
	Where results make sense

Topic: Markan priority

Related Topics

Gospel of Mark

Farrer hypothesis

Gospel of the Nazarenes

Gospel of the Ebionites

Q document

Mark 16

Authentic Matthew

Gospel

New Testament apocrypha

Q Gospel

Gospel of Matthew

Gospel of Luke

Secret Gospel of Mark

Gospel of John

Resurrection of Jesus Christ

In the News (Fri 27 Nov 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Markan priority
		Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists, Matthew and Luke, used Mark's Gospel as one of their sources.
		The theory of Markan priority is today accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars, who also hold that Matthew and Luke used a lost source of Jesus's sayings called Q.
		Conservative scholars, however, say the Markan priority hypothesis is not consistent with internal evidence and with the testimony of the church fathers.
	www.nationmaster.com /encyclopedia/Markan-priority (0 words)

	Re: Q and Papias
		While Markan priority and the existence of Q certainly can be treated separately, Q makes little sense without Markan priority, especially since the Q passages are generally defined as those portions of Matthew and Luke which are not common to Mark.
		Without Markan priority, one could still propose documentary sources for Matthew annd Luke, but such sources would not have anything in common with Q as it has been proposed except that both would be _Quellen_.
		Markan priority explains the material common to all three gospels and Q explains material common to Matthew and Luke, but absent in Mark.
	www.ibiblio.org /bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00566.html (0 words)

	Markan priority
		Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists, Matthew and Luke, used Mark's Gospel as one of their sources.
		Storr's idea met with little acceptance at the time, with most scholars favoring either Matthean priority[?], under the traditional Augustinian hypothesis[?], or the Griesbach hypothesis[?], or a fragmentary theory.
		Their ideas were not immediately accepted, but Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's endorsement in 1863 of a qualified form of Markan priority won general favor and is still the dominant hypothesis today.
	www.ebroadcast.com.au /lookup/encyclopedia/ma/Markan_priority.html (311 words)

	The Priority of Mark
		Markan priority itself is compatible with the Two-Source Hypothesis and with the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis.
		The purpose of this essay is to argue for Markan priority.
		Wood also sees the priority of Mark in the evangelist's use of the literary device called chiasmus, that is, the pattern a b b a, which Mark uses in order to indicate a passage of time between the beginning and end of a given incident a by inserting the b material.
	www.earlychristianwritings.com /mark-prior.html (0 words)

	[No title]
		The problem that I with > those who hold to both Thomasine nondependence and Markan priority is > that, when the parallels between Thomas and the triple tradition are > examined, Thomas often agrees with the secondary triple tradition > (according to the Markan priority, that is) against Mark.
		This suggests > that EITHER (a) Thomas is dependent on the Synoptics, specifically, > the secondary Synoptics, OR (b) that Markan priority ought to be > reconsidered.
		OR that Markan priority does not mean that Mt and Lk slavishly copied from Mark but, rather, that Mt and Lk revised Mark, sometimes in light of what they took to be more accurate versions of Jesus' sayings (from Oral Tradition or from Q).
	www.gospels.net /xtalk/thomas/thomas0750.txt (0 words)

	Synoptic Problem FAQ
		Markan priority hypothesis: Mark was first and copied by both Matthew and Luke.
		About a hundred years ago, the case for the Markan priority hypothesis was thought to rest as a consequence of the observation that Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke.
		Markan priority have restated their case as a cumulation of several suggestive arguments.
	philenid.tripod.com /Pastor/Matthew/SynopticFAQ.htm (2469 words)

	Markan priority
		Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the; first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the; two other synoptic evangelists, Matthew and Luke, used Mark's Gospel as one of their sources.
		The theory of Markan priority is today accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars, who also hold that Matthew and Luke used a lost source of Jesus's sayings called Q.
		Their ideas were not immediately accepted, but Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's endorsement in 1863 of a qualified form of Markan priority won general favor and is still the dominant hypothesis today.
	markan-priority.zdnet.co.za /zdnet/Markan_priority (1312 words)

	Direction: The Synoptic Problem and the Genre Question
		Markan priority was given its classic form by H. Holtzmann in 1883, and strongly re-affirmed by B. Weiss in Europe in 1886 and by B. Streeter in England in 1924.
		By the middle of the present century the hypothesis of Markan priority had become dogma, one of the “assured results” of modern biblical study.
		I was instinctively drawn to his critique of Markan priority, but less certain of the argument for Matthean priority.
	www.directionjournal.org /article/?396 (3436 words)

	CHRISTOLOGY AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
		The christological argument for Markan priority emerged within British scholarship as a means of defending Markan priority and explaining Matthean alterations of Mark.
		Chapter two, after a survey of proposed criteria for determining literary priority, we argue that a method which focuses on redactional plausibility and coherence is both appropriate to the christological material in view and able to treat the two major hypotheses in a relatively even-handed manner.
		It allows this dissertation to test both whether the traditional argument should be regarded as a strong support for Markan priority, and whether the GH might be able to give a more plausible picture of redactional behaviour.
	www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk /Tyndale/staff/Head/PHDAbstract.htm (936 words)

	Sources for the Life of Jesus (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Indeed, on the assumption of Markan priority, it seems that when presented with a parallel tradition, Luke prefers the non-Markan version, whereas the author of Matthew tends to redact his Markan source.
		The hypothesis of Markan priority best explains this phenomenon insofar as it postulates that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other as a source; rather, both independently made additions to their Markan source.
		On the hypothesis of Markan priority, the minor agreements in the triple tradition between Matthew and Luke in the triple tradition are explained in two ways.
	www.abu.nb.ca /Courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/Source.htm (11708 words)

	Q document Information
		While supporters say that the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas supports the concept of a "sayings gospel," Goodacre points out that Q has a narrative structure as reconstructed and is not simply a list of sayings.
		Scholars such as John Wenham hold to the Augustinian hypothesis that Matthew was the first Gospel, Mark the second, and Luke the third, and object on similar grounds to those who hold to the Griesbach hypothesis.
		In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a sayings source and combined it with the idea of Markan priority to formulate what is now called the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which both Matthew and Luke used Mark and the sayings source.
	www.bookrags.com /wiki/Q_document (1298 words)

	The Synoptic Problem
		Markan prioritists would say that they both used a common source-given the title "Q"51 (whose nature and existence are disputed)-while Matthean prioritists would argue that Luke used Matthew.
		Lukan priority is virtually excluded on the basis of a number of considerations (not the least of which is his improved grammar, as well as the major gap in his use of Mark),53 leaving Matthean priority as the only viable option for intra-gospel borrowing.
		If Markan priority can be established on other grounds, then what this at least illustrates is that neither Matthew nor Luke is a reliable guide for the arrangement of material in Q-except, of course, where they agree.
	www.meta-religion.com /World_Religions/Christianity/Articles/The_Bible/synoptic_problem.htm (12524 words)

	Dependence of Mark upon Matthew
		A refutation of eight key arguments supposedly indicating Markan priority is given here.
		There, the means are given by which the MAH renders inapplicable or incorrect the assumptions within standard treatments that support Markan priority.
		Many of the Markan verses not represented in the table below also exhibit Markan dependence upon Matthew, but could be assumed to exhibit Matthean dependence upon Mark almost as strongly, upon adopting assumptions used by advocates of Markan priority.
	www.tjresearch.info /mksecond.htm (2379 words)

	MEN...DE and Markan Priority, Matthean Dependence
		Many commentators consider the Markan version, when stripped of secondary emendations, to be closest to the way in which Jesus told the parable originally (I have provided an argument for a reconstruction of the parable in its original form in my "Recovering the Parabolic Intent in the Parable of the Sower," _JAAR_, 1979:97-106).
		It is clear that, of the three versions of the parabolic ending, the Markan version ends with the most dramatic, the most positive and the most triumphal finale, a finale made even more dramatic in that it follows upon three tragic defeats experienced in agricultural failure (4:4-7).
		What I mean by this is that the mind, when it is given a series of three numbers, as in the case with this parable, seeks for a normative arithmetic or geometric pattern of sequencing that explains the relationship which exists between the numbers and accounts for the logic of their order.
	lists.ibiblio.org /pipermail/gmark/20010624/000631.html (7736 words)

	New Directions in NT Textual Criticism
		The reason for this is that the theory of Markan priority largely rests on the wisdom of the traditional text-critical canons like 'Prefer the Harder Reading' - which this book shows to be erroneous.
		The answers so consistently move in the direction of Markan priority that one is compelled either to adopt [Markan priority] or jettison text-critical procedures in use by all scholars today...
		The foundational argument for Markan priority is the linguistic [i.e.
	nttext.com /faq.html (1480 words)

	A review of the book: SCRIPTURE published in 2006.
		As Ronald Witherup has viewed the debates through his Markan Priority eyes, it is necessary to draw attention to how this has influenced his writing.
		But to imply that its use must automatically leads to the acceptance of the Markan Priority theory, and to present 'fundamentalism' as the only alternative, is not acceptable.
		It should be noticed how this quotation equates: "The results of the historical-critical method", with accepting Markan Priority's rejection of the historicity of the Gospels.
	www.christendom-awake.org /pages/orchard/scripture-witherup.htm (783 words)

