The “Prima Facie” Case for Priority
Synoptic Problem: Markan Priority Defies Logic (Part 8/13)
What We Can’t Know
No analysis of the Synoptic Problem can credibly reconstruct exactly what happened with respect to the authorship of the Gospels. Even if we somehow can establish who’s first in the Synoptic Problem, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was the first gospel narrative written. With the current evidence we have we can’t eliminate the possibility of any number of non-extant earlier sources, “proto” gospels, etc. We can’t exclude myriad possibilities of earlier Hebrew or Aramaic versions. We can’t exclude the possibility of scribal additions, mistranslations, etc. We can’t eliminate incalculable possibilities of oral transmission. Still, without evidence that necessitates factoring any of those things into to the analyses, such speculations have no place in solving this particular logic puzzle. So how will we solve this?
The Two Hypothesis Approach
The two hypothesis approach is standard fare when conducting scientific analyses.¹ The first hypothesis, the null hypothesis, is the one that is being tested. It is typically framed in a way referencing “no change,” or “no effect,” etc. The idea being that this is the default, unless something in our examination causes us to change our hypothesis.
An example of a null hypothesis is: “the tested drug will have no effect on weight loss in the target population.” It’s critical to understand that this null hypothesis is, in fact, what is being tested. Thus, until proven otherwise it, as the default, is presumed to be true.² The second hypothesis, known as the alternative hypothesis is the challenger to the null hypothesis. For example, “the tested drug will lead to weight loss in the target population.”
Matthean Priority Is Our Null Hypothesis
For 1700 years, it was taken for granted that Matthew was the first gospel to be written. This didn’t come from nowhere. As we’ve shown in the previous section, early Christian sources unanimously agreed that Matthew was written first. What’s more, this well-attested tradition is, quite literally, the only non-conjectural evidence we have on the issue of priority. Without any more evidence to the contrary, we are logically obligated to place Matthew first and use that as our null hypothesis.
Thus, our null hypothesis is: there is no good reason to change the original position that Matthew was the first Gospel written. And our alternative hypothesis is: there is good reason to change the original position that Matthew was the first Gospel written, in favor of Mark.
How Do We Test Our Alternative Hypothesis?
We now have a starting point. Matthew is first, and we need to examine the evidence to see if there is a reason to change that position. We are not asking if Markan Priority is possible, or if it makes sense. We are asking: “is there anything that necessitates putting Mark first?” As we discussed in our section on testing logical arguments, so long as the Patristic record stands as true, we cannot abductively choose a Markan Priority hypothesis unless something else necessitates that (which, by definition would make the Patristic record untrue).
To start, we will align on the evidence that’s most certain. Most observers agree that there is at least some literary dependence between the Synoptic Gospels. On this, there is near unanimity. To be clear, this is not merely an “appeal to authority” fallacy. The evidence we have, and can examine for ourselves, lines up with the consensus view. And this gives the abductively reasoned hypothesis that if we look at two written works and see large amounts of textual similarity (word order, edits, story order, etc.), then it is likely that there was copying. Again, we’re not asserting that copying did in fact happen. Rather, the assertion is that copying is the best of the possible testable explanations, the most probable. To put a finer point, if one disagrees with this hypothesis then there really is no “Synoptic Problem” anyway, and this whole exercise is for naught. Now, let’s put these facts into syllogistic form.
The Syllogisms On Copying
We’ll begin our analysis by establishing some syllogisms that will guide later analyses.
Definitions
- Similar Material: Material that agrees in stories, sayings, wording, story order, and editorial comments
- Extant Written Source: an original or copy of a written source that still exists, or which was previously known and now lost, but that is otherwise preserved in a different written source that still exists
- Accounted-For Similar Material: Similar Material that is found within extant written sources
- Unaccounted-For Similar Material: Similar Material that is not found in within extant written sources
Rule of Extancy Bias
General Statement Conditional: Under the principle of Occam’s Razor, if there is only accounted-for similar material, and
Observation Conditional: if there is no unaccounted-for similar material
Conclusion Conditional: then we will assume that accounted-for similar material came solely from the extant written sources, and the Rule of Non-Extant Necessity cannot apply
Rule of Non-Extant Necessity
General Statement Conditional: Under the principle of Occam’s Razor, if there is some accounted-for similar material, and
Observation Conditional: if there is also some unaccounted-for similar material
Conclusion Conditional: then we will assume that the unaccounted-for similar material necessarily came from a hypothetical, non-extant written source, and the Rule of Extancy Bias cannot apply
Assumption of Copying
General premise: Where there is a substantial amount of similar material between two or more texts, we assume there was literary copying (either from one another or from a common third-party written source).
