Wiki2Web Studio

Create complete, beautiful interactive educational materials in less than 5 minutes.

Print flashcards, homework worksheets, exams/quizzes, study guides, & more.

Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.

Unsaved Work Found!

It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?



The Synoptic Problem: Marcan Priority and Gospel Relationships

At a Glance

Title: The Synoptic Problem: Marcan Priority and Gospel Relationships

Total Categories: 6

Category Stats

  • Foundations of the Synoptic Problem: 2 flashcards, 2 questions
  • The Marcan Priority Hypothesis: 6 flashcards, 9 questions
  • Historical Development and Scholarly Debates: 5 flashcards, 7 questions
  • Alternative Synoptic Hypotheses: 9 flashcards, 12 questions
  • Key Evidence and Analytical Concepts: 18 flashcards, 24 questions
  • Patristic Testimony and Interpretation: 8 flashcards, 11 questions

Total Stats

  • Total Flashcards: 48
  • True/False Questions: 41
  • Multiple Choice Questions: 24
  • Total Questions: 65

Instructions

Click the button to expand the instructions for how to use the Wiki2Web Teacher studio in order to print, edit, and export data about The Synoptic Problem: Marcan Priority and Gospel Relationships

Welcome to Your Curriculum Command Center

This guide will turn you into a Wiki2web Studio power user. Let's unlock the features designed to give you back your weekends.

The Core Concept: What is a "Kit"?

Think of a Kit as your all-in-one digital lesson plan. It's a single, portable file that contains every piece of content for a topic: your subject categories, a central image, all your flashcards, and all your questions. The true power of the Studio is speed—once a kit is made (or you import one), you are just minutes away from printing an entire set of coursework.

Getting Started is Simple:

  • Create New Kit: Start with a clean slate. Perfect for a brand-new lesson idea.
  • Import & Edit Existing Kit: Load a .json kit file from your computer to continue your work or to modify a kit created by a colleague.
  • Restore Session: The Studio automatically saves your progress in your browser. If you get interrupted, you can restore your unsaved work with one click.

Step 1: Laying the Foundation (The Authoring Tools)

This is where you build the core knowledge of your Kit. Use the left-side navigation panel to switch between these powerful authoring modules.

⚙️ Kit Manager: Your Kit's Identity

This is the high-level control panel for your project.

  • Kit Name: Give your Kit a clear title. This will appear on all your printed materials.
  • Master Image: Upload a custom cover image for your Kit. This is essential for giving your content a professional visual identity, and it's used as the main graphic when you export your Kit as an interactive game.
  • Topics: Create the structure for your lesson. Add topics like "Chapter 1," "Vocabulary," or "Key Formulas." All flashcards and questions will be organized under these topics.

🃏 Flashcard Author: Building the Knowledge Blocks

Flashcards are the fundamental concepts of your Kit. Create them here to define terms, list facts, or pose simple questions.

  • Click "➕ Add New Flashcard" to open the editor.
  • Fill in the term/question and the definition/answer.
  • Assign the flashcard to one of your pre-defined topics.
  • To edit or remove a flashcard, simply use the ✏️ (Edit) or ❌ (Delete) icons next to any entry in the list.

✍️ Question Author: Assessing Understanding

Create a bank of questions to test knowledge. These questions are the engine for your worksheets and exams.

  • Click "➕ Add New Question".
  • Choose a Type: True/False for quick checks or Multiple Choice for more complex assessments.
  • To edit an existing question, click the ✏️ icon. You can change the question text, options, correct answer, and explanation at any time.
  • The Explanation field is a powerful tool: the text you enter here will automatically appear on the teacher's answer key and on the Smart Study Guide, providing instant feedback.

🔗 Intelligent Mapper: The Smart Connection

This is the secret sauce of the Studio. The Mapper transforms your content from a simple list into an interconnected web of knowledge, automating the creation of amazing study guides.

  • Step 1: Select a question from the list on the left.
  • Step 2: In the right panel, click on every flashcard that contains a concept required to answer that question. They will turn green, indicating a successful link.
  • The Payoff: When you generate a Smart Study Guide, these linked flashcards will automatically appear under each question as "Related Concepts."

Step 2: The Magic (The Generator Suite)

You've built your content. Now, with a few clicks, turn it into a full suite of professional, ready-to-use materials. What used to take hours of formatting and copying-and-pasting can now be done in seconds.

🎓 Smart Study Guide Maker

Instantly create the ultimate review document. It combines your questions, the correct answers, your detailed explanations, and all the "Related Concepts" you linked in the Mapper into one cohesive, printable guide.

📝 Worksheet & 📄 Exam Builder

Generate unique assessments every time. The questions and multiple-choice options are randomized automatically. Simply select your topics, choose how many questions you need, and generate:

  • A Student Version, clean and ready for quizzing.
  • A Teacher Version, complete with a detailed answer key and the explanations you wrote.

🖨️ Flashcard Printer

Forget wrestling with table layouts in a word processor. Select a topic, choose a cards-per-page layout, and instantly generate perfectly formatted, print-ready flashcard sheets.

Step 3: Saving and Collaborating

  • 💾 Export & Save Kit: This is your primary save function. It downloads the entire Kit (content, images, and all) to your computer as a single .json file. Use this to create permanent backups and share your work with others.
  • ➕ Import & Merge Kit: Combine your work. You can merge a colleague's Kit into your own or combine two of your lessons into a larger review Kit.

You're now ready to reclaim your time.

You're not just a teacher; you're a curriculum designer, and this is your Studio.

This page is an interactive visualization based on the Wikipedia article "Marcan priority" (opens in new tab) and its cited references.

Text content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (opens in new tab). Additional terms may apply.

Disclaimer: This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute any kind of advice. The information is not a substitute for consulting official sources or records or seeking advice from qualified professionals.


Owned and operated by Artificial General Intelligence LLC, a Michigan Registered LLC
Prompt engineering done with Gracekits.com
All rights reserved
Sitemaps | Contact

Export Options





Study Guide: The Synoptic Problem: Marcan Priority and Gospel Relationships

Study Guide: The Synoptic Problem: Marcan Priority and Gospel Relationships

Foundations of the Synoptic Problem

The 'synoptic problem' primarily concerns the scholarly investigation into the literary relationships and dependencies among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Answer: True

The synoptic problem is the academic inquiry focused on understanding how the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are related textually, examining their similarities and differences to determine their literary origins and connections.

Related Concepts:

  • How does Marcan priority relate to the 'synoptic problem'?: Marcan priority is a key component in addressing the 'synoptic problem,' which is the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis suggests a specific order of composition (Mark first) and a direction of influence (Mark influencing Matthew and Luke) to explain the similarities and differences among these texts.
  • What is the 'double tradition' in the context of the Synoptic Gospels?: The 'double tradition' refers to the extensive material, comprising around 200 verses, that is shared between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but is not found in the Gospel of Mark. Explaining the origin of this shared material is a key aspect of the synoptic problem.
  • How do modern synoptic scholars generally evaluate the external (patristic) evidence?: Many modern synoptic scholars consider the external, patristic evidence to be of limited help in resolving the synoptic problem. They tend to focus more heavily on the internal evidence found within the texts themselves to determine the relationships between the Gospels.

Modern synoptic scholars generally find the external (patristic) evidence to be highly decisive in resolving the synoptic problem.

Answer: False

Many contemporary scholars of the synoptic problem place greater emphasis on internal textual evidence rather than patristic testimony, which they often find ambiguous or contradictory for definitively resolving the literary relationships between the Gospels.

Related Concepts:

  • How do modern synoptic scholars generally evaluate the external (patristic) evidence?: Many modern synoptic scholars consider the external, patristic evidence to be of limited help in resolving the synoptic problem. They tend to focus more heavily on the internal evidence found within the texts themselves to determine the relationships between the Gospels.

The Marcan Priority Hypothesis

The hypothesis of Marcan priority posits that the Gospel of Mark was the earliest Synoptic Gospel composed, serving as a foundational source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The assertion that Luke was the first Synoptic Gospel written directly contradicts this hypothesis.

Answer: False

The hypothesis of Marcan priority asserts that the Gospel of Mark was the initial Synoptic Gospel written, subsequently influencing the composition of Matthew and Luke. Therefore, the statement that Luke was the first Synoptic Gospel is factually incorrect within the context of Marcan priority.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • How does Marcan priority relate to the 'synoptic problem'?: Marcan priority is a key component in addressing the 'synoptic problem,' which is the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis suggests a specific order of composition (Mark first) and a direction of influence (Mark influencing Matthew and Luke) to explain the similarities and differences among these texts.
  • How does Marcan priority explain the omissions in Mark's Gospel?: Proponents of Marcan priority find it relatively easy to explain Mark's omissions. They suggest that Matthew and Luke, as later authors, incorporated material from Mark while also adding their own unique content, including the omitted sections, to provide a fuller account.

