The Synoptic Enigma

📜 Early Views and the Augustinian Hypothesis

For centuries, the prevailing view, often termed the Augustinian hypothesis, suggested Matthew was the first Gospel written, followed by Mark, then Luke, and finally John. This perspective, articulated by figures like Augustine of Hippo, implied a chronological and literary dependence where later Gospels drew upon earlier ones. The tradition held that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew, with Mark and Luke writing in Greek, potentially drawing from Matthew's account.

💡 Storr and Lachmann: Seeds of Doubt

The late 18th century saw the emergence of challenges to the traditional order. Gottlob Christian Storr, in 1786, proposed Marcan priority. Later, in 1835, Karl Lachmann, through comparative analysis of the Gospels' narrative order, observed that Mark frequently aligned with Matthew against Luke, and Luke with Mark against Matthew, suggesting Mark preserved a more consistent sequence. Lachmann inferred that Mark likely represented an early, fixed order of Jesus' ministry.

🚀 Wilke, Weisse, and Holtzmann: Establishing Marcan Priority

Building upon Lachmann's observations, Christian Gottlob Wilke (1838) and Christian Hermann Weisse (1838) independently argued that Mark not only reflected the order but also served as the source for Matthew and Luke. Although initially met with resistance, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's influential endorsement in 1863 solidified Marcan priority as a leading theory. Subsequent statistical analyses by scholars like J. C. Hawkins further bolstered the case, leading to widespread acceptance by the early 20th century.

🔄 Modern Revisions and Counterarguments

Despite its dominance, Marcan priority has faced renewed challenges. Scholars like B. C. Butler and William R. Farmer revived arguments for Matthaean priority. More recently, hypotheses like the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis have gained attention. This ongoing scholarly dialogue underscores the complexity of the synoptic problem, with contemporary researchers exploring various models with nuanced interpretations of the textual evidence.

📊 Internal Consistency

Arguments for Marcan priority primarily rely on internal evidence derived from comparing the texts themselves. The observation that Mark's sequence of pericopae (narrative units) is generally preserved or adapted by Matthew and Luke, while the double tradition material shows less consistent ordering, is a key point. This suggests Matthew and Luke were working with Mark's structure.

✍️ Stylistic Analysis

Mark's distinctive Greek style—characterized by Latinisms, frequent use of "kai" (and), "euthys" (immediately), historical present tense, and a generally colloquial tone—is often cited. Matthew and Luke tend to refine Mark's style, replacing awkward phrasing or simplifying vocabulary. Proponents of Marcan priority argue this indicates Matthew and Luke improving upon Mark's text, rather than Mark recasting their more polished prose.

✂️ Material Omissions and Additions

Mark is the shortest Synoptic Gospel, omitting significant material found in Matthew and Luke, such as the Nativity narratives and the Lord's Prayer. Marcan priority explains these omissions as Mark's deliberate selection, possibly focusing on Peter's eyewitness testimony or a kerygmatic (preaching-focused) purpose. Conversely, if Mark were written last, its omissions would seem peculiar, requiring explanation for why so little new material was added.

❗ "Hard Readings" and Unique Details

Mark contains several "hard readings"—passages that portray Jesus, the apostles, or events in a less favorable or more complex light compared to Matthew and Luke. Examples include Jesus' limited ability to perform miracles in Nazareth due to unbelief, the disciples' lack of understanding, and the peculiar incident of the naked fugitive. Marcan priority suggests these difficult elements were original to Mark and subsequently smoothed out or omitted by Matthew and Luke, who were likely working from Mark's text.

➖ Material Omitted by Matthew and Luke

Mark's brevity is notable. Key elements absent from Mark include detailed infancy narratives (found in Matthew and Luke) and the Lord's Prayer (present in both). Marcan priority suggests these omissions reflect Mark's specific editorial focus, possibly prioritizing eyewitness testimony from Peter or aiming for a concise kerygmatic message. The absence of such significant material poses a challenge for theories suggesting Mark wrote last.

➕ Unique Passages in Mark

While most of Mark's content is paralleled in Matthew or Luke, a few passages appear uniquely in Mark. These include the Parable of the Growing Seed, the healing of the deaf mute of the Decapolis, the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida, and the incident of the naked fugitive. The presence of these unique, sometimes obscure, passages is seen by Marcan priority proponents as difficult to explain if Mark were merely compiling from Matthew and Luke, but more plausible if Mark were drawing from an independent source.

📍 Narrative Details

Beyond distinct pericopae, Mark often includes specific details absent in the parallels, such as the location of Jesus sleeping on a cushion during the storm or the use of saliva in healing. Marcan priority views these as Mark's characteristic narrative embellishments or details preserved from his source (traditionally Peter). Marcan posteriority must explain these details as Mark's unique additions, potentially to enhance vividness or contrast.

👯 The Phenomenon of Dual Phrasing

The Gospel of Mark frequently employs "dualisms"—phrasing where essentially the same idea is expressed twice in adjacent clauses, often linked by "and." Examples include "When it was evening, after sunset" (Mk 1:32) or "the leprosy left him and he was cleansed" (Mk 1:42). This stylistic feature is considered a hallmark of Mark's writing.

🧩 Matthew and Luke's Handling of Dualisms

In many instances where Mark uses dual phrasing, Matthew and Luke, if they parallel the passage, tend to retain only one part of the expression. Intriguingly, when they do select only one part, Matthew might choose one phrase, and Luke the other. Proponents of Marcan priority argue this pattern is best explained by Matthew and Luke trimming Mark's redundancies, sometimes making opposite choices.

🤔 Explanations: Trimming vs. Conflation

Marcan priority suggests this selective retention is evidence of Matthew and Luke editing Mark. Conversely, Marcan posteriority must explain these instances as Mark skillfully combining elements from Matthew and Luke, or perhaps Mark adding these dualisms himself to enhance vividness. The latter requires Mark to be a sophisticated redactor, while the former requires him to be a source document being selectively edited.

📜 Early Church Fathers

Early Christian writers provide accounts of the Gospels' origins, though these traditions are complex and sometimes contradictory. Papias (c. 105) is a key early source, reporting that Mark, as Peter's interpreter, wrote down Peter's preaching in Rome. Papias also states Matthew composed his accounts in the "Hebrew dialect." Later writers like Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen generally followed this tradition, often placing Matthew first chronologically.

❓ Interpretation Challenges

The interpretation of this external evidence is debated among scholars. While many Church Fathers favored Matthaean priority, the precise meaning of their statements (e.g., "Hebrew dialect" for Matthew, Mark's reliance on Peter) is unclear. Some scholars argue that the patristic evidence is too ambiguous or inconsistent to definitively resolve the synoptic problem, leading many modern scholars to prioritize internal textual analysis.

⚖️ Latinisms and Mark's Origin

Mark's Gospel contains numerous Latinisms, leading some scholars to speculate it might have been translated from a Latin original or written by someone familiar with Latin. This observation, coupled with Papias's mention of Peter's preaching in Rome (where Latin was spoken), is sometimes used to support an early date for Mark. However, the consensus remains that the canonical Gospel of Mark is Greek.

📜 References