The Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority

 The Synoptic Problem  The “Four-Source Hypothesis”  Arguments for Markan Priority  Responses to the Arguments for Markan Priority  Conclusions

 Matthew, Mark, and Luke are frequently called the “Synoptic Gospels,” because they share so many stories in common— often word for word—that they can be “seen together” by placing them side by side in columns.

 The Synoptic Problem: how does one explain the wide-ranging agreements and disagreements among Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

 The Four-Source Hypothesis is the most commonly proposed solution.  It is also known as the Two-Source Hypothesis.

 Mark was the first Gospel written. Matthew and Luke each used Mark.  Matthew and Luke also used another source called Quelle (“Q”).  Q consists of the material Matthew and Luke share that is not found in Mark.  Matthew had a special “M” source.  Luke had a separate “L” source.

 No one has ever discovered any copies of Q, M, or L.  No ancient writers mention Q, M, or L.

 “Despite the exuberant claims of some scholars, we cannot fully know what Q contained because the document has been lost.”—Bart Ehrman, The New Testament. Fourth Edition (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press), 97.

 Patterns of agreement: Matthew and Luke rarely agree against Mark.  Matthew and Luke largely follow Mark’s narrative’s sequence.  Mark’s writing style is awkward or not aesthetically pleasing.

 “The reason then that Matthew and Luke rarely agree against Mark in the wording of stories found in all three is that Mark is the source for these stories.”—Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 94.

 “In fact, however, there are places where the two” (Matthew and Luke) “agree with each other but disagree with Mark, and this is in sections where they are allegedly using Mark” (not “Q”) “...

 …It is to be expected that the two authors who use the same source will alter a word or two here and there, but it is surprising when they both make precisely the same change.”—Joseph B. Tyson, The New Testament and Early Christianity,

 New Testament scholars call these instances “minor agreements” between Matthew and Luke.  Advocates for Markan Priority tend to downplay the agreements’ significance.  Scholars are discovering more and more cases as time goes on.

 1909  Oxford’s John Hawkins declared he was aware of 218 cases.  1974  Frans Neirynck listed 750 cases in his book The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark with a Cumulative List.

 1993  Andreas Ennulat argues there are over 1,000 “minor agreements” in his book Die “Minor Agreements.”

 Christopher M. Tucket, a proponent of Markan Priority, writes: “Within the traditional ‘two source theory’ (2ST) as the solution to the Synoptic Problem, the minor agreements (MAs) have always remained an ever-present thorn in the flesh for defenders of that hypothesis…

 …These agreements—places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark— have always constituted one of the major planks in the arguments of those who have sought to question the 2ST and defend alternative hypotheses….

 …A few such agreements would not perhaps be unexpected; but the number of these agreements is felt by many to be embarrassingly high.”—Christopher M. Tuckett, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 37, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1995), 197.

 It is, therefore, incorrect to claim, as Bart Ehrman does, that Matthew and Luke rarely agree against Mark.

 “Matthew and Luke often present the stories of their Gospels in the same sequence (Jesus did this, then he did that, then he said this, and so on).  What is odd is that when they do preserve the same sequence, it is almost always with stories that are also found in Mark.”—Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 95.

 “If the basic sequence is the same in two or more documents, we can assume that one has been copied…

 …But the fact of agreement in respect to order does not in itself tell us which is the earliest of the three documents.”—Joseph B. Tyson, The New Testament and Early Christianity, 155.  Ehrman has presupposed the conclusion he intended to support.

 Scholars who make the “sequence of narrative” argument engage in circular reasoning.  Circular reasoning occurs when a person assumes what the person is striving to prove.  A prime example of this logical fallacy is evident in the clip: Seismic Testing and a Dead Whale (1:25).Seismic Testing and a Dead Whale

 Mark was written before Matthew and Luke.  Matthew and Luke mostly follow Mark’s sequence.  Therefore, Mark was written before Matthew and Luke.

 “Streeter” (an earlier Markan Priority advocate) “has presupposed the conclusion he intended to support, underestimated the problems with his thesis, and used a reversible argument.”—Joseph B. Tyson, The New Testament and Early Christianity, 155.

 “Sometimes Mark uses a Greek style of writing that is somewhat awkward or not aesthetically pleasing, sometimes he uses unusual words or phrases, and sometimes he presents difficult ideas.”— Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 95.

 “But is a rough grammatical style necessarily an indication of primitiveness? Besides, some scholars disagree with Streeter’s evaluation of Mark’s grammatical style.” —Joseph B. Tyson, The New Testament and Early Christianity, 155.

 Scholars do not all agree that Mark was written first.  None of the non-apostolic hypotheses adequately resolve all aspects of the Synoptic Problem.  The arguments favoring Markan Priority are often circular or subjective.

 Rely on unknown sources (Q, M, and L)  Rely on circular reasoning

 “But it must be admitted that, for all its efforts, scholarship has not yet produced an unassailable solution to the synoptic problem.”—Joseph B. Tyson, The New Testament and Early Christianity, 157.