Markan Priority: Modern Synoptic Scholarship Defies Logic
Synoptic Problem: Markan Priority Defies Logic (Part 1/13)
A Logically Flawed General Premise
Mark was the first canonical Gospel written. Full stop. This declaration, and its nearly uniform modern scholarly acceptance, has been the single most influential development in the past 200+ years of Biblical scholarship.¹ This concept, called Markan Priority,² now stands as the unassailable general premise upon which incalculable modern scholarly arguments flow.
But what if this premise is wrong? If so, it would be no minor thing. It would mean several decades of Biblical scholarship would need to be revisited and revised. Entire liturgical foundations will need to be reworked. Almost no area of modern Christian teaching would go unaffected. Given that, shouldn’t we be sure? Shouldn’t the arguments be airtight? We’ll examine those arguments here, logically. And our work will rely solely on evidence and logical reasoning, taking the greatest care to avoid fallacies everywhere possible.
As this is a logical analysis, the questions we’ll be evaluating are:
- a) are the premises that lead to the conclusion that Mark was the first canonical Gospel written true?
- b) if those premises aren’t true, is the argument for Markan Priority otherwise valid? (i.e. does the conclusion flow logically from those false premises?)
- c) if the premises are true, is the Markan priority argument and conclusion a “sound” one? (i.e. where the conclusion flows logically from true premises)
- d) if the premises aren’t true, and the conclusion doesn’t flow logically from those false premises, is Markan Priority otherwise still a true conclusion?
Spoiler alert: The answer to all these questions is no. You do not have to take my word on this. That’s the point. It will be proven here, and the conclusions are inescapable.
Any Claim That Priority Is “Solved” Is Unwarranted
Which Christian Gospel came first? If you’ve ever waded into this hopelessly exhausted realm, you’ve no doubt heard something similar to the following: “On the issue of the chronology of the gospels, there is no genuine dispute that Mark was written first.” In other words, on this particular question in Christian history, the matter is settled.³ If you’re not well-versed in the subject, it’s easy to assume all of the scholars are right, that there are “smoking guns,” and that it truly is “case closed.”
But, on the question of “which Gospel was written first,” there is no smoking gun. There is no archaeological evidence proving that Mark⁴ (or any Gospel) was first. There’s no historical record of any kind making such a reference for Mark (in fact, it’s the contrary). There’s absolutely nothing but a set of sketchy, logically flawed arguments that first came to prominence about 100 years ago. The “strongest” of these arguments, the so-called “argument from order,” was once deemed so conclusive, that it upended the entire 1700-year traditional record that placed the Gospel of Matthew first.⁵ However, that argument has since been so thoroughly discredited that it’s no longer advanced by most Markan Priority scholars. Yet, its legacy remains.⁶ Mark is now the undisputed first Gospel, and no reputable, publishing scholar dares to disagree. But why is this still the case? As we’ll soon see, the surviving bases for this unanimous position fare no better, logically, than the fallacious argument from order.
Our Logical Approach to the Subject
I decided to dig in and review the leading scholarship. Because my domain is the domain of logic and science, I did not (and indeed could not) set out to examine the data through the lens of a PhD textual critic or religious scholar.⁷ But do not be deceived into committing the genetic fallacy that this invalidates the conclusions here. We will not be basing any arguments on personal opinion. All conclusions will be evidence-based and logically supported. And since you’ll be joining me, I’ll frequently use the pronouns “we” or “our” to represent our shared journey.
To be clear, we will not be asking the question “what is the actual truth?” That question is interesting, and important, but it’s likely unanswerable. Describing what is actually “true” not the explicit purpose of a logical argument, even though the field of logic in general is aimed at finding the truth. Rather, the primary concerns of logic are validity and soundness — are the arguments underlying the premises true, and does the conclusion flow deductively from those premises? I.e., “is the argument sound?” Thus, we’re evaluating what one could describe as logical truth. We will also find that certain arguments are fallacious and thus may not be any of the above because they don’t prove or disprove anything (e.g. circular arguments).
To help ensure we have all have the same foundation here, we’ll be walking through a good amount of background material. Feel free to skip it, understanding that some concepts and information presented earlier may be assumed. I’ll do my best to call out situations where that may be the case.
Here is our roadmap:
- Understanding the Synoptic Problem
- The Scientific Framework for Our Analyses
- How We Test Logical Arguments
- The Evidence We Have to Consider
- The Overwhelming Patristic Evidence
- The Original Case for Markan Priority
- The “Prima Facie” Case for Priority
- The Circularity of “Editorial Fatigue”
- A Deeper Dive on the Redaction Profile of Mark
- The Rebuttal Case for Markan Priority
- The Fallacy of Alternating Agreements
- Putting It All Together/Wrapping Up
Next up, we’ll discuss the the Synoptic Problem in a bit more detail (Part 2/13).
[1]: See, e.g., Johnson, Luke Timothy, and Todd C. Penner. 2002. The writings of the New Testament: an interpretation, p. 159. London: SCM.
[2]: I’m aware that many people spell Markan with a “C” (Marcan). I’ve chosen to use the “K” variant because in my view it’s clearer to read and disambiguate versus, e.g., Marcian or Marcion.
[3]: “Farrer believed that the case for Marcan priority was so strong that it did not even require defense. It was one of the established results of New Testament scholarship.” The Synoptic Problem (pp. 47–48). Baker Publishing Group; see also e.g. Professor Ian N. Mills appeal to authority for Markan Priority.
[4]: Unless stated otherwise, references to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John are meant to be first, references to the persons to whom those gospels are historically attributed, without taking a position on authorship (I do hope to cover the similarly flawed analyses on authorship later). When these names are invoked as being the actors themselves, that is meant to include any scribal teams, translators, etc. again without taking a position on who specifically did the writing.
[5]: See, e.g. Sanders, E. (1969). The Argument from Order and the Relationship between Matthew and Luke. New Testament Studies, 15(2), 249–261. doi:10.1017/S0028688500019081
[6]: The Present State Of The Synoptic Problem, William R. Farmer. (This paper was produced for the Synoptic Problem Seminar at SNTS, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4–8 August 1998).
[7]: I am not a PhD religious scholar. I’m not even in the field, religiously or secularly, in any way. I’m just a schmuck who happens to find this topic fascinating. My subject matter expertise is in the scientific domain, the domain of logic, mathematics, and the scientific method. And so my criticisms flow entirely from that lens. I admit readily, that I may be out of my element by wading into this hornet’s nest. But it does not require subject matter expertise to be able to identify logically flawed arguments. Thus, if it’s not clear, it’s entirely possible that, for example, Marcan Priority could be both: a) the “true” answer and b) logically unreasonable. I’m only focused on the latter, and am not qualified whatsoever to evaluate the former.
There is much I do not know here, and I by no means seek to attack or belittle the brilliant minds who’ve dedicated their lives to this subject. Though not the only one, I want to specifically call out Professor Mark Goodacre, who always seems to provide honest, cogent, and well-reasoned arguments. And he does so humbly, without attacking his opponents. Nothing whatsoever in the analyses I provide here should be read as attacking him, or anyone else personally. In fact, consistent with his scrupulous nature, Dr. Goodacre has invited us to challenge his positions and has shown repeatedly that he’s open to honest, reasoned debate (see, e.g., the conclusion in “Fatigue in the Synoptics”). I have more respect for this man than could possibly be written here.
[8]: I did my best to cite all non-original material here. Every effort was made to avoid taking credit for the work of others. That said, if any of the work here appears to indicate that I have a “Synoptic Problem” of my own, please bring it to my attention and I will address it immediately.