Proponents of Marcan priority find it relatively straightforward to explain Mark's omissions by positing that later authors, Matthew and Luke, selectively incorporated material from Mark while adding their own unique content.

Answer: True

A key argument for Marcan priority is that it logically explains Mark's brevity and omissions: Matthew and Luke, as later writers, could have drawn from Mark and supplemented it with additional traditions or sources.

Related Concepts:

  • How does Marcan priority explain the omissions in Mark's Gospel?: Proponents of Marcan priority find it relatively easy to explain Mark's omissions. They suggest that Matthew and Luke, as later authors, incorporated material from Mark while also adding their own unique content, including the omitted sections, to provide a fuller account.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • What is the significance of Mark omitting Jesus' infancy narrative?: The absence of an infancy narrative in Mark, which is present in Matthew and Luke, is a significant omission. Marcan priority easily explains this by suggesting Matthew and Luke added this material, while Marcan posteriority finds it harder to account for why Mark would omit such foundational information if it were available.

The 'naked fugitive' passage (Mark 14:51-52) is cited as evidence supporting Marcan priority because its obscurity and lack of clear purpose are difficult to explain if Mark were a later compilation.

Answer: True

The unique and enigmatic 'naked fugitive' incident in Mark is often presented as evidence for Marcan priority. Its inclusion is seen as more plausible in an early source that later authors might have omitted or altered, rather than a detail added by a later compiler.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the significance of the 'naked fugitive' passage found only in Mark?: The 'naked fugitive' passage (Mark 14:51-52) is unique to Mark's Gospel. Its obscure nature and lack of obvious meaning or purpose make it difficult to explain if Mark were a later compilation of Matthew and Luke, thus lending support to the idea that Mark is an original source.
  • How does Marcan priority explain the omissions in Mark's Gospel?: Proponents of Marcan priority find it relatively easy to explain Mark's omissions. They suggest that Matthew and Luke, as later authors, incorporated material from Mark while also adding their own unique content, including the omitted sections, to provide a fuller account.
  • How do different synoptic hypotheses interpret Mark's use of 'dualisms'?: Supporters of Marcan priority suggest that Matthew and Luke trimmed Mark's dualisms, sometimes each selecting a different half. Conversely, proponents of Marcan posteriority argue that Mark himself conflated parallel accounts from Matthew and Luke, creating these dualistic expressions.

Mark's frequent use of 'euthys' (immediately) is seen by some scholars as evidence of its early, vivid narrative style.

Answer: True

The adverb 'euthys' (immediately) appears with notable frequency in Mark's Gospel. Proponents of Marcan priority often interpret this as a stylistic marker contributing to Mark's characteristic immediacy and rapid narrative pace.

Related Concepts:

  • How do scholars interpret Mark's use of 'euthys' (immediately)?: Mark's frequent use of the adverb 'euthys' (immediately) is a distinctive stylistic feature. Supporters of Marcan priority might see this as contributing to Mark's fast-paced narrative style. Conversely, those favoring Marcan posteriority might view it as a characteristic Mark adopted when recasting material from Matthew and Luke.
  • How do scholars interpret the stylistic differences between Mark and the other Synoptic Gospels?: The Greek idiom employed in the Gospel of Mark is frequently characterized by its distinctiveness, incorporating numerous Latinisms, recurrent conjunctions such as 'kai' (and) and 'euthys' (immediately), and an overall colloquial tenor. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke typically exhibit a more refined and literary Greek style, often streamlining Mark's stylistic features. Proponents of Marcan priority interpret these differences as evidence of Matthew and Luke refining Mark's foundational text, whereas advocates of Marcan posteriority suggest Mark adopted a vivid, perhaps oral, style when recasting material from Matthew and Luke.

The omission of Jesus' infancy narrative in Mark is considered difficult to explain under the Marcan priority hypothesis.

Answer: False

The omission of the infancy narrative in Mark is generally considered *easy* to explain under Marcan priority, as it aligns with the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke added such material later, drawing from other sources or traditions.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the significance of Mark omitting Jesus' infancy narrative?: The absence of an infancy narrative in Mark, which is present in Matthew and Luke, is a significant omission. Marcan priority easily explains this by suggesting Matthew and Luke added this material, while Marcan posteriority finds it harder to account for why Mark would omit such foundational information if it were available.
  • How does Marcan priority explain the omissions in Mark's Gospel?: Proponents of Marcan priority find it relatively easy to explain Mark's omissions. They suggest that Matthew and Luke, as later authors, incorporated material from Mark while also adding their own unique content, including the omitted sections, to provide a fuller account.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.

What is the central claim of the Marcan priority hypothesis regarding the Synoptic Gospels?

Answer: The Gospel of Mark was written first and served as a source for Matthew and Luke.

The central tenet of the Marcan priority hypothesis is that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest Synoptic Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke subsequently drew upon Mark as a primary source for their own compositions.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • How does Marcan priority relate to the 'synoptic problem'?: Marcan priority is a key component in addressing the 'synoptic problem,' which is the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis suggests a specific order of composition (Mark first) and a direction of influence (Mark influencing Matthew and Luke) to explain the similarities and differences among these texts.
  • How does Marcan priority explain the omissions in Mark's Gospel?: Proponents of Marcan priority find it relatively easy to explain Mark's omissions. They suggest that Matthew and Luke, as later authors, incorporated material from Mark while also adding their own unique content, including the omitted sections, to provide a fuller account.

Which passage, found only in Mark, is cited as evidence for Marcan priority due to its obscure nature?

Answer: The Incident of the Naked Fugitive

The 'naked fugitive' passage (Mark 14:51-52), unique to Mark, is often cited as evidence for Marcan priority because its peculiar and seemingly purposeless nature is argued to be more characteristic of an original source than a later compilation.

Related Concepts:

  • How does Marcan priority explain the omissions in Mark's Gospel?: Proponents of Marcan priority find it relatively easy to explain Mark's omissions. They suggest that Matthew and Luke, as later authors, incorporated material from Mark while also adding their own unique content, including the omitted sections, to provide a fuller account.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • What is the significance of Mark omitting Jesus' infancy narrative?: The absence of an infancy narrative in Mark, which is present in Matthew and Luke, is a significant omission. Marcan priority easily explains this by suggesting Matthew and Luke added this material, while Marcan posteriority finds it harder to account for why Mark would omit such foundational information if it were available.

How do proponents of Marcan priority typically explain the presence of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark?

Answer: Matthew and Luke added it from a separate source.

Proponents of Marcan priority typically explain the absence of the Lord's Prayer in Mark by suggesting that Matthew and Luke incorporated this significant teaching from another source or tradition, as Mark focused on a different selection of Jesus' activities.

Related Concepts:

  • How does Marcan priority explain the omissions in Mark's Gospel?: Proponents of Marcan priority find it relatively easy to explain Mark's omissions. They suggest that Matthew and Luke, as later authors, incorporated material from Mark while also adding their own unique content, including the omitted sections, to provide a fuller account.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • How does Marcan priority relate to the 'synoptic problem'?: Marcan priority is a key component in addressing the 'synoptic problem,' which is the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis suggests a specific order of composition (Mark first) and a direction of influence (Mark influencing Matthew and Luke) to explain the similarities and differences among these texts.

The 'calming of the storm' narrative in Mark includes more specific details than the parallels in Matthew and Luke. How might this support Marcan priority?

Answer: It indicates Mark preserved original details that later Gospels simplified.

The greater detail in Mark's account of the 'calming of the storm' is often interpreted under Marcan priority as evidence that Mark retained original details which Matthew and Luke subsequently streamlined or omitted.

Related Concepts:

  • How does the argument about Mark's unique details, like the 'calming of the storm', support different hypotheses?: The 'calming of the storm' narrative in Mark includes more details (e.g., Jesus sleeping on a cushion, the waves breaking into the boat) than the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Marcan priority suggests Matthew and Luke trimmed these details, while Marcan posteriority argues Mark added them for vividness, potentially conflating sources.
  • How do different synoptic hypotheses interpret Mark's use of 'dualisms'?: Supporters of Marcan priority suggest that Matthew and Luke trimmed Mark's dualisms, sometimes each selecting a different half. Conversely, proponents of Marcan posteriority argue that Mark himself conflated parallel accounts from Matthew and Luke, creating these dualistic expressions.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.

Historical Development and Scholarly Debates

Gottlob Christian Storr is credited with proposing the hypothesis of Marcan priority in the late 18th century, challenging the traditional view of Matthean priority.

Answer: True

Gottlob Christian Storr's work in 1786 is recognized as an early articulation of the Marcan priority hypothesis, suggesting that the Gospel of Mark predated Matthew and Luke, thereby initiating a significant scholarly debate.