Observation: There is so much similar material between the Synoptic Gospels that it defies the probabilities of random chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, we conclude that its highly likely true that one or more of the Synoptic Gospels copied the similar material (from one another or from a common third-party written source).
Combining the Syllogisms
If the Assumption of Copying conclusion applies, then we can conclude that it is sound to conclude that:
- a) one or more of the Synoptic Gospels copied the similar material, and
- b) the copying of the similar material was entirely from one or more of the other Synoptic Gospels and so the Rule of Extancy Bias applies, or
- c) the copying of the similar material was not entirely from or more of the other Synoptic Gospels and so the Rule of Non-Extant Necessity applies.³
Tl;dr: at this point, we assume there was copying between the Synoptic Gospels. And either all of the copying came from one or more of the other Synoptic Gospels, or from the Synoptic Gospels and a hypothetical, non-extant source.
Syllogism on Patristics
Matthean Priority Syllogism
General premise: Where there is no credible case for bias, and where multiple historical sources, including from distinct traditions, unanimously attest to a fact, it is highly likely that the fact is true
Observation: Multiple historical sources, including from distinct traditions, unanimously attest to Matthew being the first of Synoptic Gospels to be written, and there is no credible case for bias in these sources
Conclusion: Therefore, it is highly likely true that Matthew was the first of the Synoptic Gospels to be written
This is inescapable. It’s not something we can choose not to believe or wish away. It just is what it is. It does allow for disproof if there is a credible case for bias(or compelling textual or logical evidence that Mark was first), but as we will see, there is not.
Putting It All Together So Far
We’ve accomplished a lot. Let’s review what we have so far:
- There is copying between the three Synoptic Gospels
- There may be copying from non-extant sources as well as extant
- The Patristics unanimously place Matthew first, without dissent
- Arguments from order tell us nothing about priority
- Arguments from wording and content tell us nothing about priority
Our “Prima Facie” Case Is That Matthew Was the First Written
Another way of thinking about our null hypothesis at this point comes from the legal world. In law, a prima facie case is defined as a case that has presented sufficient evidence to meet a party’s burden that the case should be decided in its favor. Such cases have not yet been “won,” rather they’ve created a presumption that can rebutted (rebuttable presumption) by the other party if that party can show that its own evidence reasonably erodes the prima facie case.⁴
We’ve proposed an alternative hypothesis. But at this point, there is no evidenced to disprove our null hypothesis that there is no good reason to change the original position that Matthew was the first Synoptic Gospel written. In fact, the evidence we’ve examined thus far in testing our alternative hypothesis strongly and convincingly favors Matthew as being first.
Given this, our prima facie solution is that Matthew was the first Synoptic Gospel. Next, we’ll turn to chief rebuttal arguments for Markan Priority to see if those force us to accept the alternate hypothesis. We’ll start with argument for editorial fatigue (Part 9/13).
[1]: For a (much) more in depth look at the scientific method, see, e.g., Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research. United States: Dover Publications, 2012.
[2]: I can already see that some may be asking “but wait, doesn’t that bias the testing?” In fact, it does not. But to prove this, we’ll run our analyses with different null hypotheses and we’ll see that the outcome is unchanged.
[3]: “Foul! This eliminates “Q!” Yes, as we’ll discuss later, a hypothetical source like “Q” only comes into the discussion when it is necessitated. If the arguments above are true, then there would be no necessity for a “Q.” The only way to invalidate this conclusion is to invalidate the premise that the substantially similar material can be accounted for by the extant sources. That is the burden of those advancing the hypothetical source.
