Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

^:

– What are the arguments in favor of Markan priority?

– What are the arguments in favor of Matthean Priority?

What are the objections against Marcan Priority?

Wikipedia, Marcan Priority – Most scholars since the late nineteenth century have accepted the concept of Marcan priority. It forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory, although a number of scholars support different forms of Marcan priority or reject it altogether.

I am only asking for objections regarding Marcan Priority, not for information on Matthean Priority/Augustinian Hypothesis, (Wikipedia) or Lukan Priority, Wikipedia theories.

The Augustinian hypothesis (sometimes referred to as the Augustinian Proposal) is a solution to the synoptic problem, which concerns the origin of the Gospels of the New Testament. The hypothesis holds that Matthew was written first, by Matthew the Evangelist (see the Gospel According to the Hebrews and the Jewish-Christian Gospels). Mark the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Mark second and used Matthew and the preaching of Peter as sources. Luke the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Luke and was aware of the two Gospels that preceded him. Unlike some competing hypotheses, this hypothesis does not rely on, nor does it argue for, the existence of any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony. Instead, the hypothesis draws primarily upon historical testimony, rather than textual criticism, as the central line of evidence. The foundation of evidence for the hypothesis is the writings of the Church Fathers: historical sources dating back to as early as the first half of the 2nd century, which have been held as authoritative by most Christians for nearly two millennia. Adherents to the Augustinian hypothesis view it as a simple, coherent solution to the synoptic problem.

The Augustinian hypothesis addresses certain fundamental points of contention surrounding the synoptic problem, such as how reliable the early Christian tradition is, which gospel was written first, whether there were other unknown sources behind the gospels, to what extent, if any, the gospels were redacted, and to what extent the gospels were altered between the time they were originally written and the time the first surviving manuscripts appear. These and other matters are raised and alternate resolutions proposed by proponents of competing hypotheses, such as the Two-source hypothesis, its related Q hypothesis, the Farrer hypothesis, and others.

The main two areas of contention within the Augustinian community are whether Matthew was originally written in Aramaic using Hebrew script (see Aramaic primacy), or if the Greek text is the original, and whether it was Mark or Luke who wrote second. A modified version of the Augustinian hypothesis, known as the Griesbach hypothesis, agrees that Matthew wrote first and that Mark depended on Matthew, and does not dispute that the original text was in Hebrew thereafter translated into Greek, but argues that Mark also depended on Luke and therefore that Luke’s gospel precedes Mark’s. Because of the similarity on primary points of contention, this hypothesis is also treated as a possible amendment to the Augustinian hypothesis.

The Jerusalem School Hypothesis is one of many possible solutions to the synoptic problem, that the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew both relied on older texts which are now lost. It was developed by Robert Lindsey, from the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research.

The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research is a group of individuals made up of “Jewish and Christian scholars collaborating in the land and language of Jesus; bringing historical, linguistic and critical expertise to bear on the synoptic gospels.”^[1] Since the Jerusalem School does not hold to one theory as definitive for the synoptic problem, the Hypothesis label can be misleading. The term “Jerusalem School Hypothesis” is used by some to refer more generally to the threefold assumptions of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research: Hebrew language, Jewish Culture, and Synoptic Relationships,^[2] as the basis for explaining the timeline of the Gospels. The Jerusalem School believes that Hebrew should stand along with Greek and Aramaic, as fundamentally important for analyzing the synoptic Gospels, that ancient Jewish Culture, significantly preserved in Rabbinic literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls is carefully engaged in the study of the Synoptic Gospels, and that with the Synoptic Gospels, Greek and Semitic linguistic elements and Jewish cultural items should be identified and carefully traced for a theory of synoptic relationships.

In 1922, William Lockton argued^[3] that Mark copied from Luke and in turn was copied by Matthew, who also copied material from Luke. In 1963, Robert Lisle Lindsey, one of the founding members of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, independently discovered a similar solution to the synoptic problem. In Lindsey’s theory, Matthew copied from Mark but did not know Luke directly. However, Lindsey argued that the synoptic authors all used two other documents for background material, unknown to scholars.^[4] These were:

1. A Hebrew biography of Jesus
2. A literal Greek translation of that original

Robert Lisle Lindsey was attempting to replace an earlier outdated Hebrew translation of the New Testament provided by Franz Delitzsch, who is known as a German Lutheran theologian and Hebraist. Robert Lindsey began by translating the Gospel of Mark, assuming it was the earliest of the Synoptic gospels. Mark’s text is relatively Semitic; it contains hundreds of non-Semitisms, such as the often-repeated phrase “and immediately”, which are not present in Lukan parallels.^{[clarification needed]} This suggested to Robert Lindsey that there could have been the possibility that Mark was copying Luke and not the other way around. Lindsey hypothesized that Matthew and Luke, and probably Mark, were aware of an “anthology of Jesus’ words and deeds taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew biography”. Meaning that there must have been a collection of literary pieces (poems, short stories, etc.) of Jesus’ words and teaching which derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew biography document. As for the second source which is a ‘Greek biography that attempted to reconstruct the story-order of the original Hebrew text and its Greek translation’, Lindsey believes only Luke knew this.

To summarize, Lindsey suggests the following:

1. That Mark used Luke’s writing, with little reference to the anthology
2. Matthew used both Mark’s version and the anthology
3. Luke and Matthew did not know each other’s gospels, but independently used the anthology.

Robert Lindsey is the author of A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark.^[5] This book is famous for the solution mentioned above. He argues the existence of a Proto-Mark gospel (‘Ur Markus’), which was a highly literal translation from an originally Hebrew source into Greek, which he calls the Proto-Narrative. He notes that the text of the Gospel of Luke is the most authentic to this Proto-Narrative, especially in the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. He says, “It is evident that Mark deviates by paraphrasing from the Proto-narrative.” While it is easy to show that Luke knows a Proto-Mark and not Mark, Lindsey suggests further for Lukan priority.

Robert Lindsey suggested that the first gospel accounts are in Hebrew. These were translated into Greek as the Proto-Narrative and the collection of sayings “Q”. Robert Lindsey says that canonical Luke knows both Proto-Narrative and Q. Canonical Mark knows both Proto-Narrative and Luke as well as the other New Testament documents. Matthew is thought to know the Proto-Narrative and Mark without having awareness of Luke. Matthew has both Proto-Narrative and Mark qualities by harmonizing their texts together, which agrees with Luke through Proto-Narrative against Mark. While Robert Lindsey’s research and pioneering thoughts helped form the basis of what began the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, he was only one of the members of the Jerusalem School.

The Jerusalem School group has a number of scholars in Israel, most importantly Professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University, who has, at least in part, agreed with Lindsey’s source theory.^[6] David Flusser (1917–2000) was a professor of early Christianity and Judaism of the Second Temple Period at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Lindsey was the strongest proponent that a Hebrew biography lies behind the Greek texts of the gospels. But Malcolm Lowe also co-authored an article with David Flusser on a pericope that suggested the importance of Matthew.^[7] These examples highlight the true nature of the “Jerusalem School Hypothesis” which is based upon the three pillars mentioned above and encourages the exploration of Semitic material and anteriority within all three Synoptic Gospels, noting that Luke often has more Semitic-sounding material.

The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research believes that by discussing the Greek texts and seeing how they fit in Hebrew (or Aramaic), they can better grasp the message within the Synoptic Gospels. Through linguistic, archaeological, and cultural discussion of the Greek text in light of its Hebraic context, the Jerusalem School attempts to fuller understanding of the text’s original meaning. With the emphasis on Hebrew, the Jerusalem School scholars are in some way following the pioneering work of M.H. Segal^[8] and Abba BenDavid.^[9] Segal suggested, as early as 1908, that Mishnaic Hebrew shows the character of a living language and that the Jewish people in the land of Israel, at the time of Jesus, used Hebrew as their primary spoken and written language. Understanding how the Synoptic Gospels work and relate within the context of the language, land, and culture in which Jesus lived is more common than it was decades ago in its beginnings, but its vision and gatherings still provide a unique opportunity for Jews and Christians to gather around Greek Synoptic Gospel texts and discuss them in modern Hebrew.

Arguments Against Marcan Priority

Introduction

The Synoptic Problem—the literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—remains one of the most debated questions in New Testament studies. Since the late nineteenth century, the dominant scholarly solution has been the Two-Source Hypothesis, which assumes that Mark was the earliest written Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark along with another hypothetical sayings source, “Q.” This position, often termed Marcan Priority, was most famously articulated by B. H. Streeter in his The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924).¹

However, despite its wide acceptance, Marcan Priority has never achieved universal consensus. A number of scholars have raised substantive objections, offering alternative theories such as the Griesbach Hypothesis (also called the Two-Gospel Hypothesis) or the Farrer Hypothesis. Arguments against Marcan Priority fall into several categories: patristic testimony, linguistic and stylistic considerations, the problem of narrative order and “minor agreements,” questions of theological development, and the plausibility of alternative models.

1. Patristic Testimony

One of the most persistent objections to Marcan Priority comes from the witness of the early church fathers. The second-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, as preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, claimed that “Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”² Papias also described Mark as “Peter’s interpreter,” who wrote down what he remembered of Peter’s preaching, “though not in order.”³ While Papias’ account is not without ambiguities, its chronological implication is clear: Matthew preceded Mark.

