Synoptic Confusion: Matthew’s “Two” vs. Mark and Luke’s “One”?

The Problem Stated

In the synoptic accounts of Jesus casting a legion of demons into a herd of swine, both Mark and Luke mention just one demon-possessed man (Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39), yet Matthew says there were two (8:28-34). Mark and Luke report the Lord’s healing of a blind man near Jericho (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43), whereas Matthew says there were two blind men (20:29-34). In the story of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the respective accounts of Mark and Luke make reference to a single donkey (Mark 11:2-7; Luke 19:30-35; also John 12:14-15), while Matthew’s version has two (21:2-7). 

Searching for a Reasonable Explanation

Critical scholars are quick to accuse Matthew of having altered these accounts with an apparent inclination to “double.”¹  However, Matthew shares a number of miracle stories with the other Gospels wherein this alleged doubling does not occur.² Matthew also reports a separate occasion when Jesus healed two blind men (9:27-31), unparalleled elsewhere.³  Matthew and Mark speak of a single angelic figure at Christ’s empty tomb (Matt. 28:2-7; Mark 16:5-7), while Luke mentions two (24:4-5). Matthew and Luke record the Lord’s prediction of the crowing of a rooster (Matt. 26:34; Luke 22:34; also John 13:38), while Mark alludes to the rooster crowing “twice” (14:30, 72). Obviously there is no consistent pattern of doubling in any of the Gospels. It is more likely that each author, according to his immediate purpose, has at times focused on certain details ignored by others, or has omitted particular elements highlighted by others.   

Neither Mark nor Luke uses the word “only” when speaking of the demoniac, blind man, or donkey, nor do Matthew and Mark use the word “only” when speaking of the angelic figure. If I were to say that my daughter fell off the trampoline and broke her arm, some might conclude that I have only one daughter. But if my wife adds that both our daughters were jumping on the trampoline when the accident occurred, surely no one would accuse us of contradicting each another.

Putting it in Perspective

When comparing synoptic accounts, it is helpful to remember that Matthew reports as an independent eyewitness. He mentions “two” because that is what he saw. He also writes as a former tax collector (Matt. 10:3). Not only do we find several financial transactions referenced in Matthew’s Gospel,⁴ we also see an affinity for numbering. In passages where Matthew employs cardinal numbers, the parallel Gospel accounts do not. Matthew alone reports that Jesus specifically called “two” brothers and “two” other brothers (Matt. 4:18, 21), disciples will sit on “twelve” thrones (Matt. 19:28), Zebedee’s “two” sons (Matt. 20:21; 26:37), “two” false witnesses (Matt. 26:60), and one of “two” prisoners (Matt. 27:21).

Only Matthew recounts a pair of demoniacs (8:28), while the particular one who responded to Jesus, sat at his feet, and subsequently became the Lord’s emissary is the singular focus of the parallel accounts (Mark 5:18-20; Luke 8:35, 38). There was no practical reason for Mark and Luke to have taken notice of the other man while giving attention to the character most relevant to the story. Matthew’s record is broader and more general, while Mark and Luke are singularly focused.

Only Matthew documents a couple of blind men near Jericho (20:30), yet again Mark and Luke offer a more targeted narrative. In fact, Mark provides a name (Bartimaeus), indicative of a prominent figure familiar to the local community and/or to Mark’s readers. If the identity of the other blind man was unknown at the time of writing or simply not pertinent to the story as presented by Mark and Luke, making reference to him would serve no useful purpose.

In Matthew’s version of the triumphal entry there are two animals: a young donkey and its mother (21:2-7); just one is alluded to by Mark and Luke (and John), again with precision of focus. Seeing that the colt had never been ridden (Mark 11:2), it would make sense for its mother to be brought along. That Jesus sat “on them” (Matt. 21:7) could refer to both animals alternatively but more likely to the “garments” [himátia] upon which he sat. 

