Markan priority hypothesis

E278397

hypothesis theory in biblical studies view in New Testament scholarship

The Markan priority hypothesis is the widely supported view in New Testament scholarship that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the Synoptic Gospels and served as a primary source for Matthew and Luke.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (4)

Label	Occurrences
Two-Source Hypothesis	2
Two-source hypothesis	2
Mark is used as a baseline for comparing Synoptic traditions	1
Markan priority hypothesis canonical	1

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	hypothesis ⓘ theory in biblical studies ⓘ view in New Testament scholarship ⓘ
addresses	Synoptic Problem ⓘ surface form: Synoptic problem
associatedWith	source criticism ⓘ two-document theory ⓘ
claimsAboutLuke	Luke expands and edits Markan material ⓘ
claimsAboutMark	Mark contains more awkward or difficult readings later smoothed by Matthew and Luke ⓘ Gospel of Mark ⓘ surface form: Mark is generally shorter than parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke Mark preserves a more primitive Christology in some passages ⓘ
claimsAboutMatthew	Matthew expands and edits Markan material ⓘ
concerns	Gospel of Luke ⓘ Gospel of Mark ⓘ Gospel of Matthew ⓘ Synoptic Gospels ⓘ
coreClaim	Matthew used Mark as a written source ⓘ surface form: The Gospel of Mark served as a primary source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke Gospel of Mark ⓘ surface form: The Gospel of Mark was the first written of the Synoptic Gospels
debatedBy	New Testament scholars ⓘ
field	New Testament scholarship ⓘ surface form: New Testament studies Synoptic problem research ⓘ biblical studies ⓘ
hasConsequence	Gospel of Mark ⓘ surface form: Mark is frequently treated as the earliest narrative Gospel Mark is often dated earlier than Matthew and Luke ⓘ Markan priority hypothesis self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Mark is used as a baseline for comparing Synoptic traditions
historicalDevelopment	emerged as a leading solution to the Synoptic problem in the 19th century ⓘ
implies	Luke used Mark as a written source ⓘ Matthew used Mark as a written source ⓘ material common to Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark may derive from another source ⓘ
influences	historical Jesus research ⓘ modern Gospel introductions ⓘ redaction criticism of the Synoptic Gospels ⓘ synoptic Gospel commentaries ⓘ
methodologicalBasis	literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels ⓘ
oftenCombinedWith	Four-source hypothesis ⓘ Markan priority hypothesis self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Two-source hypothesis
opposedBy	Griesbach hypothesis ⓘ Lukan priority hypothesis ⓘ Matthean priority ⓘ surface form: Matthean priority hypothesis
relatedConcept	Q source (hypothetical) ⓘ surface form: Q source double tradition ⓘ triple tradition ⓘ
statusInScholarship	dominant view ⓘ widely supported among New Testament scholars ⓘ
supportedBy	argument from length and style of Mark ⓘ literary analysis of Synoptic parallels ⓘ order of pericopes in the Synoptic Gospels ⓘ presence of more primitive readings in Mark ⓘ redaction-critical studies of Matthew and Luke ⓘ

Referenced by (6)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Q source hypothesis → hasComponent → Markan priority hypothesis ⓘ

Augustinian hypothesis → contrastsWith → Markan priority hypothesis ⓘ

this entity surface form: Two-source hypothesis

Griesbach hypothesis → rejects → Markan priority hypothesis ⓘ

this entity surface form: Two-Source Hypothesis

Griesbach hypothesis → alternativeTo → Markan priority hypothesis ⓘ

this entity surface form: Two-Source Hypothesis

Markan priority hypothesis → oftenCombinedWith → Markan priority hypothesis self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Two-source hypothesis

Markan priority hypothesis → hasConsequence → Markan priority hypothesis self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Mark is used as a baseline for comparing Synoptic traditions