What’s the Problem?
Synoptic Problem: Markan Priority Defies Logic (Part 2/13)
Markan Priority Scholarship Is Unwittingly Flawed
Unfortunately, while some of the Synoptic Problem analyses out there are sound and reasonable, much of the work I’ve reviewed is, at best, alogical, if not outright logically flawed. I don’t believe this is because the scholars who study this subject aren’t brilliant — they are. It’s because most of the scholars who study the Synoptic Problem today aren’t focused on the logical reasoning underlying the Markan Priority assumption anymore. As stated previously, most have (on appeals to authority) accepted as given the extremely flawed argument that Mark was written first, and then built their scholarship on top of that. An incalculable number of follow-on arguments have been built on this foundation, necessarily appealing to this same authority as precedential, much like the legal concept of stare decisis. And indeed, if one takes Markan Priority as a premise, many of the conclusions thereafter do seem valid. But since we will demonstrate, definitively, that the Markan Priority premise is flawed, all of the arguments the rely on this general premise are — necessarily — flawed as well.
But before digging in any further, we should briefly align on what the Synoptic Problem is. The Synoptic Problem is first and foremost a logic puzzle. And the root of the puzzle is “who wrote first?” If we are to take the answer to this question for granted, then it should be because that conclusion rests on an unshakable logical foundation. So without further ado, let’s examine that foundation.
What Is the Synoptic Problem?
For our purposes here, the Synoptic Problem can be summarized as the observation that the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke share so much textual similarity that dependence of one or more of these “synoptic” (seeing all together) Gospels on one another, or a shared third-party source, can be presumed.¹
Scholars have noted at least four types of similarities between the Synoptic Gospels²:
- The amount of “shared material,” including stories, sayings, and accounts of Jesus, such that over 90% of Mark’s Gospel is shared with either Matthew or Luke or both
- The wording in the shared material is such that many of the passages use identical, or nearly identical wording
- The order in which each Gospel presents the material, including arranging non-narrative material in ways that wouldn’t be intuitive or obvious (for example the stories are not in chronological order, the language is Greek which doesn’t mandate word order, etc.)
- The editorial or parenthetical comments are found in multiple Gospels in the same place
Given how much is similar, and how those similarities appear, the dependence is presumed to be “literary,” i.e. written. We’ve reached this literary dependence conclusion abductively in that it’s the best theory of the available theories. Still, this presents us with a “problem.” Not in the sense of something being wrong, but rather like a math problem, or a forensic case. The question is: if we presume there was literary reliance, what did the writers rely on? Let’s solve the puzzle!
Evaluating the Major Hypotheses
There are a number of hypotheses that have been advanced as solutions to the Synoptic Problem. We will briefly cover the most popular (and also most testable) ones here. However, the primary purpose of our examination is not to determine which hypothesis is best, but rather to analyze the logical reasoning behind Markan Priority and see which theories withstand scrutiny. For our purposes here, we’ll generally break the hypotheses into two categories: 1) Markan Priority hypotheses and 2) Matthean Priority hypotheses.³
All the hypotheses we’re looking at start with the presupposition that any material that is unique to that source (e.g. only in Mark, or only in Matthew, etc.) was arrived at independently by that source (e.g. via oral tradition, personal knowledge, witness testimony, lost independent written source, etc.). Nothing in our analyses should be read as excluding the possibility that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels used other sources as well besides one another. We’ll accept that as a given here. Also, when we refer to “knowledge” or “copying” here, we are referring to the texts themselves and not, per se, any personal exchanges between authors.
Markan Priority
Two-Source Hypothesis (“Q”)
There are two generally viable candidate theories for Markan Priority. This first is known as the “Two-Source” Theory (some call it “Two-Document,” “Four Source,” or “Q”). By most accounts, this remains the dominant theory in religious studies scholarship.⁴ It argues that Mark was first, that Luke and Matthew were independent of one another, and that Luke and Matthew independently borrowed the material that’s shared between all three (the “triple tradition”) from Mark.
As for the material that’s shared between only Luke and Matthew, and absent from Mark (the “double tradition”), the Two-Source Theory argues that it came from a hypothetical source, now commonly known as “Q” (short for the German word quelle meaning “source.”) As will be discussed in greater detail later, since the double tradition could not have come from Mark, it either came from a hypothetical third-party (now lost) source such as Q, or it came from Luke borrowing from Matthew (or vice versa). To be clear, those are the only two viable options.⁵ That second position is discussed next.
The Farrer Hypothesis
The leading alternative to the Two-Source Hypothesis is the “Farrer Hypothesis” (sometimes known as “Farrer-Goulder” or “Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre”). Spearheaded most recently by Professor Mark Goodacre, this hypothesis has gained significant traction over the years, especially as previously fundamental arguments for Markan Priority and “Q” generally become less persuasive. The Farrer Hypothesis argues that Mark was first, that Matthew borrowed from Mark, and that Luke copied from both. This accounts for the triple tradition. To explain the double tradition, the Farrer Hypothesis argues that Luke borrowed that material from what was original to Matthew. For Markan Priority advocates, the appeal of the Farrer Hypothesis is that it eliminates the need to explain the double tradition with hypothetical, non-extant, sources such as Q.
Matthean Priority
Matthean priority is the oldest of the solutions to the priority question of the Synoptic Problem. The reason for this, historically, is simple: all of the early church authorities were unanimous in their testimony that Matthew was first. But it was Johann Jacob Griesbach who provided the first “synoptic proof” for Matthean priority in the late 18th century. This position generally withstood scrutiny until the late 19th/early 20th century.⁶ The modern versions of the Matthean Priority arguments come in two forms. We’ll briefly touch on each below.
Griesbach Hypothesis (Two-Gospel Hypothesis)
The Griesbach Hypothesis, also known as the “Two Gospel Hypothesis” argues that Matthew wrote first and that Luke copied Matthew. It argues that Mark, writing third, had access to both Matthew and Luke and redacted them. It accounts for the triple tradition in same way as the Markan Priority hypotheses, only it places Matthew as first. And it accounts for the double tradition in the same way as the Farrer Hypothesis, similarly arguing that Luke copied Matthew.
Augustinian Hypothesis
Perhaps the oldest “solution” to the Synoptic Problem is one that’s become associated with Augustine of Hippo and which argues that Matthew wrote first, followed by Mark. Augustine’s argument was less a Synoptic Problem solution than it was his reconciliation of church tradition. Still, it has a few modern advocates and is just as testable as Griesbach. The Augustinian Hypothesis explains the triple tradition by arguing that Matthew came first, but that Mark copied Matthew, with Luke copying from both. The double tradition again depends on Luke copying Matthew.
Why Only These Four?
The four hypotheses we’ve focused on above are the ones that can best explain the Synoptic Problem with the fewest necessary causes. As discussed previously, we will not be analyzing more speculative (and thus less testable theories here). For starters, and for the most part, those hypotheses don’t preclude the ones analyzed here. They simply add on additional assumptions. Secondly, these theories are the major ones held by most scholars on the subject, and our main aim here is to examine the prevailing view of Markan Priority. It’s a lesser aim to determine which hypothesis is best after that.
Still, to be clear, if there’s any criticism with the approach I’ve taken thus far, this decision is as fair a candidate as any. I concede that I’m applying the principle of Occam’s (Ockham’s) Razor to select candidates for further analyses. Occam’s Razor can be summarized as the principle that “we shouldn’t multiply potential causes beyond what is necessary.” That is, if one assumption is necessary and sufficient to explain a situation then we shouldn’t add another just because we can.⁷
What Are the Takeaways So Far?
Another advantage of narrowing our focus to these four theories is that we can simplify some issues. Already we have some takeaways that we can use in our analyses going forward.
Priority
Only Mark and Matthew are viable candidates for priority.
Double Tradition
There are only two viable explanations for the double tradition among these popular theories: a) either Luke copied from Matthew, or b) Luke and Matthew each independently copied from a hypothetical, non-extant source, e.g. Q.
Triple Tradition
All four theories agree that there is some relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And specifically that “Mark is the middle term.” In other words, regardless of who was first, most of the content seen Mark is somehow shared by all three Gospels.
Summary of Takeaways
- Luke cannot be first (only second or third)
- Matthew cannot be last (only first or second)
- Luke is always behind Matthew
- Mark, as middle term, can be first, second, or third
In the next section, we will be take a brief look at the scientific framework we’re bringing to our analysis (Part 3/13).
[1]: For a good general overview of the Synoptic Problem see, e.g., Porter, Stanley E., and Bryan R. Dyer. The Synoptic Problem: Four Views. 2016 (“Four Views”). The Synoptic Problem: Four Views; see, also, Goodacre, Mark. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. London: Clark Internat, 2007 (“The Maze”).
[2] Four Views p. 6
[3]: For a number of reasons beyond the scope here, Lukan priority is generally not viable as a solution as it requires far too many assumptions to be reliably testable.
[4]: Four Views p. 27
[5]: We’re not evaluating other more speculative theories, again because they require too many assumptions as to be testable.
[6]: Four Views p. 15
[7]: As a silly illustration, you arrive in the kitchen and you see milk spilled on the floor. You know your careless roommate (the only other person in the house) was drinking milk earlier, and you were not. Thus, you assume that your roommate’s carelessness was the cause of the spilled milk. If this assumption can explain the event by itself, then by Occam’s Razor you should not go on to also assume that an earthquake may have also contributed. That would certainly be possible, and in fact may be the truth. But without more to necessitate that additional assumption, it should be rejected as a theory.