Authorial Selectivity

Matthew develops the theme of Christ’s authority (cf. 7:29; 9:6-8; 21:23; etc.) and incorporates information supportive of this objective. Matthew’s tendency is to use quantity of elements to teach about Jesus, conveying the stories with brevity, while the other Gospels tend to highlight details. When Matthew reports the Lord healing many people inflicted with a variety of ailments (15:30-31), Mark focuses on just one of them (7:31-32). Mark and Luke record words spoken by a centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47), while Matthew includes “those with him” (Matt. 27:54).⁵

Brevity, omission, abridgment, emphasis, and focused precision are among the plethoric narrative options for any given author. The parallel accounts where Mark and Luke report “one” and Matthew “two” demonstrate authorial selectivity, with Mark and Luke having reduced the number rather than Matthew having doubled it. A sympathetic and fair appraisal of the passages in question confirms each as an independent witness, while supporting their collective integrity and deepening our appreciation for biblical variety, harmony, and accuracy.⁶

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition 316; C. S. Keener, Commentary on Matthew 282.

     2 For example, Matt. 8:1-4 (cp. Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16); Matt. 8:5-13 (cp. Luke 7:1-10); Matt. 9:1-8 (cp. Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26); et al.

     3 A lone blind man is healed in the respective accounts of Mark (8:22-26) and John (9:1-11) without further mention in the other Gospels.

     4 Matt. 17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 26:15; 27:3-10; 28:11-15.

     ⁵ See What Did the Centurion Say? For similar distinctions between Matthew’s broader and Mark’s more focused descriptions (comparable also in Luke), compare Matt. 8:28/Mark 5:2; Matt. 21:2/Mark 11:2; Matt. 20:30/Mark 10:46; Matt. 21:34/Mark 12:2; Matt. 22:34/Mark 12:28; Matt. 26:40/Mark 14:37.

     ⁶ See Glenn Miller, “Did Matthew simply Double the people in his miracle stories?” Christian Think Tank (2010), <Link>.

Related Posts: Authorship of the Gospels, Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel, Matthew's Opened Graves and Resurrected Saints, What Did the Centurion Say?

Related articles: Eric Lyons, How Many at the Tomb?

Image credit: http://www.ajpinfo.com/6min/on-not-knowing/

Introducing the Gospel of John

     The official record of the life, ministry, and teachings of Jesus Christ is preserved in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. While each is written by a different author, to a different audience, for a different purpose, the first three are linked together as the Synoptic Gospels because of their similarities in content, vocabulary, and arrangement. The fourth, however, stands on its own as a unique witness.

Authorship

     Authorship of the Fourth Gospel has historically been attributed to John the apostle, although the writer does not explicitly identify himself in the text. The evidence confirms that the author was a Palestinian Jew, exhibiting detailed knowledge of local topography (cf. 1:44; 2:1; 9:7; 4:5-6, 21; 11:18; 18:1). He reflects personal acquaintance with conservative Judaism and Jewish tradition (e.g. 1:19-28; 4:9, 20). He was accustomed to thinking in Aramaic, as Aramaic terms are frequently used and then explained (cf. 1:42; 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16). Old Testament quotations are closer in form to the Hebrew than to the Greek (cf. 12:40; 13:18; 19:37).

     He was an eyewitness (1:14; 19:35; cf. 2:6; 4:6; 12:3, 5; chaps. 18–19) and one of the twelve apostles. He is self-described as “the disciple” (21:24) and “the beloved disciple” (13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2-9),¹ near Jesus at the last supper where only the twelve were present (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14). The author is not to be identified as any of the apostles mentioned by name in the Fourth Gospel, and neither John nor his brother James is named. James dies fairly early in the history of the church (Acts 12:2), whereas our author lived long enough to add weight to the rumor that he would not die (John 21:23).

