There are approximately 106 pericopes shared by Mark & Luke (see Synoptic Abstract by Tyson & Longstaff). Most hold to the view that this shared material - and the frequency of its common order - is best explained by Luke being dependent upon Mark.

This site has questions looking at Matthean dependence on Mark and/or Luke, as well as Markan dependence on Matthew. I'm interested in the arguments regarding the relationship between Mark & Luke, which often is deprioritized in synoptic studies.

The Two-Source, Farrer, and Augustinian Hypotheses all argue that Luke was dependent on Mark. Of the major theories, the Two-Gospel hypothesis alone has Mark dependent on Luke. Why?

What evidence supports the minority viewpoint – that Mark was dependent upon Luke?

  • All but 55 verses make the difference between Matthew and Mark. It seems obvious to me that Mark read Matthew, which was published early on, and Mark perceived that, within Matthew's account of the King, the Messiah and the Kingdom of Heaven was another aspect of Jesus Christ : the Messenger of the Covenant (Mark 1:1,2). But this is interpretation, so just a comment, not an answer.
    – Nigel J
    Feb 9 at 8:01
  • There is a HUGE literature on this subject - too big to resolve here.
    – Dottard
    Feb 9 at 8:39
  • 3
    I think it's fine - we have other questions asking for a summary of the various positions on the synoptic problem.
    – curiousdannii
    Feb 9 at 10:51
  • @Dottard I have rephrased the question to tighten the focus. I'm interested in thoughts on one of the angles of the synoptic problem for which I did not find much discussion on this site. Feb 9 at 16:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.