The Original Case for Markan Priority
Synoptic Problem: Markan Priority Defies Logic (Part 7/13)
The Origins of Markan Priority
Midway through the 19th century, over 1700 years of church tradition was flipped on its head when a Synoptic Problem scholar, Karl Lachmann, analyzed the Synoptic Gospels in pairs and observed that “while Matthew frequently agreed with Mark against Luke in the order of passages and Luke agreed frequently with Mark against Matthew, Matthew and Luke rarely agreed with each other against Mark.”¹ In other words, Matthew and Luke differed considerably in order when it came to the double tradition, but agreed largely in order when it came to the triple tradition. Lachmann and others reasoned that this meant that Mark was the backdrop that provided the “order” for the Synoptic Gospels. Other scholars picked up on this, but the concept gained more traction when eminent scholar, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, further endorsed the view.²
This theory, which we’ll broadly summarize as the “Arguments From Order” gained further traction in the early 20th century when B.H. Streeter, a famous Biblical scholar out of Oxford, began publishing on it. His arguments had four basic premises³:
- Argument from Content: The fact that so much of Mark’s Gospel appeared in the other two suggests that Mark was earlier, with 90% of Mark appearing in Matthew.
- Argument from Wording: With the triple tradition, most of the words in Mark are found in Matthew and Luke, either in one or the other or both. Additionally, Streeter observed that Matthew and Luke are more often in verbal agreement with Mark, and almost never agreeing with each other against Mark.
- Argument from Order: The order in Mark is generally the same as that in Matthew and Luke. When Matthew departs from the order observed in Mark, Luke maintains it: Luke and Mark Agreeing Against Matthew. When Luke departs from the order seen in Mark, Matthew maintains it: Matthew and Mark Agreeing Against Luke. But Luke and Matthew never agree with each other in order against Mark. In other words, when there’s no Mark to follow they appear to go their own way. This was once considered the decisive proof of Markan Priority.⁴
For example, in Table 1 above, Luke omits the Coming of Elijah pericope, but Matthew and Mark continue with the same pericopae order. Matthew does not contain the Strange Exorcist pericope, but Luke and Mark continue in the same order. However, Matthew and Luke never agree in order as against Mark. - Argument from Modifications & Combination: Matthew and Luke appear to contain “modifications” to Mark that seem to be improvements or corrections, or that “tone down” Mark’s “harsher” Jesus. Matthew and Luke also both improve Mark’s grammar indicating Mark was more “primitive.” Likewise, Matthew appears to have added non-Markan material at places that seemed “appropriate” to the content of Mark.
- Argument of a Sayings Source: Though not one of the four premises, Streeter argued that the double tradition was best explained by a hypothetical “sayings source,” e.g. “Q.”
Streeter observed that the first three arguments point to Mark as the “middle entity,” arguing “[t]his conjunction and alternation of Matthew and Luke in their agreement with Mark as regards: a) content, b) wording, c )order, is only explicable if they are incorporating a source identical, or all but identical, with Mark.”⁵. These observations took over and dominated Biblical scholarship, cementing Markan Priority as the undisputed winner within the ranks. This can be seen in Figure 1 below, which places Mark first and shows that if either Luke or Matthew change Mark’s order, and the other does not, Luke and Matthew will not agree with one another.
Lachmann’s Fallacy
However, obvious holes in the logic soon were exposed (albeit to much less fanfare) by B.C. Butler and others. They observed that Streeter’s conclusions could be explained by any order where Mark is the middle term (e.g. Mark using both Matthew and Luke as in the Griesbach Hypothesis, or even Mark as second as in the Augustinian Hypothesis). In other words, the lack of agreement between Luke and Matthew against Mark proves nothing of priority. This is best seen in an another illustration.
In contrast to Figure 1, Figure 2 above places Matthew first. Mark comes second and copies Matthew. However, Mark changes the order. Luke follows both and decides to keep Mark’s order. In such cases, Luke will never agree with Matthew against Mark, even though Matthew is first. This observation can be shown with any possible arrangement of the Synoptic Gospels. Butler would go on to refer to this error (w/out directly attributing it to Lachmann or Streeter) as a “schoolboyish error of elementary reasoning.”⁶ It would later be coined the “Lachmann Fallacy.” Thus, the argument from order is largely abandoned now with nearly all modern Markan Priority advocates avoiding it altogether.
Other Fallacies
As we’ve shown repeatedly earlier in our study, there is nothing whatsoever that can be made about priority out of Streeter’s Arguments from Content and Wording either. We won’t rehash that again here.
The Takeaway
If it’s not already clear, there is nothing that can be gleaned, in terms of priority, from any of Streeter’s observations. Streeter’s Arguments From Order prove absolutely nothing about priority and can be explained by putting any of the three Synoptic Gospels first.
Other Lessons From the Lachmann Fallacy
The Lachmann Fallacy highlights two logical fallacies that can be so insidious as to nearly go unnoticed. And we will see them both again. The first is the “appeal to authority.” One of the reasons Markan Priority (and “Q”) took such a stranglehold on Biblical scholarship was that few thought to challenge the work of preeminent scholars like Lachmann and Streeter. Instead, their conclusions were simply accepted as true when simple logical proofs should have made quick work of disproving them. Sadly, such appeals to authority remain firmly entrenched among the academics doing Biblical scholarship today.
The second fallacy highlighted is “circularity.” This one might be harder to see. But the only reason the Lachmann Fallacy ever “proved” priority was because priority was already assumed in the analysis (e.g., contrast Figure 1, where Markan Priority is assumed, with Figure 2 where Matthew is presumed first). These scholars did not set out to be circular. Rather, they chose to examine the data from only one perspective, with the conclusion already woven in to the premise. We’ll see this again when we turn next to the surviving arguments for Markan Priority.
The Lachmann/Streeter Legacy Remains
Streeter’s work turned over 1700 years of historical tradition on a logically baseless fallacy. Now, the vast majority of Biblical scholars today are Markan Prioritists. They were trained and schooled this way, many having no welcome occasion to challenge this view. As arguments for Markan Priority (and it’s spawn, “Q”) began to fall, they‘ve been replaced with newer ones, such as editorial fatigue. This is in part because entire scholarly careers and scholarship material have been built on the foundation of Markan Priority. This (unwarranted) unanimity has bled out of universities and into churches, seminaries, and local Bible study classes. It should never have happened, and the impact of this cannot be overstated.
Okay, So What’s Left?
With the Streeter arguments discredited, you might be asking what is it that Markan Prioritists base their continued unflinching faith upon? There are two major bases (and a few smaller ones):
- The Concept of Editorial Fatigue
- The Analysis of Mark’s Redaction/Conflation Profile
We’ll examine both of these after the next section which will lay out our prima facie case to this point (Part 8/13).
[1]: Wikipedia, citing “Lachmann’s Argument”. New Testament Studies. 13 (4): 368–378. doi:10.1017/S0028688500018373. Reprinted in Parker, N. Humphrey (1985). “Lachmann’s Argument” (PDF). In Bellinzoni, Arthur J.; Tyson, Joseph B.; Walker, William O. (eds.). The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. pp. 119–131.
[2]: Wikipedia, citing Holtzmann, Heinrich (1863). Die synoptischen Evangelien ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (I was unable to get a hold of the original source, so this is a rare Wikipedia citation).
[3]: Four Views pp. 17–18
[4]: Four Views p. 18
[5]: Streeter, Burnett Hillman. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins : Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship and Dates, p. 151. London: MacMillan, 1924.
[6]: Butler, B. C. The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis, p. 53. Cambridge: University Press, 1951.