     The “beloved disciple” is regularly in the company of Simon Peter, and elsewhere in the New Testament this is the apostle John (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Acts 3:1–4:23; 8:15–25; Gal. 2:9). The most obvious candidate for authorship of the Fourth Gospel is John the son of Zebedee, further confirmed by the consistent testimony of the early church.²

Date of writing

     John’s Gospel was probably written near the close of the first century, sometime between 80-95.³ According to ancient testimony, the apostle John lived into the reign of Trajan (who reigned 98-117) and was the last of the New Testament writers to compose a Gospel.⁴ The fact that no mention is made of the temple’s destruction would argue against a date shortly after 70 but could be explained by a date considerably later, especially if written for a non-Jewish audience far away from Palestine. John makes no mention of the Sadducees, who dwindled to the point of insignificance after 70. The John Rylands Fragment (P52), containing a portion of John 18, dates around 125, which gives plenty of time for the document to have been copied and circulated as far as Egypt, where the fragment was discovered.

Audience and Destination

     The Gospel seems to have been written with a Gentile audience in mind, since Jewish conventions are explained apparently for the benefit of those who were unfamiliar with them (e.g. 19:31). Certain feasts are particularly identified as Jewish: “the Passover of the Jews” (2:13; 6:4; 11:55); “the Tabernacles, the feast of the Jews” (7:2). Jewish customs are noted and clarified: purification (2:6; cf. 11:55), ethnic exclusivism (4:9), and the Sabbath (19:31). Aramaic words are both transliterated and translated into Greek: Kēphas (1:42), Bēthzatha (5:2), Silōam (9:7), Gabbatha (19:13), Golgotha (19:17), and rabbouni (20:16). Palestinian geographical features are carefully described: “Bethany … across the Jordan” (1:28), “Cana of Galilee” (2:1, 11; 4:46; 21:2), “Aenon near Salem” (3:23), “Bethany near Jerusalem” (11:18), and “Bethsaida of Galilee” (12:21). Further, the Sea of Galilee is identified as “the Sea of Tiberias” (6:1; 21:1), the name used in the latter part of the first century and employed in Greco-Roman texts.

     Early tradition places the origin and destination of the Gospel in Asia Minor, particularly Ephesus.⁵ The writing was reportedly at the request of area congregations, as a summary of John’s teaching about the life of Jesus, to meet a need that was affecting the church near the close of the first century.

Distinctive Features

     Despite a number of similarities between John and the other Gospels, John omits several things that are characteristic of the others⁶ and records a great deal of material not found in them.⁷ John recounts much more of Jesus’ ministry in Judea than in Galilee, whereas the focus of the other Gospels is the opposite. There is more of Jesus’ teaching about the Holy Spirit than in any other Gospel. The teaching in John tends to expound abstract themes like phōs (‘light’ 23x), zōē (‘life’ 36x), agapē/agapaō (‘love’ 34x), and alētheia (‘truth’ 25x). John presents large amounts of discourse material and records seven statements of Christ in which the emphatic egō eimi (“I am”) expression is employed (6:35; 8:12; 10:9, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:5). The designation “son of man” is less prolific in John than in the Synoptics, while “Son of God” appears more often. In John’s Gospel Jesus is explicitly identified as “God” (1:1-3; 5:18; 10:33; 20:28; cf. 8:58).

Purpose and Structure

     John clearly states his objective in 20:30-31 as follows: “Indeed therefore Jesus also did many other signs in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this document, but these have been written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life in his name.” The Gospel is arranged to achieve this goal.

     The prologue (1:1-18) provides an introduction to the Gospel, identifying Jesus as the preexistent, embodied Logos (Word) of God who reveals the heavenly Father to mankind. Next is an overview of the Lord’s public ministry (1:19–11:45), focusing on just seven of his miracles (2:1-11; 4:43-54; 5:1-9; 6:1-5, 16-25; 9:1-41; 11:1-44) and calling them sēmeiōn (“signs”). This so-called “book of signs” emphasizes that which points to and authenticates the Lord’s identity and role. The story then moves toward Christ’s glorification through his death and resurrection (11:46–20:31), and the section ends with a statement of the Gospel’s purpose. Finally, the epilogue (21:1-25) concludes the writing by recounting another post-resurrection appearance of Jesus and the recommissioning of his disciples.

