11

Markan priority is an answer to the question what is the precise literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke, also known as the Synoptic problem. A close comparison of the first three gospels suggests that one or more of these writers had one or more of the other gospels before them as they wrote. This is more than a common oral tradition. ...


11

A fundamental problem of this question is the a priori of "the current consensus of the writing of the gospels". Such a consensus does not exist. This two-sources-theory is just one of several attempts to reconcile the difficulties in explaining the synoptic problem, and admitted: fairly popular at that. There are other theories, which like this one have ...


10

There is actually no Greek manuscript that explicitly states what the NIV implies in Matthew 7:11: "how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts ...". The Greek simply contains the adjective "good" (αγαθα) by itself, which most versions translate as "good things". The NIV is one of the few versions that imputes a meaning of "good gifts" to the ...


8

In my understanding, the key arguments put forward for the order Mark > Luke > Matthew (i.e., for "Matthean posteriority") are: the literary observation that Matthew appears to collect, collate, and develop traditions found in Luke (e.g., what appears in Matt 5-7 in the "Sermon on the Mount" is found at various points, and in a more "primitive" form at ...


7

This post will review: The positive case (arguments that Mark was written 2nd or 3rd) The negative case (a critical assessment of arguments used to advance Markan Priority) An abductive case (is there a better answer?) Additionally, it aims to provide an extensive library of links to online and printed resources on this subject (disclaimer--some of those ...


6

Let's consider for a moment what the Farrer (Mt used Mk, Lk used Mk and Mt) and Wilke (Lk used Mk, Mt used Mk and Lk) theories suggest that the third evangelist in each case did. (For what it's worth, I would regard Kloppenborg's layered Q as a nuanced form of Wilke: he puts the sayings material in the Lucan order, then adds in some para-Marcan material.) ...


6

There is no reason to believe that Jesus used the sparrow analogy exactly one time in his ministry. As a preacher who went from town to town, he likely repeated many of his messages and had no reason to keep the examples strictly identical to one another. In Matthew, the sparrow analogy is in the context of the sending of the 12 apostles. In Luke, the ...


5

I think "editorial fatigue" advanced by Mark Goodacre is probably the best evidence for Markan priority because it's the most straightforward, showing quite plainly the exact direction of sourcing. When considered along side the other internal evidence catalogued by previous answers to this question Markan Priority becomes virtually undeniable. ...


4

You have asked about the order being Mark > Luke > Matthew. My answer below addresses the order of Luke being written before even Mark. This arrangement is called Lukan Priority. It is very much a minority opinion. As you know, the prevailing theory in New Testament studies is Markan Priority. It has the most support among scholars. A minority position (...


4

Beautiful question. Luke 11:13 εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ [ὁ] ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν πνευμα αγιον which is Holy Spirit. Matthew 7:11 εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ...


4

As one answer already noted, and your comment later in the question indicates there is not a anything like a real consensus to the how to solve the synoptic problem. In the question you mention the phrase: "as well as unique independent source material." One solution to the problem that is often overlooked is the idea that each of the authors wrote ...


3

Markan priority has very strong evidence and is held by almost all critical scholars. But although the two source theory (i.e. that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and Q but not each other) is the dominant position, it is not held as universally because of some nagging problems with it. You've found exactly one of these nagging problems. There ...


3

Lots of scholars look for alternatives to the traditional Mark-Q priority, but in my view without success. Dennis R. MacDonald wrote a well-researched thesis in Two Shipwrecked Gospels that Luke knew not only Mark, but also Matthew. That would have caused an even bigger stir among critical scholars than his book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, but ...


3

There is no certain evidence that Q is earlier than Mark, although parts of it could be. Some scholars of the 'Q' hypothesis believe they have identified three distinct layers in Q, written over a period of time. The Didache, a community rule-manual of discipline on church order, is widely regarded as having existed, at least in its earliest form, earlier ...


3

Premises of this response: There was no Q document (per the OP) Luke (writing to a gentile audience) used Matthew’s Gospel (written to a Jewish audience) as a source. For a more thorough discussion of the greater Jewish focus of Matthew, and why it indicates that Matthew preceded Luke, see my thoughts here. -- What Luke leaves out You have heard it said ...