Related Concepts:

  • Who first proposed that Mark was the earliest Gospel, and when?: Gottlob Christian Storr is credited with proposing the hypothesis of Marcan priority in 1786. He suggested that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the Synoptic Gospels to be written, challenging the long-held tradition that Matthew was the earliest.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • How does Marcan priority relate to the 'synoptic problem'?: Marcan priority is a key component in addressing the 'synoptic problem,' which is the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis suggests a specific order of composition (Mark first) and a direction of influence (Mark influencing Matthew and Luke) to explain the similarities and differences among these texts.

Karl Lachmann's 1835 analysis suggested that Matthew and Luke often followed Mark's sequence of passages when they agreed with each other.

Answer: True

Karl Lachmann's comparative study in 1835 observed that the order of pericopae in Matthew and Luke frequently mirrored that of Mark, particularly when both later Gospels agreed. This observation was interpreted as evidence for Mark's foundational role.

Related Concepts:

  • How did Karl Lachmann's work in 1835 contribute to the Marcan priority discussion?: In 1835, Karl Lachmann compared the Synoptic Gospels and observed that Mark's sequence of passages was frequently followed by both Matthew and Luke when they agreed with each other, and by one of them when they disagreed. He inferred from this pattern that Mark's Gospel likely preserved a more fixed order of events, suggesting it was a foundational source.
  • How does the 'Lachmann fallacy' relate to arguments about the order of pericopae?: The 'Lachmann fallacy' refers to an argument for Marcan priority based on the order of narrative units (pericopae) in the Synoptic Gospels. While Lachmann observed that Mark's order was often preserved by Matthew and Luke, the interpretation of this observation as definitive proof of Mark's priority has been debated, with some viewing it as a neutral observation rather than conclusive evidence.
  • Which theologians independently developed Lachmann's ideas further in 1838?: Christian Gottlob Wilke and Christian Hermann Weisse independently expanded upon Lachmann's observations in 1838. They concluded not only that Mark best represented the order of the other Gospels' sources but also that Mark itself served as the direct source for Matthew and Luke.

Christian Hermann Weisse and Christian Gottlob Wilke independently proposed in 1838 that Mark served as a direct source for Matthew and Luke.

Answer: True

In 1838, both Christian Hermann Weisse and Christian Gottlob Wilke independently concluded that Mark was not only the earliest Gospel but also served as a direct literary source for both Matthew and Luke, thereby solidifying the Marcan priority hypothesis.

Related Concepts:

  • Which theologians independently developed Lachmann's ideas further in 1838?: Christian Gottlob Wilke and Christian Hermann Weisse independently expanded upon Lachmann's observations in 1838. They concluded not only that Mark best represented the order of the other Gospels' sources but also that Mark itself served as the direct source for Matthew and Luke.

Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's influential work in the mid-19th century supported and refined the hypothesis of Marcan priority.

Answer: True

Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's scholarship in the 1860s was pivotal in gaining widespread acceptance for Marcan priority. His detailed analysis supported the view that Mark was a primary source for Matthew and Luke, albeit with nuances regarding the use of other potential sources.

Related Concepts:

  • What was Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's role in the acceptance of Marcan priority?: Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's endorsement of a qualified form of Marcan priority in 1863 was instrumental in gaining wider acceptance for the theory. His work helped solidify the idea that Mark was a primary source for the other Synoptic Gospels.
  • Who first proposed that Mark was the earliest Gospel, and when?: Gottlob Christian Storr is credited with proposing the hypothesis of Marcan priority in 1786. He suggested that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the Synoptic Gospels to be written, challenging the long-held tradition that Matthew was the earliest.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.

The 'Lachmann fallacy' refers to the argument that Mark's Gospel must be the earliest simply because its sequence of pericopae is often preserved by Matthew and Luke.

Answer: True

The 'Lachmann fallacy' is a term used to critique the interpretation of Lachmann's observation about pericopae order. While Lachmann noted Mark's sequence was often preserved, the argument that this preservation *alone* definitively proves Mark's priority has been debated as potentially fallacious.

Related Concepts:

  • How does the 'Lachmann fallacy' relate to arguments about the order of pericopae?: The 'Lachmann fallacy' refers to an argument for Marcan priority based on the order of narrative units (pericopae) in the Synoptic Gospels. While Lachmann observed that Mark's order was often preserved by Matthew and Luke, the interpretation of this observation as definitive proof of Mark's priority has been debated, with some viewing it as a neutral observation rather than conclusive evidence.
  • How did Karl Lachmann's work in 1835 contribute to the Marcan priority discussion?: In 1835, Karl Lachmann compared the Synoptic Gospels and observed that Mark's sequence of passages was frequently followed by both Matthew and Luke when they agreed with each other, and by one of them when they disagreed. He inferred from this pattern that Mark's Gospel likely preserved a more fixed order of events, suggesting it was a foundational source.
  • Which theologians independently developed Lachmann's ideas further in 1838?: Christian Gottlob Wilke and Christian Hermann Weisse independently expanded upon Lachmann's observations in 1838. They concluded not only that Mark best represented the order of the other Gospels' sources but also that Mark itself served as the direct source for Matthew and Luke.

Who is credited with first proposing the hypothesis of Marcan priority in 1786?

Answer: Gottlob Christian Storr

Gottlob Christian Storr is widely recognized for articulating the hypothesis of Marcan priority in 1786, suggesting that the Gospel of Mark predated the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • Who first proposed that Mark was the earliest Gospel, and when?: Gottlob Christian Storr is credited with proposing the hypothesis of Marcan priority in 1786. He suggested that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the Synoptic Gospels to be written, challenging the long-held tradition that Matthew was the earliest.
  • How does Marcan priority relate to the 'synoptic problem'?: Marcan priority is a key component in addressing the 'synoptic problem,' which is the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis suggests a specific order of composition (Mark first) and a direction of influence (Mark influencing Matthew and Luke) to explain the similarities and differences among these texts.

Karl Lachmann's 1835 work contributed to Marcan priority by observing what pattern among the Synoptic Gospels?

Answer: Mark's sequence of passages was frequently followed by Matthew and Luke.

Karl Lachmann's analysis noted that when Matthew and Luke agreed with each other, their sequence of narrative units (pericopae) often mirrored that of Mark. This observation was interpreted as evidence that Mark preserved an early, fixed order.

Related Concepts:

  • How does the 'Lachmann fallacy' relate to arguments about the order of pericopae?: The 'Lachmann fallacy' refers to an argument for Marcan priority based on the order of narrative units (pericopae) in the Synoptic Gospels. While Lachmann observed that Mark's order was often preserved by Matthew and Luke, the interpretation of this observation as definitive proof of Mark's priority has been debated, with some viewing it as a neutral observation rather than conclusive evidence.
  • How did Karl Lachmann's work in 1835 contribute to the Marcan priority discussion?: In 1835, Karl Lachmann compared the Synoptic Gospels and observed that Mark's sequence of passages was frequently followed by both Matthew and Luke when they agreed with each other, and by one of them when they disagreed. He inferred from this pattern that Mark's Gospel likely preserved a more fixed order of events, suggesting it was a foundational source.
  • Which theologians independently developed Lachmann's ideas further in 1838?: Christian Gottlob Wilke and Christian Hermann Weisse independently expanded upon Lachmann's observations in 1838. They concluded not only that Mark best represented the order of the other Gospels' sources but also that Mark itself served as the direct source for Matthew and Luke.

Alternative Synoptic Hypotheses

The Farrer hypothesis proposes a direct literary dependence chain from Mark to Matthew to Luke, thereby eliminating the necessity for a separate 'Q source'.

Answer: True

The Farrer hypothesis posits that Mark was the first Gospel written, Matthew used Mark as a source, and Luke subsequently used Matthew as his primary source. This sequential model accounts for the shared material without invoking a separate 'Q source'.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the Farrer hypothesis as an alternative to the two-source theory?: The Farrer hypothesis, an alternative within the framework of Marcan priority, suggests a simpler dependency chain: Mark was written first, followed by Matthew, which then served as a source for Luke. This theory posits that the material shared only by Matthew and Luke (the 'double tradition') is simply content that Luke selected from Matthew, thus eliminating the need for a separate Q source.
  • What is the 'Matthean Posteriority hypothesis' and how does it differ from the Farrer hypothesis?: Both the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis operate under the assumption of Marcan priority (Mark written first). However, the Farrer hypothesis proposes Mark -> Matthew -> Luke, while the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis suggests Mark -> Luke -> Matthew, with Matthew using Luke as a source.
  • What does the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis propose?: The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis is similar to the Farrer hypothesis but reverses the dependency between Matthew and Luke. It suggests that Mark was written first, followed by Luke, and then Matthew used both Mark and Luke as sources. This view has seen a resurgence in recent scholarship.