Conclusion

     Every testimony is to be confirmed by two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1). While Matthew, Mark, and Luke offer sufficient evidence, John serves as a fourth witness, providing an even sturdier foundation upon which to build our faith.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise indicated, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The earliest extant reference to John’s authorship is that of Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 115-202), whose testimony is based on the corroboration of Polycarp, a contemporary of the apostle John (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.14.3-8; 5.20.5-6; 20.4-8). Other testimonies include the Muratorian Canon (ca. 170), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 181), Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 170-235), Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254), and Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263-339). Historically there were no attempts to differentiate among the “Johns” in the respective titles of the canonical Johannine documents, presumably because readers already knew who was intended (see D. Trobisch, First Edition of the NT 55).

     ³ Some scholars (e.g. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the NT 254-311) propose an earlier (pre-70) date, and their strongest argument rests on the statement in John 5:2, “now there is (estin = present tense) in Jerusalem at the sheep gate a pool … Bethesda.” The most natural inference is that the area John is describing is still standing at the time of writing, thus prior to the destruction of the city in 70. However, in response one might argue that (a) at the time of writing the ruins of Bethesda were still visible or had been rebuilt; (b) John is naturally speaking of the place as he remembers it; or (c) John is using a historic present, as in 10:8 and 19:40.

     ⁴ Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2.22.5; 3.1.1; 3.3.4; Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7); Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.24.7; Jerome, De vir. ill. 9. John's death is marked at the year 98 by Jerome.

     ⁵ Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14), the Muratorian Fragment, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Jerome (Comm. Matt. Prol.), Epiphanius (Haer. 41.12), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3:1.2), and Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.1.1; 3.24).

     ⁶ These include narrative parables, the baptism of Jesus, the transfiguration, the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the “kingdom of God” theme, and many of Jesus’ sayings. John may have been familiar with the other Gospels and chose to augment their accounts rather than reproduce them.

     ⁷ Unique to John are the prologue (1:1-18), Jesus’ encounters with Nicodemus (chap. 3) and the Samaritan woman (chap. 4), the adulteress narrative (chap. 8), the raising of Lazarus (chap. 11), the washing of the disciples’ feet (chap. 13), several post-resurrection episodes (chaps. 20-21); discourses about eternal life (chap. 3), living water (chap. 4), manna from heaven (chap. 6), the good shepherd (chap. 10), the resurrection and the life (chap. 11), the farewell discourse (chaps. 14-17); the “I am” declarations (6:35, 41; 8:58; etc.).

*Prepared for the 2016 Spanish-English Workshop at North Jackson Church of Christ in Jackson, TN.

Related Posts: John the Apostle, Authorship of NT Gospels, John's Audience, Introducing the Johannine Epistles

Related articles: Richard Mansel's Understanding the Gospel of John

Image credit: https://tabernaclefortoday.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/main.jpg

The Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority? (Part 2 of 2)

     Those who advocate the Markan Priority (MP) theory as a feasible solution to the Synoptic Problem tend to highlight the similarities among the Synoptics while minimizing the differences. To get an accurate sense of the relationship of these accounts, it is necessary to analyze the texts as they appear in the Greek New Testament rather than in English translations (see W. R. Farmer, Synopticon [1969]). Consider this sample comparison of Matthew 16:24-28, Mark 8:34–9:1, and Luke 9:23-27: fifty-five words (27%) are identical in all three accounts, eighteen words (9%) are identical in only Matthew and Mark, nine words (4%) are identical in only Matthew and Luke, fourteen words (7%) are identical in only Mark and Luke, thirty-five words (17%) are unique to Matthew, forty-eight words (23%) are unique to Mark, and twenty-seven words (13%) are unique to Luke.