	[No title]
		Augustinian theory (Matthean priority) Augustine of Hippo (Harmony of the Gospels, book I chap 2) accepted early church tradition that Matthew wrote his gospel first.
		This was later modified by B.H. Streeter in the early 1920's to a four-source theory: That the sources for Matthew were Mark, Q, and M, and for Luke, Mark, Q, and L. Another theory of Markan priority, held by a significant minority of modern scholars (see esp. A.
		Markan Priority Markan priority has been accepted by the majority of modern NT scholars on the following bases: 1.
	people.biola.edu /faculty/alanh/Handouts/TBE520/Fourgospels&SynProb.doc (1428 words)

	bible.org: The Synoptic Problem
		The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority (either the two-source hypothesis of Holtzmann or the four-source hypothesis of Streeter).
		An elderly scholar, who held to Markan priority, got a bit emotional during the discussion period and blurted out, “I cannot hold to Matthean priority because of Mark’s decidedly harder readings.” He proceeded to catalog several of the passages which are being discussed in this section.
		Actually, this kind of example argues both for Markan priority and that Luke and Matthew used Mark independently of one another (on the other hand, are we to argue that Mark, having both Matthew and Luke in front of him, intentionally chose the more difficult reading?).
	www.bible.org /page.php?page_id=669 (0 words)

	The Two Source Hypothesis
		The priority of Mark: The narrative source of the 2SH is Mark 1:1-16:8, which both Matthew and Luke used.
		The main competitor to Mark's priority is the priority of Matthew, which enjoys substantial external evidence in its favor.
		While many of those who do not subscribe to Q also subscribe to Matthean priority, there is also an increasing group of scholars who would dispense with Q within the framework of Markan priority under the Farrer Theory.
	www.mindspring.com /~scarlson/synopt/2sh (2645 words)

	Synoptic Gospels Primer - Mustard & Leaven (Source Theories)
		Thus, the Augustinian hypothesis of Markan dependence on the text of Matthew results in portraying Mark as a literary butcher, who, instead of summarizing his supposed source, inflated it with superfluous wording that ruined the clarity of the Matthean text.
		Moreover, his opposition to the Markan presentation of this parable must have been so strong that he decided to transfer it (along with Matthew's non-Markan parable of the leaven) to a narrative context that had none of the catchword motifs found in either of the other synoptic gospels.
		Botanically, the common Markan and Matthean elements that are missing from Luke's description of the mustard plant (a "shrub" with bird "in its shade") are more accurate than the surrealistic details that he shares with Matthew (a "tree" with birds nesting "in its branches").
	virtualreligion.net /primer/mustard_3.html (3697 words)

	Synoptic Problem Website: Two-Source Hypothesis
		First, an explanation for the triple tradition, Markan priority, is is established and then arguments for the relative independence of Matthew and Luke are made, which result in hypothesizing a common source, Q. Among the best-argued cases for the 2SH in contemporary scholarship include Stein 1987 and Tuckett 1992.
		On a more specific level, Markan priority is also found to in instances where Matthew and Luke seem to occasionally refer to omitted explanatory material in Mark, in Matthew's adding his own theological emphases rather in than Mark's removing them, and an uneven distribution of Mark's stylistic features in Matthew.
		The distinctive aspect of the 2SH is not Markan priority, which is shared by other theories (mostly notably, Farrer), but the supposition of a lost collection of Jesus's sayings that served as a source to the double tradition in Matthew and Luke.
	www.hypotyposeis.org /synoptic-problem/2004/09/two-source-hypothesis.html (0 words)

	ODD WAYS OF STUDYING THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
		Very much against the Markan Priority based "answers" was an article by William R. Farmer – The Present State of the Synoptic Problem that I found at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l/farmer.htm.
		Unfortunately, proponents of Markan priority are often guilty of appealing to what they say is the majority opinion among scholars as if the number of scholarly proponents makes for a meaningful argument.
		The conservative Christian authors and scholars who maintain a Markan priority based answer also believe that Mark’s gospel (along with the other three) is based on an apostolic tradition that predates the written work of the author of Mark.
	www.frontline-apologetics.com /synoptic_problem_study.htm (3741 words)

	THE PROGRESSIVE PUBLICATION OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL:
		Most scholars hold to Markan Priority (with or without the addition of Q to explain Matthew-Luke agreements), not because they can’t see the problems with this hypothesis, but because it seems to them to hold up as a better explanation than any alternatives, and can be said to cover more of the observable data.
		Thus it is recognized that there are problems with Markan Priority and the Q explanation, but any alternative view is seen to have even greater problems.
		I am offering, for your consideration, a more convincing alternative to Markan Priority and Q. I am suggesting that the key to the Synoptic Problem lies in the recognition that one of the Gospels was written and published in stages, and that that Gospel was Matthew.
	members.optusnet.com.au /~bwpowers/PROGPETS.htm (4453 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)