The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis suggests that Matthew was the earliest Gospel, followed by Luke and then Mark.

Answer: False

The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis, while acknowledging Mark's priority, proposes a sequence of Mark -> Luke -> Matthew, suggesting Luke preceded Matthew. This differs from traditional Matthean priority which places Matthew first.

Related Concepts:

  • What does the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis propose?: The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis is similar to the Farrer hypothesis but reverses the dependency between Matthew and Luke. It suggests that Mark was written first, followed by Luke, and then Matthew used both Mark and Luke as sources. This view has seen a resurgence in recent scholarship.
  • What is the 'Matthean priority' argument based on the traditional view?: Matthean priority, as supported by the traditional view of the Church Fathers and the Augustinian hypothesis, argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This view posits that Mark and Luke were subsequently influenced by Matthew, contrary to the Marcan priority hypothesis.
  • What is the 'Matthean Posteriority hypothesis' and how does it differ from the Farrer hypothesis?: Both the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis operate under the assumption of Marcan priority (Mark written first). However, the Farrer hypothesis proposes Mark -> Matthew -> Luke, while the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis suggests Mark -> Luke -> Matthew, with Matthew using Luke as a source.

The 'two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis' posits that Mark is the earliest Gospel and was used by Matthew and Luke.

Answer: False

The Griesbach (or two-Gospel) hypothesis proposes the opposite order: Matthew was written first, followed by Luke, and Mark was a later compilation derived from both Matthew and Luke.

Related Concepts:

  • What does the 'two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis' propose as an alternative to Marcan priority?: The two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis is a major alternative to Marcan priority. It posits that Mark is the latest of the Synoptic Gospels and was created by combining material from Matthew and Luke. In this view, Matthew was written first, followed by Luke, and then Mark drew from both.
  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.
  • Who first proposed that Mark was the earliest Gospel, and when?: Gottlob Christian Storr is credited with proposing the hypothesis of Marcan priority in 1786. He suggested that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the Synoptic Gospels to be written, challenging the long-held tradition that Matthew was the earliest.

The 'independence hypothesis' suggests that the Synoptic Gospels were directly dependent on each other, using Mark as a primary source.

Answer: False

The independence hypothesis posits that the Synoptic Gospels were composed independently of one another, drawing solely from oral traditions or separate sources, without direct literary borrowing from each other.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'independence hypothesis' concerning the Synoptic Gospels?: The independence hypothesis denies any direct literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. It asserts that each Gospel was an original composition, drawing solely from oral traditions and sources, without using any of the other Synoptic Gospels as written sources.
  • What is the 'multi-source hypothesis' regarding the Synoptic Gospels?: The multi-source hypothesis suggests that each Synoptic Gospel combined material from various distinct earlier documents, rather than relying on a single primary source like Mark or a Q document. This approach posits a more complex web of sources for each Gospel.
  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.

The Matthean priority argument, supported by traditional views, posits that Mark was the first Gospel written.

Answer: False

The Matthean priority argument, often rooted in traditional interpretations, contends that Matthew was the first Gospel composed. This directly contradicts the hypothesis that Mark was the earliest.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'Matthean priority' argument based on the traditional view?: Matthean priority, as supported by the traditional view of the Church Fathers and the Augustinian hypothesis, argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This view posits that Mark and Luke were subsequently influenced by Matthew, contrary to the Marcan priority hypothesis.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • How does Marcan priority relate to the 'synoptic problem'?: Marcan priority is a key component in addressing the 'synoptic problem,' which is the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis suggests a specific order of composition (Mark first) and a direction of influence (Mark influencing Matthew and Luke) to explain the similarities and differences among these texts.

The Jerusalem school hypothesis suggests Mark used Luke as a source, and Matthew used Mark.

Answer: True

The Jerusalem school hypothesis proposes a complex relationship where Mark utilized Luke as a source, and Matthew, in turn, used Mark. This theory represents an alternative to the dominant two-source hypothesis.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'Jerusalem school hypothesis' related to Lucan priority?: The Jerusalem school hypothesis is a complex theory that revives Lucan priority. It suggests that Mark used Luke as a source, and Matthew used Mark, but not Luke. All three Synoptics are also thought to draw from a hypothetical Greek translation of an earlier Hebrew work.
  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.
  • What does the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis propose?: The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis is similar to the Farrer hypothesis but reverses the dependency between Matthew and Luke. It suggests that Mark was written first, followed by Luke, and then Matthew used both Mark and Luke as sources. This view has seen a resurgence in recent scholarship.

The 'Q+/Papias hypothesis' is a theory suggesting complex relationships between the Q source and traditions associated with Papias.

Answer: True

The 'Q+/Papias hypothesis' represents one of several proposed models attempting to explain the origins and relationships of the Synoptic Gospels, specifically integrating the concept of the Q source with traditions attributed to Papias of Hierapolis.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'Q+/Papias hypothesis'?: The 'Q+/Papias hypothesis' is one of several theories related to the Synoptic problem. While the exact details are complex, it involves the Q source and potentially the writings or traditions associated with Papias of Hierapolis, suggesting specific relationships between early Gospel materials.
  • What is the 'Q source' in the context of the two-source hypothesis?: The 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle,' meaning source) is a hypothetical document proposed in the two-source hypothesis. It is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus that are common to both Matthew and Luke but are absent in Mark, serving as a second major source alongside Mark for these two Gospels.

Which alternative hypothesis suggests Mark was written first, followed by Matthew, which then served as a source for Luke, thus eliminating the need for a 'Q source'?

Answer: The Farrer hypothesis

The Farrer hypothesis proposes a direct literary lineage: Mark -> Matthew -> Luke. This model assumes Marcan priority and explains the shared material between Matthew and Luke without recourse to a separate Q source.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.
  • What is the Farrer hypothesis as an alternative to the two-source theory?: The Farrer hypothesis, an alternative within the framework of Marcan priority, suggests a simpler dependency chain: Mark was written first, followed by Matthew, which then served as a source for Luke. This theory posits that the material shared only by Matthew and Luke (the 'double tradition') is simply content that Luke selected from Matthew, thus eliminating the need for a separate Q source.
  • What is the 'Q source' in the context of the two-source hypothesis?: The 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle,' meaning source) is a hypothetical document proposed in the two-source hypothesis. It is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus that are common to both Matthew and Luke but are absent in Mark, serving as a second major source alongside Mark for these two Gospels.

The 'Matthean Posteriority hypothesis' suggests a different order of dependence than the Farrer hypothesis. What order does it propose?

Answer: Mark -> Luke -> Matthew

The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis posits a sequence where Mark is the earliest, followed by Luke, and then Matthew utilized both Mark and Luke as sources. This contrasts with the Farrer hypothesis (Mark -> Matthew -> Luke).

Related Concepts:

  • What does the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis propose?: The Matthean Posteriority hypothesis is similar to the Farrer hypothesis but reverses the dependency between Matthew and Luke. It suggests that Mark was written first, followed by Luke, and then Matthew used both Mark and Luke as sources. This view has seen a resurgence in recent scholarship.

What does the 'two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis' propose as an alternative to Marcan priority?

Answer: Matthew and Luke are sources for Mark.

The Griesbach hypothesis posits that Matthew was written first, followed by Luke, and that Mark was a later Gospel composed by combining material from both Matthew and Luke.

Related Concepts:

  • What does the 'two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis' propose as an alternative to Marcan priority?: The two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis is a major alternative to Marcan priority. It posits that Mark is the latest of the Synoptic Gospels and was created by combining material from Matthew and Luke. In this view, Matthew was written first, followed by Luke, and then Mark drew from both.
  • How does Marcan priority relate to the 'synoptic problem'?: Marcan priority is a key component in addressing the 'synoptic problem,' which is the scholarly inquiry into the literary relationships between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis suggests a specific order of composition (Mark first) and a direction of influence (Mark influencing Matthew and Luke) to explain the similarities and differences among these texts.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.

The traditional view, often associated with Augustine, held that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This view supports:

Answer: Matthean priority

The traditional view, championed by figures like Augustine, that Matthew was the first Gospel composed is the basis for the 'Matthean priority' hypothesis, which posits Matthew as the earliest Synoptic Gospel.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'Matthean priority' argument based on the traditional view?: Matthean priority, as supported by the traditional view of the Church Fathers and the Augustinian hypothesis, argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This view posits that Mark and Luke were subsequently influenced by Matthew, contrary to the Marcan priority hypothesis.
  • What is the traditional view of Gospel origins held by early Church Fathers?: The tradition passed down by the Church Fathers, dating back to figures like Irenaeus and Augustine of Hippo, generally regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written, often in Hebrew. They believed that Mark and Luke subsequently used Matthew as a source, and that the Gospels were written in a specific order, typically Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John.