2

Awesome answers so far! One small thing I'd like to add is that Mark and Matthew often agree against Luke on the order of their narratives. Many times Mark and Luke agree against Matthew. But Matthew and Luke almost never agree against Mark. You can check it pretty easily yourself by looking at a harmony of the gospels. For instance, Matthew and Mark ...


2

We should not try to answer this question just by reading English texts, but at least supplement this either by reading the Greek texts or referring to material written by those who can. The issue here is that Matthew, Mark and Luke contain passages that are consistently in the same order (suggesting copying) and frequently use exactly the same words in the ...


2

There is another theory giving the Gospel of Matthew a partial priority. This theory is that the Gospel of Matthew has evolved, knowing more than one redaction. One first redaction was similar to what has been called "Q" in the 19th Century. This redaction may date very early. A later redaction (or more than one later redactions) included other ...


2

Matthew seems to have been written first. The two classic listings of what ended up being the New Testament both have Matthew first. The first is the same as ours, while the second begins Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke. It makes sense Matthew is listed first for a reason, which may make more sense as you study the evidences. The first 5 verses of Luke say ...


2

The best solution is that Luke was fully aware of Matthew, and had a copy of Matthew in front of him as he wrote. Two verses before this, we are told Peter "outside wept bitterly". The word for "bitterly" is used twice in the NT. First in Mt 26:75, and again in Luke 22:62. The phrase is identical in Greek, as is the "who was it who ...


2

An excellent discussion of this question can be found in “The Synoptic Problem – Four Views” (hereafter “Four Views”), edited by Porter and Dyer. (See esp. pp. 39-40, 54-56, 80-82, 119-125) Andreas Ennulat has suggested that there are more than 1,000 places in which Matthew & Luke agree against Mark (Die “Minor Agreements”: Untersuchungen zu einer ...


2

Date of writing of Gospel of Thomas 1. Argument in favour of earlier date of the Gospel of Thomas Helmut Koester and scholars sharing similar position considers that Gospel of Thomas is an earlier writing as it contains no master plan except for a few catch word associations of two or more sayings. Following are the arguments of Koester to support his ...


2

An argument against Markan priority is the belief that the four New Testament gospels were originally written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively. That being the case, it is inconceivable that Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, would have relied on a book universally agreed not to have been written by an eyewitness to the life and mission of Jesus. ...


2

Although it is not directly proposed in the question that Matthew was either the source for Mark or that it was developed in parallel with Mark, it is worth pointing out there is substantial evidence that Matthew was actually based on Mark in the Greek language. If we propose a proto-Matthew written in Hebrew, then that document must have been written and ...


2

The scene definitely depicts Jesus returning from the wilderness to "Bethany, across the Jordan, where John was baptizing." As the question says, the Gospel of John is not recording the baptism event directly, but is recording John B’s testimony of that event. We can draw the tightest possible timeline of events as: Baptism, wilderness: 6 weeks (42 days); ...


2

In Matthew's record of Jesus' words, sparrows are so cheap that you get two for a penny, not one. And if one of such insignificant items falls to the ground, the disciples' Father knows of it. In Luke's record of Jesus' sayings there is a further bargain available. Buy two pennies' worth, instead of one, and you get a further sparrow thrown in for free. ...


2

I find this phenomenon fascinating—so much so that I once made a couple videos about it. The phenomenon is discussed here, and my conclusions from it here. Discerning the relationship among the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) is known as the Synoptic Problem—at the bottom of the post I’ve shared links to several of the major views, as discussed on ...


1

Yes, I suggest there is another option that makes better sense. For a thorough and scholarly treatment of the Synoptic problem I recommend John Wenham's book: Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke. He discusses eight different Synoptic theories. In the following I follow Wenham and many others in accepting the consensus of the church during the first 1900 years: ...


1

Preamble εἰμί (Strong's G1510 - eimi): to be/exist/happen-to-be; to be present Examples of εἰμὶ in the NT: On its own. It is typically used to declare personal attribute(s): Marks Gospel records the words of John the Baptist declaring to the people who came to be baptised: ... There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I&...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible