Markan priority and Q

There are some synoptic scholars who support Markan priority but disagree with the Quelle hypothesis. Among the first to hold onto Markan priority while dispensing with the Q source hypothesis was Austin Farrer, who published an article entitled “On dispensing with Q” explaining his view. With regards to this article, Goodacre (2002:19) comments: “Farrer does not so much as mention any argument for the theory of Markan priority on which he builds”. At the same time even Micheal Goulder speaks in passing of Markan priority as a fact with no further arguments in defence of his view. On the other hand, Goodacre, who is a prominent proponent of the Markan priority hypothesis, in his recent book “The case against Q”, unlike Farrer and Goulder, makes a strong case against the Q hypothesis in defence of Markan priority. Goodacre (2002:43-44) concludes that his book is an attempt to dispense with Q while upholding Markan priority. He argues that Markan priority can frequently be defended even though dispensing with Q. Others, however, (Henry Owen, JJ Griesbach, William Farmer and TRW Longstaff) still hold to Matthean priority. This view sees Matthew as a being written first

and used by Luke, after which Mark summarized the two. This is known as the ‘Griesbach hypothesis.’15

This study accepts the Markan priority hypothesis for several reasons. First, the shorter length of some material in Matthew and Luke suggests that Mark is not a summary of Matthew or Luke. Mark’s omission of other material has also never been convincingly explained. Second, the grammar Mark used, is less polished compared to the other two synoptic gospels. This indicates that Matthew and Luke corrected the grammar where necessary. Third, Mark used the ‘harder’ reading (at first glance at least) which causes more interpretative problems than the Matthean or Lukan parallels. So, the modification of such difficulties by Matthew and Luke makes more sense than the view that Mark added such difficulties to his Matthean and Lukan source(s). Fourth, it may be argued that within the triple tradition the Matthew-Mark agreements against Luke, the Mark-Luke agreements against Matthew and the paucity of Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark both in wording and in order, are best explained by Markan priority. Although the argument from order by itself does not prove Markan priority (the Lachmann fallacy), Lachmann’s argument from order is still convincing when coupled with his explanations as to why Matthew and Luke changed the Markan order. Fifth, the argument from literary agreements, which observes that certain verbal phenomena are best explained by a Matthean abbreviation or rewording of Mark. Sixth, the argument from redaction – the most reasonable argument used today in favour of the Markan priority involves the comparison of the synoptic gospels to note their respective theological emphases. Seventh, the argument from Mark’s primitive theology – in comparing Mark with Matthew and Luke on their use of the title ‘Lord’, it becomes obvious that Mark was more primitive than Matthew. In addition, Goodacre (2002:40) recently added the phenomenon of editorial fatigue16 _in

15 _{This view supports Matthean priority and dispenses with both facets of the two-source} theory, not only Q but also Markan priority. Mark therefore comes third and uses both Matthew, written first, and Luke, who read Matthew.

16 _{For Goodacre (2002:41-42) the phenomenon of editorial fatigue indicates that with an author} copying from the works of another writer, the work is often much more energetic in the earlier stages of the copying of the story. Editors make changes at the beginning of that story, but as they work through the story they gradually fall back onto the wording of the source, creating slight contradictions that indicate that the evangelist copied from the works of someone else. There are, in other words some elements that give the game away, vestiges of Matthew’s and Luke’s literary source, tell-tale signs of their dependence on Mark. For example, Matthew 8:1- 4//Mark 1:40-45//Luke 5:12-16, the account of the cleansing of the leper: In Matthew’s location it is after the Sermon on the Mount. The introductory verse in Mark reads: ‘and when he had come down from the mountain, many crowds followed him’, something that is not consistent

advancing the case for the Markan priority. Indeed, Goodacre (2002:45) is right to conclude that:

“As far the tenet of Markan priority is concerned, however, there can be no turning back. Adherents of both the two-source theory and the Farrer theory rightly build on this secure foundation. The vigorous challenge by the late William Farmer and other neo-Griesbachians while encouraging us to think about the synoptic problem in fresh ways and helping us to clarify our thoughts, methods and arguments, is not in the end likely to prove persuasive.”

These arguments make the case for the Markan priority theory that is adopted by this study. With regards to the evidence for the Markan priority, it should be noted that the theory is not based on any one single argument but rather on the cumulative weight of all the arguments provided in this study (1.9.2 second paragraph).17 In the light of these arguments this research assumes that Matthew and Luke were the first to interpret Mark. Hence this study seeks to employ redaction criticism as a methodology to investigate the problem as stated above.18 At

with Matthew’s virtual agreement with Mark. Later in the same passage ‘Jesus says to him see that you do not say anything but go, show yourself to the priest’ (Matt 8:4, Mk 1:44). Interestingly, in Mark the location is assumed to be private, whereas in Matthew the presence of a crowd makes the command to silence an absurdity. Moreover, such a command to silence is rarer in Matthew than in Mark. In other words, it seems that Matthew rewrote the introduction to the pericope in accordance with its new setting in the narrative using characteristically Matthean language. But subsequently he produced incoherence because of editorial fatigue, falling into docile reproduction of Mark.

17 _{According to Goodacre (2001:56-83) it seems plausible that Mark was the first gospel to be} written. There are several factors that led to this conclusion. Firstly, some material that does not appear in Mark makes better sense with the assumption that it was added by Matthew and Luke, than with the assumption that it was omitted by Mark. If Mark only added the material that is unique to him, then his gospel becomes an anomaly in early Christianity, with relatively little contact with oral tradition in comparison with Matthew, Luke, Thomas and others. Secondly, if one assumes Markan posteriority, the relationship between the supposed omissions and additions does not make for a coherent picture of Markan redaction. Thirdly, according to the view of Hader reading of Mark it is more straight-forward to see Mark as the source for Matthew and Luke than it is to see Matthew and Luke as the sources for Mark (Mk 6:1-5//Matt13:54-58//Lk 4:16-30).

18 _{According to Stein (1987:29, 45, 86), having recognized that a literary relationship exists} between the synoptic gospels, the next question concerning the nature of that relationship is which gospel was written first of the three synoptic gospels? In response to this question many theories developed in the history of interpreting the gospels. The advocates of the two-source theory argue that it seems likely that both Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as one of their primary sources. At the same time the two-source theorists concur that it is unlikely that Matthew and Luke used each other. They further accept the view that both Matthew and

the same time this study accepts Q as the plausible hypothetical source as a solution to the synoptic problem.