What is the 'independence hypothesis' concerning the Synoptic Gospels?

Answer: Each Gospel was an original composition independent of the others.

The independence hypothesis asserts that the Synoptic Gospels were composed without direct literary dependence on one another, drawing instead from independent oral traditions or sources.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'independence hypothesis' concerning the Synoptic Gospels?: The independence hypothesis denies any direct literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. It asserts that each Gospel was an original composition, drawing solely from oral traditions and sources, without using any of the other Synoptic Gospels as written sources.
  • What is the 'multi-source hypothesis' regarding the Synoptic Gospels?: The multi-source hypothesis suggests that each Synoptic Gospel combined material from various distinct earlier documents, rather than relying on a single primary source like Mark or a Q document. This approach posits a more complex web of sources for each Gospel.

Key Evidence and Analytical Concepts

The 'two-source hypothesis' posits that Matthew and Luke independently utilized the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source'.

Answer: True

The dominant 'two-source hypothesis' proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew their material from two principal sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical collection of Jesus' sayings, designated as 'Q' (from the German 'Quelle' for source).

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.
  • What is the 'Q source' in the context of the two-source hypothesis?: The 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle,' meaning source) is a hypothetical document proposed in the two-source hypothesis. It is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus that are common to both Matthew and Luke but are absent in Mark, serving as a second major source alongside Mark for these two Gospels.
  • What is the 'multi-source hypothesis' regarding the Synoptic Gospels?: The multi-source hypothesis suggests that each Synoptic Gospel combined material from various distinct earlier documents, rather than relying on a single primary source like Mark or a Q document. This approach posits a more complex web of sources for each Gospel.

Minor agreements are instances where Matthew and Luke exhibit textual parallels that align against the reading found in the Gospel of Mark.

Answer: True

Minor agreements refer to specific textual variations where Matthew and Luke concur in their readings, often differing from the text of Mark. These instances present a significant challenge for hypotheses that posit Mark as the sole source for both.

Related Concepts:

  • What are 'minor agreements' in the context of the Synoptic problem?: Minor agreements refer to the numerous instances where Matthew and Luke parallel Mark's account but exhibit small differences that align with each other against Mark's reading. These agreements are a key point of discussion when evaluating different synoptic hypotheses, as they present challenges for theories like the two-source hypothesis.

The Greek style of the Gospel of Mark is generally considered more polished and literary than that of Matthew and Luke.

Answer: False

Scholarly consensus generally describes Mark's Greek as more colloquial, direct, and sometimes less polished than the Greek found in Matthew and Luke, which is often considered more literary and grammatically refined.

Related Concepts:

  • How do scholars interpret the stylistic differences between Mark and the other Synoptic Gospels?: The Greek idiom employed in the Gospel of Mark is frequently characterized by its distinctiveness, incorporating numerous Latinisms, recurrent conjunctions such as 'kai' (and) and 'euthys' (immediately), and an overall colloquial tenor. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke typically exhibit a more refined and literary Greek style, often streamlining Mark's stylistic features. Proponents of Marcan priority interpret these differences as evidence of Matthew and Luke refining Mark's foundational text, whereas advocates of Marcan posteriority suggest Mark adopted a vivid, perhaps oral, style when recasting material from Matthew and Luke.
  • What is the significance of Mark's use of Latinisms?: The Gospel of Mark contains numerous Latinisms in its vocabulary and idioms. While the exact reason is debated, some scholars suggest this might indicate a connection to a Latin-speaking audience or even a Latin original, though most scholars maintain the Greek original.
  • How does the argument about the order of pericopae support Marcan priority?: The observation that Mark's sequence of narrative units (pericopae) is often preserved in Matthew and Luke when they agree suggests that Matthew and Luke followed Mark's order. This pattern is seen as evidence that Mark served as a source for the other two Gospels.

The Gospel of Mark notably includes the infancy narrative of Jesus, which is absent in Matthew and Luke.

Answer: False

The Gospel of Mark is unique among the Synoptics for its omission of the infancy narrative of Jesus; this material is present in both Matthew and Luke.

Related Concepts:

  • What are some notable omissions in the Gospel of Mark compared to Matthew and Luke?: The Gospel of Mark is the shortest of the Synoptic Gospels and notably omits significant material found in Matthew and Luke, such as the infancy narrative of Jesus and the Lord's Prayer. It also contains fewer unique passages compared to the other two.
  • What is the significance of Mark omitting Jesus' infancy narrative?: The absence of an infancy narrative in Mark, which is present in Matthew and Luke, is a significant omission. Marcan priority easily explains this by suggesting Matthew and Luke added this material, while Marcan posteriority finds it harder to account for why Mark would omit such foundational information if it were available.
  • What are some examples of content found exclusively in the Gospel of Mark?: The Gospel of Mark contains several passages not found in Matthew or Luke, including the parable of the growing seed, the healing of the deaf mute of Decapolis, the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida, and the incident of the naked fugitive. These unique passages are often cited as evidence in the debate over Gospel origins.

The principle of 'lectio difficilior potior' suggests that passages in Mark portraying Jesus or the apostles in a less favorable or more challenging light are more likely to be original.

Answer: True

The principle 'lectio difficilior potior' ('the more difficult reading is the stronger') is often applied in textual criticism. In the context of Marcan priority, 'hard readings' in Mark, which might seem theologically awkward or less flattering, are argued to be more likely original because scribes would tend to smooth out difficulties.

Related Concepts:

  • What are 'hard readings' in the context of Mark's Gospel, and how do they relate to Marcan priority?: 'Hard readings' (lectio difficilior) are passages in Mark that portray Jesus or the apostles in a less favorable or more challenging light compared to their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Examples include Jesus being 'amazed' at the unbelief in Nazareth (Mark 6:6), his family believing he was 'out of his mind' (Mark 3:21), the disciples asking Jesus 'Don't you care?' during the storm (Mark 4:38), and Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit when it was not the season (Mark 11:12-14). Marcan priority suggests these difficult elements were original to Mark and later softened or omitted by Matthew and Luke.
  • What does the phrase 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' mean in the context of textual criticism and Marcan priority?: 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' is a principle stating that 'the more difficult reading is the stronger.' In the context of Marcan priority, it's applied to 'hard readings' found in Mark, suggesting that passages which are textually more challenging or less theologically smoothed are more likely to be original.
  • What are some examples of 'hard readings' unique to the Gospel of Mark?: Examples of 'hard readings' unique to Mark include Jesus being 'amazed' at the unbelief in Nazareth (Mark 6:6), his family believing he was 'out of his mind' (Mark 3:21), the disciples asking Jesus 'Don't you care?' during the storm (Mark 4:38), and Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit when it was not the season (Mark 11:12-14).

The term 'dualisms' in Mark refers to stylistic features where the same idea is expressed twice in adjacent phrases, a feature Matthew and Luke often retain in full.

Answer: False

While 'dualisms' in Mark refer to the repetition of similar ideas for emphasis, Matthew and Luke often do not retain both parts of these dualistic expressions, frequently selecting only one element. This trimming is seen by Marcan priority proponents as evidence of their use of Mark.

Related Concepts:

  • What is meant by 'dualisms' in Mark's Gospel?: 'Dualisms' in Mark refer to the stylistic feature where essentially the same idea or event is expressed twice in adjacent phrases, often for emphasis or vividness. Examples include phrases like 'when evening came, after sunset' or 'the leprosy left him and he was cleansed'. Matthew and Luke often retain only one part of these dualisms.
  • How do different synoptic hypotheses interpret Mark's use of 'dualisms'?: Supporters of Marcan priority suggest that Matthew and Luke trimmed Mark's dualisms, sometimes each selecting a different half. Conversely, proponents of Marcan posteriority argue that Mark himself conflated parallel accounts from Matthew and Luke, creating these dualistic expressions.
  • What is the 'double tradition' in the context of the Synoptic Gospels?: The 'double tradition' refers to the extensive material, comprising around 200 verses, that is shared between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but is not found in the Gospel of Mark. Explaining the origin of this shared material is a key aspect of the synoptic problem.

The concept of 'editorial fatigue' suggests that Matthew and Luke sometimes copied Mark directly after initially attempting to alter his text.

Answer: True

Editorial fatigue describes instances where later Gospel writers, like Matthew or Luke, begin by modifying Mark's text but then revert to more direct copying due to exhaustion or expediency. This pattern is cited as evidence for Mark's role as an earlier source.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the concept of 'editorial fatigue' in relation to Matthew and Luke's use of Mark?: Editorial fatigue describes instances where Matthew or Luke appear to begin by altering Mark's text but then lapse into copying Mark directly, leading to inconsistencies. This phenomenon is often cited as evidence supporting Marcan priority, suggesting a direct dependence on Mark.
  • How does the 'editorial fatigue' argument support Marcan priority?: The editorial fatigue argument suggests that Matthew and Luke, when using Mark as a source, sometimes started by modifying Mark's text but then lapsed into copying it directly, leading to inconsistencies. This pattern of fatigue, occurring only in the later Gospels when using Mark, supports the idea that Mark was the earlier source.

Richard Bauckham argues that Mark names individuals left anonymous in Matthew and Luke because Mark's audience could identify them as living eyewitnesses.

Answer: True

Richard Bauckham's thesis suggests that Mark's inclusion of specific names (e.g., Bartimaeus, Rufus) for individuals who remain anonymous in Matthew and Luke indicates Mark's reliance on direct eyewitness testimony, potentially from Peter, whose audience would recognize these figures.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the argument concerning the naming of eyewitnesses in Mark versus Matthew and Luke?: Richard Bauckham argues that Mark names individuals (like Bartimaeus, Alexander, Rufus, and Salome) who are left anonymous in Matthew and Luke because Mark's audience could identify them as living eyewitnesses. The absence of Matthew or Luke naming individuals Mark leaves anonymous is seen by some as supporting Mark's earlier composition date.
  • What does Bauckham argue regarding Mark's content and eyewitness testimony?: Richard Bauckham argues that the specific content of Mark's Gospel is limited to what the apostle Peter himself witnessed or learned from trusted associates. This perspective suggests that Mark's Gospel is based on direct eyewitness testimony, which could support its early composition.

The 'double tradition' refers to material unique to the Gospel of Mark.

Answer: False

The 'double tradition' refers specifically to the body of material found in both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but absent from the Gospel of Mark. Its existence is a key piece of evidence in synoptic studies.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'double tradition' in the context of the Synoptic Gospels?: The 'double tradition' refers to the extensive material, comprising around 200 verses, that is shared between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but is not found in the Gospel of Mark. Explaining the origin of this shared material is a key aspect of the synoptic problem.
  • How do different synoptic hypotheses interpret Mark's use of 'dualisms'?: Supporters of Marcan priority suggest that Matthew and Luke trimmed Mark's dualisms, sometimes each selecting a different half. Conversely, proponents of Marcan posteriority argue that Mark himself conflated parallel accounts from Matthew and Luke, creating these dualistic expressions.
  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.

The principle 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' suggests that simpler, smoother readings are more likely to be original in textual criticism.

Answer: False

'Lectio Difficilior Potior' translates to 'the more difficult reading is the stronger.' This principle posits that readings which are more complex or challenging are more likely to be original, as scribes tend to simplify or harmonize texts.

Related Concepts:

  • What does the phrase 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' mean in the context of textual criticism and Marcan priority?: 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' is a principle stating that 'the more difficult reading is the stronger.' In the context of Marcan priority, it's applied to 'hard readings' found in Mark, suggesting that passages which are textually more challenging or less theologically smoothed are more likely to be original.

The 'Q source' is a hypothetical document believed to contain sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.

Answer: True

The 'Q source' is posited as a common source for material found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, primarily consisting of sayings attributed to Jesus. Its existence is a cornerstone of the two-source hypothesis.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'Q source' in the context of the two-source hypothesis?: The 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle,' meaning source) is a hypothetical document proposed in the two-source hypothesis. It is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus that are common to both Matthew and Luke but are absent in Mark, serving as a second major source alongside Mark for these two Gospels.
  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.
  • What is the 'Q+/Papias hypothesis'?: The 'Q+/Papias hypothesis' is one of several theories related to the Synoptic problem. While the exact details are complex, it involves the Q source and potentially the writings or traditions associated with Papias of Hierapolis, suggesting specific relationships between early Gospel materials.

Richard Bauckham argues that Mark's Gospel is limited to material Peter directly witnessed or learned from associates.

Answer: True

Richard Bauckham's analysis suggests that the specific content of Mark's Gospel is constrained by the eyewitness testimony available through the Apostle Peter and his close companions, implying an early and direct source.

Related Concepts:

  • What does Bauckham argue regarding Mark's content and eyewitness testimony?: Richard Bauckham argues that the specific content of Mark's Gospel is limited to what the apostle Peter himself witnessed or learned from trusted associates. This perspective suggests that Mark's Gospel is based on direct eyewitness testimony, which could support its early composition.
  • What is the argument concerning the naming of eyewitnesses in Mark versus Matthew and Luke?: Richard Bauckham argues that Mark names individuals (like Bartimaeus, Alexander, Rufus, and Salome) who are left anonymous in Matthew and Luke because Mark's audience could identify them as living eyewitnesses. The absence of Matthew or Luke naming individuals Mark leaves anonymous is seen by some as supporting Mark's earlier composition date.

The 'calming of the storm' narrative in Mark includes fewer details than the parallels in Matthew and Luke.

Answer: False

The 'calming of the storm' narrative in Mark typically includes more specific details (e.g., Jesus sleeping on a cushion) than the parallels found in Matthew and Luke, which often present a more concise account.

Related Concepts:

  • How does the argument about Mark's unique details, like the 'calming of the storm', support different hypotheses?: The 'calming of the storm' narrative in Mark includes more details (e.g., Jesus sleeping on a cushion, the waves breaking into the boat) than the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Marcan priority suggests Matthew and Luke trimmed these details, while Marcan posteriority argues Mark added them for vividness, potentially conflating sources.
  • What are some notable omissions in the Gospel of Mark compared to Matthew and Luke?: The Gospel of Mark is the shortest of the Synoptic Gospels and notably omits significant material found in Matthew and Luke, such as the infancy narrative of Jesus and the Lord's Prayer. It also contains fewer unique passages compared to the other two.

The principle 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' supports the idea that simpler, smoother readings are more likely to be original.

Answer: False

The principle 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' ('the more difficult reading is the stronger') posits that readings presenting greater textual difficulty are more likely to be the original text, as scribes tend to simplify or harmonize challenging passages.

Related Concepts:

  • What does the phrase 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' mean in the context of textual criticism and Marcan priority?: 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' is a principle stating that 'the more difficult reading is the stronger.' In the context of Marcan priority, it's applied to 'hard readings' found in Mark, suggesting that passages which are textually more challenging or less theologically smoothed are more likely to be original.

The 'two-source hypothesis', built upon Marcan priority, proposes that Matthew and Luke drew from which two primary sources?

Answer: The Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical 'Q source'

The widely accepted two-source hypothesis posits that Matthew and Luke independently utilized the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (containing sayings of Jesus) as their primary sources.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.
  • What is the central hypothesis of Marcan priority?: The hypothesis of Marcan priority fundamentally asserts that the Gospel of Mark represents the earliest composition among the three Synoptic Gospels. It further proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke independently utilized Mark as a primary source document for their respective narratives. This principle is integral to scholarly efforts to elucidate the documentary interrelationships among the Synoptic Gospels.
  • What does the 'two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis' propose as an alternative to Marcan priority?: The two-Gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis is a major alternative to Marcan priority. It posits that Mark is the latest of the Synoptic Gospels and was created by combining material from Matthew and Luke. In this view, Matthew was written first, followed by Luke, and then Mark drew from both.

What does the term 'minor agreements' refer to in the study of the Synoptic Gospels?

Answer: Small textual details where Matthew and Luke align against Mark's reading.

Minor agreements denote specific instances where Matthew and Luke share textual readings or minor omissions that differ from Mark's text. These agreements are a significant point of contention in evaluating synoptic hypotheses.

Related Concepts:

  • What are 'minor agreements' in the context of the Synoptic problem?: Minor agreements refer to the numerous instances where Matthew and Luke parallel Mark's account but exhibit small differences that align with each other against Mark's reading. These agreements are a key point of discussion when evaluating different synoptic hypotheses, as they present challenges for theories like the two-source hypothesis.

How is the Greek style of the Gospel of Mark typically described in comparison to Matthew and Luke?

Answer: More colloquial and featuring Latinisms

Mark's Greek is often characterized as more colloquial, employing frequent use of 'euthys' (immediately) and incorporating numerous Latinisms, contrasting with the generally more polished and literary style of Matthew and Luke.

Related Concepts:

  • How do scholars interpret the stylistic differences between Mark and the other Synoptic Gospels?: The Greek idiom employed in the Gospel of Mark is frequently characterized by its distinctiveness, incorporating numerous Latinisms, recurrent conjunctions such as 'kai' (and) and 'euthys' (immediately), and an overall colloquial tenor. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke typically exhibit a more refined and literary Greek style, often streamlining Mark's stylistic features. Proponents of Marcan priority interpret these differences as evidence of Matthew and Luke refining Mark's foundational text, whereas advocates of Marcan posteriority suggest Mark adopted a vivid, perhaps oral, style when recasting material from Matthew and Luke.
  • What is the significance of Mark's use of Latinisms?: The Gospel of Mark contains numerous Latinisms in its vocabulary and idioms. While the exact reason is debated, some scholars suggest this might indicate a connection to a Latin-speaking audience or even a Latin original, though most scholars maintain the Greek original.
  • How do scholars interpret Mark's use of 'euthys' (immediately)?: Mark's frequent use of the adverb 'euthys' (immediately) is a distinctive stylistic feature. Supporters of Marcan priority might see this as contributing to Mark's fast-paced narrative style. Conversely, those favoring Marcan posteriority might view it as a characteristic Mark adopted when recasting material from Matthew and Luke.

Which significant element found in Matthew and Luke is notably absent from the Gospel of Mark?

Answer: The Lord's Prayer

The Lord's Prayer, a central element of Jesus' teaching, is present in Matthew and Luke but is conspicuously absent from the Gospel of Mark.

Related Concepts:

  • What are some notable omissions in the Gospel of Mark compared to Matthew and Luke?: The Gospel of Mark is the shortest of the Synoptic Gospels and notably omits significant material found in Matthew and Luke, such as the infancy narrative of Jesus and the Lord's Prayer. It also contains fewer unique passages compared to the other two.
  • How does the argument about the order of pericopae support Marcan priority?: The observation that Mark's sequence of narrative units (pericopae) is often preserved in Matthew and Luke when they agree suggests that Matthew and Luke followed Mark's order. This pattern is seen as evidence that Mark served as a source for the other two Gospels.
  • What are some examples of content found exclusively in the Gospel of Mark?: The Gospel of Mark contains several passages not found in Matthew or Luke, including the parable of the growing seed, the healing of the deaf mute of Decapolis, the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida, and the incident of the naked fugitive. These unique passages are often cited as evidence in the debate over Gospel origins.

The concept of 'hard readings' (lectio difficilior) in Mark suggests that passages portraying Jesus or the apostles less favorably are:

Answer: More likely to be original because they were challenging to smooth out.

According to the principle of 'lectio difficilior potior,' difficult or theologically challenging readings ('hard readings') found in Mark are considered more likely to be original, as scribes typically tend to simplify or harmonize such passages.

Related Concepts:

  • What are 'hard readings' in the context of Mark's Gospel, and how do they relate to Marcan priority?: 'Hard readings' (lectio difficilior) are passages in Mark that portray Jesus or the apostles in a less favorable or more challenging light compared to their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Examples include Jesus being 'amazed' at the unbelief in Nazareth (Mark 6:6), his family believing he was 'out of his mind' (Mark 3:21), the disciples asking Jesus 'Don't you care?' during the storm (Mark 4:38), and Jesus cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit when it was not the season (Mark 11:12-14). Marcan priority suggests these difficult elements were original to Mark and later softened or omitted by Matthew and Luke.
  • What does the phrase 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' mean in the context of textual criticism and Marcan priority?: 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' is a principle stating that 'the more difficult reading is the stronger.' In the context of Marcan priority, it's applied to 'hard readings' found in Mark, suggesting that passages which are textually more challenging or less theologically smoothed are more likely to be original.

What is the 'double tradition' in the context of the Synoptic Gospels?

Answer: Material shared by Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark.

The 'double tradition' refers to the significant body of material, primarily sayings of Jesus, that is common to both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but is absent from the Gospel of Mark.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'double tradition' in the context of the Synoptic Gospels?: The 'double tradition' refers to the extensive material, comprising around 200 verses, that is shared between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but is not found in the Gospel of Mark. Explaining the origin of this shared material is a key aspect of the synoptic problem.

What does the principle 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' suggest about textual readings?

Answer: The more difficult reading is stronger and more likely original.

The principle 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' posits that textual readings which are more difficult or complex are generally considered stronger evidence of originality, as scribes tend to simplify or harmonize texts.

Related Concepts:

  • What does the phrase 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' mean in the context of textual criticism and Marcan priority?: 'Lectio Difficilior Potior' is a principle stating that 'the more difficult reading is the stronger.' In the context of Marcan priority, it's applied to 'hard readings' found in Mark, suggesting that passages which are textually more challenging or less theologically smoothed are more likely to be original.

The 'Q source' is a hypothetical document proposed to explain material shared between Matthew and Luke that is absent in which Gospel?

Answer: The Gospel of Mark

The 'Q source' is hypothesized to explain the material common to Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. Therefore, Mark is the Gospel in which this shared material is missing.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the 'Q source' in the context of the two-source hypothesis?: The 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle,' meaning source) is a hypothetical document proposed in the two-source hypothesis. It is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus that are common to both Matthew and Luke but are absent in Mark, serving as a second major source alongside Mark for these two Gospels.
  • What is the 'two-source hypothesis' and its relationship to Marcan priority?: The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory built upon Marcan priority. It proposes that Matthew and Luke independently drew material from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as the 'Q source' (from the German word 'Quelle' meaning source). This Q source is believed to contain the sayings of Jesus shared by Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark.
  • What is the 'Q+/Papias hypothesis'?: The 'Q+/Papias hypothesis' is one of several theories related to the Synoptic problem. While the exact details are complex, it involves the Q source and potentially the writings or traditions associated with Papias of Hierapolis, suggesting specific relationships between early Gospel materials.

Mark's Gospel contains numerous Latinisms. What might this suggest, according to some scholars?

Answer: It was intended for a Latin-speaking audience or influenced by Latin.

The presence of numerous Latinisms in Mark's Greek text leads some scholars to infer that the Gospel may have been composed for, or significantly influenced by, a Latin-speaking context, possibly Rome.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the significance of Mark's use of Latinisms?: The Gospel of Mark contains numerous Latinisms in its vocabulary and idioms. While the exact reason is debated, some scholars suggest this might indicate a connection to a Latin-speaking audience or even a Latin original, though most scholars maintain the Greek original.

Richard Bauckham's argument regarding Mark's content suggests it is limited to what:

Answer: Peter himself witnessed or learned from associates.

Richard Bauckham argues that the specific material included in Mark's Gospel corresponds to the eyewitness testimony available through the Apostle Peter and his close associates, suggesting a direct and early source.

Related Concepts:

  • What does Bauckham argue regarding Mark's content and eyewitness testimony?: Richard Bauckham argues that the specific content of Mark's Gospel is limited to what the apostle Peter himself witnessed or learned from trusted associates. This perspective suggests that Mark's Gospel is based on direct eyewitness testimony, which could support its early composition.
  • What is the argument concerning the naming of eyewitnesses in Mark versus Matthew and Luke?: Richard Bauckham argues that Mark names individuals (like Bartimaeus, Alexander, Rufus, and Salome) who are left anonymous in Matthew and Luke because Mark's audience could identify them as living eyewitnesses. The absence of Matthew or Luke naming individuals Mark leaves anonymous is seen by some as supporting Mark's earlier composition date.

Patristic Testimony and Interpretation

The prevailing tradition among early Church Fathers, including Augustine of Hippo, generally posited that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel written, not the Gospel of Mark.

Answer: True

The consensus among many early Church Fathers, notably Augustine, was that Matthew was the first Gospel composed. This contrasts with the hypothesis of Marcan priority, which suggests Mark was the earliest.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the traditional view of Gospel origins held by early Church Fathers?: The tradition passed down by the Church Fathers, dating back to figures like Irenaeus and Augustine of Hippo, generally regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written, often in Hebrew. They believed that Mark and Luke subsequently used Matthew as a source, and that the Gospels were written in a specific order, typically Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John.
  • What is the 'Matthean priority' argument based on the traditional view?: Matthean priority, as supported by the traditional view of the Church Fathers and the Augustinian hypothesis, argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This view posits that Mark and Luke were subsequently influenced by Matthew, contrary to the Marcan priority hypothesis.
  • How did Augustine of Hippo view the relationship between Mark and Matthew?: Augustine of Hippo, around 400 AD, viewed Mark as potentially an 'attendant and epitomizer' of Matthew, suggesting a dependency. Later in his work, he revised this to suggest Mark followed both Matthew and Luke, stating Mark 'walks with both,' though it's debated whether he meant literary dependence.

Papias of Hierapolis reported that the evangelist Mark compiled his Gospel based on the preaching of the Apostle Paul.

Answer: False

Papias of Hierapolis stated that Mark compiled his Gospel from the preaching of the Apostle Peter, not Paul. He also mentioned Matthew's Gospel was written in the 'Hebrew dialect'.

Related Concepts:

  • What did Papias of Hierapolis report about the origins of the Gospels?: Papias, writing around 105 AD, reported that the evangelist Mark served as Peter's interpreter and compiled his Gospel from Peter's preaching in Rome. He also stated that Matthew wrote his account in the 'Hebrew dialect,' a statement that has been subject to much scholarly discussion regarding its meaning and implications for Gospel origins.