Other fathers, including Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1) and Clement of Alexandria, likewise indicate that Matthew was written first.⁴ Advocates of Marcan Priority often dismiss this testimony as confused or apologetically motivated, but critics argue that these early witnesses deserve more weight, since they reflect traditions closer in time to the Gospels’ composition. William R. Farmer, the chief modern proponent of the Griesbach Hypothesis, famously insisted that modern scholars should not ignore the unanimous patristic testimony to Matthean priority.⁵

2. Linguistic and Stylistic Considerations

Mark’s Gospel is written in vivid but rough Greek, frequently employing parataxis (the use of kai [“and”] to string clauses together) and colloquial expressions. Proponents of Marcan Priority argue that Matthew and Luke smoothed out Mark’s style, thereby demonstrating Mark’s primitivity. However, critics argue that it is just as plausible—perhaps more so—that Mark abbreviated and simplified the more polished Greek of Matthew or Luke.

For example, Mark frequently omits details present in Matthew and Luke, such as the infancy narratives, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord’s Prayer. While advocates of Marcan Priority explain this by Mark’s theological focus, detractors argue it is improbable that two evangelists (Matthew and Luke) would independently expand Mark with such similar material while retaining so much agreement in wording. Eta Linnemann, who rejected Marcan Priority later in her career, argued that the simplification and abbreviation evident in Mark are more consistent with secondary redaction than with originality.⁶

3. Narrative Order and the Problem of Minor Agreements

Another major objection is the issue of narrative order. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke often share the same sequence of events, there are numerous occasions where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in order. For example, in their arrangement of Jesus’ teachings and in parts of the passion narrative, Matthew and Luke display closer agreement with each other than either does with Mark.

These so-called “minor agreements”—instances where Matthew and Luke agree in wording or content against Mark—pose a significant challenge to Marcan Priority. Streeter acknowledged the problem but argued they could be explained as accidental or due to textual corruption.⁷ Critics counter that the cumulative weight of these agreements is too significant to dismiss. Farmer and others argue that such agreements suggest Mark drew upon Matthew and Luke, rather than the reverse.⁸

4. Theological Development

Advocates of Marcan Priority typically describe Mark’s Christology as more primitive than that of Matthew or Luke. Mark often portrays the disciples in a negative light, omits the birth narrative, and emphasizes the so-called “Messianic Secret.” By contrast, Matthew and Luke present more developed Christological and ecclesiological perspectives.

Opponents, however, argue that theological simplicity does not necessarily indicate chronological priority. Mark’s omissions may reflect theological selectivity rather than primitivity. For instance, Mark may have deliberately excluded the infancy narratives not because they were unknown to him, but because they did not serve his theological purpose. Similarly, Mark’s portrayal of the disciples could be an intentional literary device. As David L. Dungan observed, theological distinctiveness does not automatically translate to chronological sequence.⁹

5. Alternative Hypotheses

The viability of alternative solutions to the Synoptic Problem also undermines the necessity of Marcan Priority. The Griesbach Hypothesis, revived in the twentieth century by Farmer, holds that Matthew was written first, Luke second, and Mark last, with Mark abbreviating and conflating Matthew and Luke. This model not only accords with patristic testimony but also eliminates the need for the hypothetical Q source.¹⁰

Another alternative is the Farrer Hypothesis, defended by Austin Farrer, Michael Goulder, and Mark Goodacre, which proposes that Mark wrote first, followed by Matthew, and that Luke used both Mark and Matthew. While this model retains Marcan Priority, it demonstrates that even among proponents, the Two-Source Hypothesis is not the only explanatory framework. The persistence of viable alternatives underscores the fragility of the case for Marcan Priority.

Conclusion

Although Marcan Priority remains the dominant scholarly consensus, significant objections have been raised throughout modern discussion of the Synoptic Problem. Patristic testimony favors Matthean priority; linguistic and stylistic features suggest Mark’s secondary character; the problem of narrative order and minor agreements challenges the assumption of Mark’s priority; and theological considerations may reflect Mark’s selectivity rather than his primitivity. Finally, the existence of alternative hypotheses demonstrates that Marcan Priority is not inevitable.

The Synoptic Problem, therefore, remains unresolved. While Marcan Priority provides a coherent explanation of much of the data, arguments against it remind us that scholarly consensus is not unassailable. As research continues, the possibility remains open that the future may see a renewed appreciation for alternative models of Gospel origins.

References

• Dungan, David L. A History of the Synoptic Problem. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

• Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964.

• Farrer, Austin. “On Dispensing with Q.” In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, edited by D. E. Nineham, 55–88. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955.

• Goodacre, Mark. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002.

• Linnemann, Eta. Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

• Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924.

Would you like me to format this into a Word (docx) or PDF file with footnotes (instead of inline notes) so you can submit it as a proper academic paper?