     At the risk of over-simplifying the complexities of the debate, the Synoptic Problem, as daunting as it may seem, is only a problem if one begins with the assumption of literary dependency. While Matthew, Mark and Luke admittedly share a number of striking parallels, the glaring differences must also be accounted for, and each writer’s distinctiveness clearly argues for independence. The similarities are readily explained by a combination of the following.
     First, all of the Gospels share the same subject matter. The authors did not base their works strictly on literary sources but on actual people and events. Second, they all share a common background of information. Eyewitness testimony undergirds all three accounts. Matthew himself was an eyewitness and had first-hand knowledge of much of what he records (see Authorship of NT Gospels). Even though he did not personally see or experience everything that is reported (e.g. 1:1–4:11; 17:1-9; 26:3-5; 28:1-15), he was associated with those who did. Mark and Luke were also personally acquainted with eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2; 1 Peter 5:13). Furthermore, in addition to written accounts that may have been available (cf. Luke 1:1), the oral transmission of information would have been quite accurate and consistent in the context of ancient oral cultures (see Oral Transmission).¹ The eyewitnesses were still around as these accounts circulated and would surely have guarded against significant variation.
     It is of interest to note that the highest percentage of literary agreement among the Synoptics is in sections where sayings of Jesus are recorded, demonstrating the extreme care of the early church to preserve the Lord’s teachings. Granted, Jesus and his immediate followers spoke Aramaic, but from Pentecost onwards the oral transmission of the gospel message was not limited to this language (Acts 2:4-11; 8:4; 11:19-20). Since these teachings came to be recorded in Greek, it is only natural to conclude that they had also been verbally communicated in Greek, particularly among the Hellenists, the Greeks, and the bilingual populace of the Roman Empire. In fact, one of the Gospel writers implicitly places himself outside the circle of Aramaic speakers (Acts 1:19).²
     Finally, notwithstanding anti-supernaturalist objections, the influence of the Holy Spirit is a significant factor. There would have been divine assistance provided through revelation (Matthew 10:19-20; John 16:13; Ephesians 3:5) and inspiration (1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Peter 1:21), along with sharpening the memories of eyewitnesses (John 14:25-26) (see Biblical Inspiration in Perspective).
     The best solution to the Synoptic Problem appears to be the simplest. Although the Independence Proposal is not very popular among the majority of contemporary New Testament scholars (perhaps because it is not complicated enough!), it seems to make the most sense in light of a straightforward evaluation of the available evidence.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The hypothetical Q source, an attempt to explain the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, fails to account for the fact that "the degree of agreement between Matthew and Luke varies widely in the Q material," making it necessary to "postulate a variety of sources, some written, some oral, some in Greek, some in Aramaic, rather than one single written document.... a number of passages where the verbal dissimilarity between the two Gospels is so great that the hypothesis of a common source is less likely ..." (I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian 60-61; cf. also M. Black, Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts 186-96).
     ² The parallels between Luke and John cannot be reasonably explained by literary dependency (see C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel).

Related Posts: Synoptic Problem/Markan Priority 1, Biblical Authorship (Part 1), Biblical Authorship (Part 2), Dating of Luke-Acts, Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel

The Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority? (Part 1 of 2)