Ephrem the Syrian stated that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, Mark in Latin, and Luke in Greek.

Answer: True

Ephrem the Syrian, a 4th-century theologian, recorded traditions suggesting Matthew wrote in Hebrew, Mark in Latin, and Luke in Greek. While the claim about Mark's Latin composition is debated, the canonical Gospel of Mark does contain numerous Latinisms.

Related Concepts:

  • What did Ephrem the Syrian state about the languages used for the Synoptic Gospels?: Ephrem the Syrian, writing around 350 AD, stated that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew (later translated into Greek), Mark wrote in Latin, and Luke wrote in Greek. While the claim about Mark writing in Latin is debated, the presence of numerous Latinisms in the canonical Gospel of Mark is noted by scholars.
  • What did Papias of Hierapolis report about the origins of the Gospels?: Papias, writing around 105 AD, reported that the evangelist Mark served as Peter's interpreter and compiled his Gospel from Peter's preaching in Rome. He also stated that Matthew wrote his account in the 'Hebrew dialect,' a statement that has been subject to much scholarly discussion regarding its meaning and implications for Gospel origins.

Irenaeus, in his writings, suggested that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel written, followed by Matthew and Luke.

Answer: False

Irenaeus generally presented Matthew as the first Gospel, followed by Luke and Mark, though his precise order and interpretation of dependence are subjects of scholarly discussion. He did not advocate for Marcan priority.

Related Concepts:

  • What did Irenaeus say about the origins of the Gospels?: Irenaeus, writing around 185 AD, stated that Matthew brought forth a written Gospel among the Hebrews, while Peter and Paul preached in Rome. After their departure, Mark, Peter's disciple, wrote down what Peter preached, and Luke, Paul's follower, wrote the Gospel preached by Paul. Irenaeus also often preferred the order Matthew-Luke-Mark-John when listing the Gospels.
  • What is the traditional view of Gospel origins held by early Church Fathers?: The tradition passed down by the Church Fathers, dating back to figures like Irenaeus and Augustine of Hippo, generally regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written, often in Hebrew. They believed that Mark and Luke subsequently used Matthew as a source, and that the Gospels were written in a specific order, typically Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John.
  • What order did Origen propose for the composition of the Synoptic Gospels?: Origen, writing around 250 AD, enumerated the Gospels according to tradition as follows: first Matthew, then Mark, third Luke, and lastly John. Most scholars interpret this as a statement of chronological order, supporting Marcan priority.

Clement of Alexandria suggested that the Gospels containing genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written after Mark.

Answer: False

Clement of Alexandria's statement is complex and debated, but it is generally interpreted as suggesting the Gospels with genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written *before* Mark, or at least that Mark was later than the genealogical accounts. This contradicts Marcan priority.

Related Concepts:

  • What did Clement of Alexandria suggest regarding the order of the Synoptic Gospels?: Clement of Alexandria, writing around 195 AD, uniquely stated that the Gospels containing genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were 'written before' Mark. This statement has been interpreted in various ways, with some seeing it as support for Marcan posteriority and others interpreting the term differently.

Origen enumerated the Gospels in an order suggesting Matthew was first, followed by Mark, then Luke.

Answer: True

Origen's enumeration of the Gospels, often interpreted chronologically, lists Matthew first, followed by Mark, then Luke, and finally John. This sequence supports the hypothesis of Marcan priority.

Related Concepts:

  • What order did Origen propose for the composition of the Synoptic Gospels?: Origen, writing around 250 AD, enumerated the Gospels according to tradition as follows: first Matthew, then Mark, third Luke, and lastly John. Most scholars interpret this as a statement of chronological order, supporting Marcan priority.
  • What is the traditional view of Gospel origins held by early Church Fathers?: The tradition passed down by the Church Fathers, dating back to figures like Irenaeus and Augustine of Hippo, generally regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written, often in Hebrew. They believed that Mark and Luke subsequently used Matthew as a source, and that the Gospels were written in a specific order, typically Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John.
  • What did Irenaeus say about the origins of the Gospels?: Irenaeus, writing around 185 AD, stated that Matthew brought forth a written Gospel among the Hebrews, while Peter and Paul preached in Rome. After their departure, Mark, Peter's disciple, wrote down what Peter preached, and Luke, Paul's follower, wrote the Gospel preached by Paul. Irenaeus also often preferred the order Matthew-Luke-Mark-John when listing the Gospels.

Augustine of Hippo viewed Mark as an independent work, unrelated to Matthew or Luke.

Answer: False

Augustine's views on the Synoptic Gospels evolved, but he generally saw Mark as dependent on Matthew and Luke, or at least closely related, rather than entirely independent. He did not support Marcan priority.

Related Concepts:

  • How did Augustine of Hippo view the relationship between Mark and Matthew?: Augustine of Hippo, around 400 AD, viewed Mark as potentially an 'attendant and epitomizer' of Matthew, suggesting a dependency. Later in his work, he revised this to suggest Mark followed both Matthew and Luke, stating Mark 'walks with both,' though it's debated whether he meant literary dependence.

The general consensus among the Church Fathers was that the Synoptic Gospels were composed independently, with Matthew typically considered the first written.

Answer: True

The majority of early Church Fathers believed the Synoptic Gospels were largely independent compositions, with Matthew usually identified as the earliest. This perspective contrasts sharply with modern scholarly hypotheses emphasizing literary dependence.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the general patristic consensus on the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels?: The overall consensus among the Church Fathers, based on the available evidence, was that the Synoptic Gospels were composed independently, with Matthew generally considered the first written. They showed little explicit concern for literary dependence between the Gospels.
  • What is the traditional view of Gospel origins held by early Church Fathers?: The tradition passed down by the Church Fathers, dating back to figures like Irenaeus and Augustine of Hippo, generally regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written, often in Hebrew. They believed that Mark and Luke subsequently used Matthew as a source, and that the Gospels were written in a specific order, typically Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John.
  • What is the 'Matthean priority' argument based on the traditional view?: Matthean priority, as supported by the traditional view of the Church Fathers and the Augustinian hypothesis, argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This view posits that Mark and Luke were subsequently influenced by Matthew, contrary to the Marcan priority hypothesis.

Which early Church Father's tradition generally regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written?

Answer: Augustine of Hippo

Augustine of Hippo, among other Church Fathers, adhered to the tradition that Matthew was the first Gospel written, a view that formed the basis for Matthean priority arguments.

Related Concepts:

  • What is the traditional view of Gospel origins held by early Church Fathers?: The tradition passed down by the Church Fathers, dating back to figures like Irenaeus and Augustine of Hippo, generally regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written, often in Hebrew. They believed that Mark and Luke subsequently used Matthew as a source, and that the Gospels were written in a specific order, typically Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John.
  • What is the 'Matthean priority' argument based on the traditional view?: Matthean priority, as supported by the traditional view of the Church Fathers and the Augustinian hypothesis, argues that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This view posits that Mark and Luke were subsequently influenced by Matthew, contrary to the Marcan priority hypothesis.
  • What is the general patristic consensus on the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels?: The overall consensus among the Church Fathers, based on the available evidence, was that the Synoptic Gospels were composed independently, with Matthew generally considered the first written. They showed little explicit concern for literary dependence between the Gospels.

Papias of Hierapolis reported that the evangelist Mark compiled his Gospel based on the preaching of which apostle?

Answer: Peter

Papias of Hierapolis, an early Church Father, recorded that Mark served as an interpreter for Peter and compiled his Gospel from Peter's oral accounts of Jesus' ministry.

Related Concepts:

  • What did Papias of Hierapolis report about the origins of the Gospels?: Papias, writing around 105 AD, reported that the evangelist Mark served as Peter's interpreter and compiled his Gospel from Peter's preaching in Rome. He also stated that Matthew wrote his account in the 'Hebrew dialect,' a statement that has been subject to much scholarly discussion regarding its meaning and implications for Gospel origins.

Clement of Alexandria's statement regarding the Gospels containing genealogies being written 'before' Mark is interpreted by some scholars as support for:

Answer: Marcan posteriority

Clement of Alexandria's statement that the Gospels with genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written 'before' Mark has been interpreted by some scholars as evidence for Marcan posteriority, meaning Mark was written later than Matthew and Luke.

Related Concepts:

  • What did Clement of Alexandria suggest regarding the order of the Synoptic Gospels?: Clement of Alexandria, writing around 195 AD, uniquely stated that the Gospels containing genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were 'written before' Mark. This statement has been interpreted in various ways, with some seeing it as support for Marcan posteriority and others interpreting the term differently.

Home | Sitemaps | Contact | Terms | Privacy