
Proto Luke
An alternative to Lukan Priority that is occasionally suggested is Proto-Luke – a hypothetical document that contained the core of Luke, preceded Mark, may or may not have been used by Mark, and was then augmented by content from Mark to become the Gospel of Luke we know today.
Proto-Luke suffers from some shortcomings:
There is no manuscript, patristic, or historical evidence for it.
The stylistic features that led Robert Lindsay and others to conclude Luke must have preceded Mark are features that are found both in parts of Luke that are shared with Mark, and parts of Luke that are not shared with Mark.
Philip Williams
Peter is Q!
Pentecostal Theology
@followers @john mushenhouse @phillip williams @kyle williams
This analysis of Lukan Priority presents compelling methodological considerations regarding the Synoptic Problem. The argument that Mark’s omission of extended discourses reflects genre intentionality rather than source ignorance is particularly persuasive—Mark’s consistently action-oriented narrative structure (prioritizing performative over didactic content) aligns with ancient biographical conventions emphasizing deeds over speeches.
However, the Q material question warrants further scrutiny: if Mark accessed Luke, the systematic exclusion of double-tradition material (Lord’s Prayer, Beatitudes, temptation narrative details) suggests either deliberate redactional choices or alternative source theories. The Proto-Luke hypothesis, while lacking manuscript evidence, addresses stylistic anomalies that pure Lukan Priority struggles to explain.
The oral-compositional thesis for Mark is intriguing—positing Mark as transcribed proclamation rather than literary composition could account for both its vivid immediacy and grammatical irregularities. This would position the Gospels not merely as literary dependencies but as representing different Sitz im Leben: Luke as systematic historiography, Mark as kerygmatic performance.
What remains methodologically challenging is reconciling Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark with any priority hypothesis. These warrant continued investigation within broader redaction-critical frameworks.
Glynn Brown
Who believes in Lukan priority?
Troy Day
While Lukan priority is a minority view, several scholars—such as Robert Lindsey, Halvor Ronning, David Flusser, and members of the Jerusalem School—have presented detailed linguistic, statistical, and textual arguments supporting it. They argue that Luke contains more primitive material, preserves Semitic expressions more faithfully, and that Mark may have used Luke as a source—hence, some Q material might have been omitted due to Mark’s editorial choices or the specific narrative focus. Lukan priority is intriguing, even if most scholars still favor Markan priority. It’s a fascinating debate in Synoptic studies!
Troy Day
Here’s a summary of the latest posts from the Pentecostal Theology Facebook page:
Biblical Interpretation & Exegesis: Many posts pose nuanced questions about scriptural passages, such as:
Is “double honor” in 1 Timothy 5:17–18 about pastoral pay?
Are the 1290 days in Daniel 12 related to the 2300 evenings and mornings in Daniel 8? This one examined scholarly views on apocalyptic timing and prophecy fulfillment.
Differences in translating Luke 10:9–11’s Greek, and implications for meaning.
Textual Criticism & Theological Debate: Questions such as how to search the Septuagint for specific Greek phrases, and discussion around Lukan Priority (theory that Luke was the first synoptic gospel written).
Christology & Trinitarian Theology: Posts discuss distinctions within the Trinity, including:
Whether Psalm 45 and Hebrews teach that Jesus is different than the Father (polytheism or monotheism).
Questioning whether future sins are forgiven and the implications for atonement.
Old Testament History & Legal Custom: Topics include whether Rachel’s teraphim were deeds to property, and whether Aaron was honest about the golden calf in Exodus 32.
New Covenant & Covenant Theology: Posts analyze if passages like Jeremiah 32:40 are direct references to the New Covenant, their relationship to Jeremiah 31, and how those texts are interpreted.
Synoptic Gospel Source Criticism: Several posts examine how Mark and Luke relate in literary and source dependence (including the Q-source).
Ecclesiology & Sacraments: Why believers are asked to partake in communion emblems, examining Luke 22.
Other Notable Posts:
Angelology (Exodus 3: “angel of the LORD”).
Geography (“Where is Gedor in 1 Chronicles 4:39?”).
Passover typology (“It is finished” and priestly rituals).
Differences in interpretations of “sinful nature” among Gentiles, and perspectives on the law in Galatians.
Themes:
The page is highly engaged in academic, exegetical, and theological conversation, with most posts asking open-ended or scholarly questions inviting discussion and analysis.
Frequent cross-referencing of scholars, commentators, and followers, including tagging experts and inviting input.
Scriptures frequently referenced:
Daniel, Timothy, Luke, Mark, Exodus, Genesis, Hebrews, Jeremiah, Matthew, Galatians, Psalms, Ephesians, and Isaiah.
Community Engagement:
Many posts include direct commentary, shares, and responses from followers, showing vibrant discussions centered on biblical meaning, church practice, and doctrinal clarification