via Wikipedia

     The term "synoptic," derived from the Greek sunopsis ("seeing together"), is applied to the first three New Testament Gospels because of the high degree of similarities among them in relation to structure, arrangement, content, style, and vocabulary. Where did Matthew, Mark and Luke get the information that comprises their respective accounts? If they are entirely independent of one other, why are they so much alike? If they all share a literary relationship, how are the striking differences to be explained and how can they serve as three separate witnesses to the life and teachings of Christ? This, briefly stated, is the so-called "Synoptic Problem."
     What is currently regarded in scholarly circles as the most viable option is that the similarities among these documents can only be accounted for on the basis of literary dependence. This basic premise has led to what has become the prevailing method of synoptic analysis known as Redaction Criticism, i.e., the study of how authors have created a literary work by editing and modifying their sources of information. And the foundation of the whole theory is the presumption of Markan priority (MP), i.e., Mark’s Gospel is believed to have been produced first and was then utilized by both Matthew and Luke in compiling their corresponding works. It has been estimated that about 90% of Mark’s material is found in Matthew and about 55% in Luke (see B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels 151, 159-60).
     This popular theory is based on the following observations: (a) Mark is the shortest (the supposition being that Matthew and Luke expanded the material); (b) Mark’s writing style tends to be more awkward (thus Matthew and Luke supposedly smoothed it out); and (c) purportedly Matthew and Luke do not often agree against Mark, while the materials they share in common (not found in Mark) are usually located in a different sequence (see Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: Historical Introduction [4th ed.] 93-96).
     However, contrary to the confident assertions of MP theorists, this artful proposal is neither a proven fact nor a satisfactory explanation. It does not account for the approximately 230 agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark,¹ which has compelled critics to surmise yet another source, viz. a hypothetical document designated Q (from the German Quelle, meaning "source"). Despite the fact that there is no tangible evidence that this Q source ever existed, its presumption does not explain the unique content of Matthew and the unique content of Luke not shared with Mark or with each other.² Nevertheless, rather than abandon the theory, scholars have simply contrived two more hypothetical sources, viz. "M" for the information peculiar to Matthew and "L" for the distinct material in Luke.
     Lest we become too enamored with the imaginative world of hypotheticals, we ought to concentrate on what is verifiable and determine how the MP theory holds up under the scrutiny of the biblical texts themselves. While the information in over 250 verses in Matthew is not duplicated elsewhere, and 500 verses appear only in Luke, the material in almost fifty verses is unique to Mark. If literary dependence is the sole option, how do MP theorists account for the fifty-five verses of Mark not found in Matthew, or the striking omission in Luke of the material in Mark 6:45–8:26 and 9:41–10:12? What about the curious absence in both Matthew and Luke of the following sections of Mark: 1:1; 2:27; 3:20-22a; 4:26-29; 7:2-4, 32-37; 8:22-26; 9:29, 48-49; 13:33-37; 14:51-52?
     There are also interesting details in Mark that do not appear in the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke.³ It is not without significance that Luke places a great deal of emphasis on prayer (cf. 3:21; 6:12; 9:18, 28-29; 11:1-8; 18:1-14; 21:36; 22:32, 40-46; 24:53), yet the prayer of Jesus in Mark 1:35 is not found in Luke. Notice how MP theorists respond: "It is possible that the reference to prayer here is a later addition . . . the statement was not included in the version of Mark known to [Luke]" (D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark 84). If the absence of empirical proof does not subvert this hallowed theory, and if speculative assumptions and circular reasoning are needed to bolster it, one must wonder why it has retained its status for so long as the coveted badge of critical scholarship!
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The approximately 230 agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, when viewed collectively, require a more reasonable explanation than the “insignificant” or “accidental” assertions that MP theorists tend to offer. See esp. Robert L. Thomas, “An Investigation of the Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark,” in JETS 19 (Spring 1976): 103-112. Thomas concludes: “For too long New Testament scholars have been bound to the assumption of direct literary dependence among the writers. Perhaps this has been a blindfold rather than a help in supplying answers. At least the option should be entertained that the three synoptists worked in relative independence of one another in producing their gospels” (112). See also Robert L. Thomas, “Redaction Criticism,” in The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship, eds. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998): 233-66.
     ² A. Wikenhauser observes that out of 1,149 verses in Luke's Gospel, almost half are unique to him (NT Introduction 548). I. H. Marshall, a MP proponent, admits that many attempted explanations "do not seem adequate and sometimes give the impression of being desperate attempts to iron out the difficulties at any cost," and the Marcan priority hypothesis "must be judged insufficient to account for all the evidence .... the evidence is not completely in its favour" (Luke: Historian and Theologian [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970]: 57-62).

     ³ See, e.g., Mark 1:13b, 20b, 35; 2:26b; 3:17b, 20-22a; 4:3a, 36b, 38a; 5:13b, 26, 41b; 6:3a, 8b, 9a, 39b, 48b; 7:30; 8:35b; 9:3b, 41b; 10:11b-12, 30b, 45b, 46b; 11:10a, 17b; 12:29b, 32-34; 14:30b, 36a, 15:21b, 47a.

Related Posts: Synoptic Problem/Markan Priority 2, Authorship of NT Gospels, Biblical Authorship (Part 1), Biblical Authorship (Part 2), Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel