Marcan Priority and its Inadequacies!

Marcan Priority and its Inadaquecies.
This short paper is simply designed to raise questions as to Markan priority in the solution of the synoptic puzzle. It gives a short and by no means comprehensive outline of the synoptic problem, and asserts that while there is no present day academic consensus regarding an alternative hypothesis to Markan priority, it does not mean Markan priority is a satisfactory theory explaining the data in the three gospels. It is not and many of it inadaquecies are explained in this paper. The first half of the paper outlines some of the hypotheses put forward which attempt to explain the data, this culminates with Markan priority. The second half is a critique of the hypothesis based on the work of Farmer on the Griesbach hypothesis. The final conclusion is by no means certain.


The Synoptic Puzzle

The phrase "synoptic puzzle" refers to the relationship between the three gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark and Luke, which present a very similar outlook on the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The fourth gospel presents the life from a different angle. The common factors are outlined by Myers The Eerdmans Bible Dictonary (1987,975) as their "common structure, perspective, and contents". The outline of Jesus life and activity, and the style and language of the gospels are similar. Grant in the article “Gospels”, Encyclopedia Americana (1972) notes the details of the common pattern are:
1 A ministry of Jesus in Galilee, 2 A journey to Jerusalem, 3 A short public ministry there, 4 A crucifixion and 5 Post Easter Manifestation.


Westcott's work An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, (5th ed [New York: 1875], p. 191) gives an analysis of the material common to two or more of the gospels or particular to each one.
The similarities and pecularities are presented by Meyers:
Peculiar Shared
Mark 07% 93%
Matthew 42% 58%
Luke 59% 41%
[John] 92% 08%

It is clear from looking at the three synoptic gospels that they are in some way related. The Synoptic problem is to discover how the gospels are related. The issue has a long history, Augustine (354-430) suggested that Matthew was primary and Mark and then Luke were dependent on Matthew. Myers outlines four main modern hypotheses seeking to understand the relationship.[1]
J.C.L Gieseler[2] (1818) and the Oral Tradition Hyptothesis
This hypothesis posits that the gospels have no literary dependence, but rather they are linked by a common oral tradition.

F. Schlieiermacher[3] (1817) and the Fragment (Diegesen) Hypothesis
This theory posits that fragments of Jesus teachings and sayings circulated and were later collected in various categories by different apostles. These then later grew into the gospels as we have them.

J. G. Eichorn[4] (1804) and the Primitive Gospel Hypothesis
This posits an original Aramaic gospel, which was available to the gospel writers. They each used it as they willed.

These theories were abandoned because the relationships between the synoptics were so close that a literary solution was seen to be necessary.
Mutual Usage Hypothesis
This hypothesis assumes a literary dependence between the gospels and the problem is to discern what the exact relationship between the three books is. According to Kummel (1966, 39) three hypotheses have held their ground regarding the literary relationship between the three gospels.
Firstly the order posited by Augustine and maintained by Church tradition. The sequence is Matthew, Mark and Luke.[5] Here it is often posited that Mark is dependent on an early version of Matthew.
Then we have the hypothesis of J.J. Griesbach[6], which attempts to show that the gospel of Mark was extracted from Matthew and Luke. Evidence of this hypothesis is presented in F. Bleek's An Introduction to the NT [7].
Finally since the time of H. J. Holtzman (1863) it is held that Mark[8] was written first and used by Matthew and Luke independently. This hypothesis was supported in the 18th century by J.B. Koppe (1782) and G.C.Storr (1786). Kummel[9] notes that Lachman had observed that Matthew and Luke agreed with each other in order only when they agreed with Mark. He also notes that C. G Wilke and H. Weise asserted independently of one another that Mark represented the common source for Matthew and Luke's narrative material. This last hypothesis usually posits another source shared by Luke and Matthew to explain the data they share which Mark does not have.

The Second Source Quelle
The term Quelle is a German word meaning source. The posited extra source has been labeled Q by modern scholarship. Thus scholars who hold to this position posit two main sources as the solution of the Synoptic problem. Matthew and Luke however have blocks of information which is peculiar to both and these have been labeled L for Luke's source and M for Matthew's source.
This is considered a variant on the two-source theory and is called the four-source theory.
The State of the Problem
Myers considers the basic two-source theory to be the dominant paradigm in synoptic studies up until 1987. It does however raise some difficulties.
The Priority of Mark
For Myers this is the main issue, Mark has 661 verses of which 601 are used by Matthew and Luke. Matthew uses 51% of Marks words and Luke uses 50%, other supposed indicators that Mark has priority is that Matthew and Luke tend to use the order of Mark. When either one departs from this order the other tends to agree with Mark against the departure. Other arguments suggested for the priority of Mark include the difficulty of explaining why Mark left out so much of the sayings of Jesus if he had access to Matthew or Luke's gospel[10]. Others have argued that Mark style and language are original. Sometimes it can be shown that Luke appears to be clarifying issues, which Mark left unclear.[11] It is also asserted that Mark's Greek is far less polished than Matthews, so why would he not have used Matthew’s better Greek if he had access to it.

Challenging the Two Source Theory
The Markan priority hypotheses, has never been seen as a complete solution to the relationships between the synoptic gospels. It has a number of weaknesses at least one of which can be seen as its Achilles heel[12].
Indeed Mann suggested in 1986 "The majority view that Mark was first and that Matthew and Luke are substantially dependent upon Mark cannot be adequately proved"[13]
It has come under attack by those who were in favor of it but on closer inspection discovered it to be inadequate.[14] And by those who maintain that there were never any evidently scientific or logical reasons for holding to Markan priority and all it really did was to support the unsupported theories of liberal protestant and catholic scholars of the 19th century and on.[15]
In 1964 W. R. Farmer revived a theory dating back to 1789. This was the hypothesis of Griesbach who argued that Matthew wrote first and that Luke used Matthew. Mark then extracted from both of them to write his gospel. As for Q, no such document was mentioned in the early Church[16] hence there is no external evidence as to its existence. It is then a hypothetical construct to try to explain the common data of Matthew and Luke beyond Mark. The Q material is mainly made up of sayings of Jesus and contains little narrative. Farmer posits five main elements of the synoptic problem that the Two Document or Four Source theory fails to explain:

A Why is Mark missing so much?
If Luke and John had included many things Matthew had omitted[17] and since the Evangelists had noted that they had passed over many wonderful things for the sake of brevity[18], it meant there was a vast store house of knowledge available to Mark. Why was it that he did not use more of this great store house of omitted items but kept himself largely to the same items that Matthew and Luke took from that same source? The elements in Mark which are not in Luke and Matthew add up to less than 24 verses[19]. Griesbach concluded. “Mark's purpose was to select from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the items most useful for his intended readers, and to narrate them in the manner appropriate to them"[20] The issue of what Mark left out e.g. the Sermon on the Mount is a secondary issue for Griesbach.[21]

B Why does Mark have no independent Chronology?
If Mark wrote first how is it that he has no independent chronology? The other synoptics have a chronology in agreement with and independent from the other evangelists. Farmer asserts that this is best explained if Mark drew on the chronologies of Luke and Matthew. Farmer continues that "Bishop Butler refuted the argument for Marcan priority based upon the phenomenon of order (Butler proved that this argument did not support Marcan priority, only that Mark's order is in some sense a middle term between that of Matthew and Luke)".[22] For Farmer the fact that Mark is shown to be a "middle term" in terms of order shows that he must have been written third. [23] Farmer concludes
It is an inadequacy of the view of Marcan priority that it can [not] explain…the pattern of order Mark gives to the items he selects in relation to the pattern of selection and of order that we find in Matthew and Luke[24]

C Marcan priority assumes Matthew and Luke are independent of one another
The problem with this assumption is that there are numerous cases where Matthew and Luke agree with each other against Mark when they are supposed to be independently copying Mark. Allen, who although arguing for Marcan priority notes:
Mt. and Lk. Often agree against Mk. In omission and in substitution of a word or phrase, and (rarely) in an insertion. [25]
There are a number of areas where Matthew and Luke agree in distinction to Mark:
(i)Luke like Matthew does not use words characteristic of Mark like kai evthus, palin, polla, and hoti after verbs of saying and uses de when Mark often uses kai. Interestingly both Matthew and Luke have de where kai stands in Mark, twenty six times.[26]
(ii) Statements about many crowds are more popular with Mark than with Luke and Matthew. We can see this in Mark 1:33, 45, 2:2, 3:9,10,20, 6:31 and the parallels.
(iii) Matthew and Luke do not use the historic present popular with Mark.[27]
(iv) Both Matthew and Luke often use aorists where Mark uses imperfects[28].
(v) Matthew and Mark do not use eerxanto-avto (they began-him) where Mark uses it in the parallel passages Mk 5:17,20, 6:34, 8:31, 10:28, 32, [29]47, 13:5, and 14:69. However Luke does use this construction 27 times.
(vi) Certain phrases which Allen considers redundant are used by Mark but not by Matthew and Luke.[30]
(vii) Luke and Matthew sometimes agree in a certain words where Mark has a different word. [31]

These are just some of the examples where Matthew and Luke have one thing and Mark has another where they are supposed to be independently copying Mark. There are so many of these agreements that to explain this phenomena some have suggested "that Mt. and Lk. Had in addition to Mk a second source, containing parallel matter to almost the whole of Mark"[32] Farmer asserts from this evidence:
If Matthew and Luke are independently copying Mark, there ought not to be so much agreement between them and against Mark as in fact there is.[33]
This has led some scholars to argue that Luke knew Matthew which is clearly a fundamental change in the Two Document Hypothesis where Mark and Q are supposed to be the sources[34] and Matthew and Luke are supposed to be working independently of each other. And others have given up Q completely and assert that Luke used Matthew and Mark.[35] In the latter case the Two Document Hypothesis is abandoned but for some scholars Marcan priority is maintained[36].
The next set of facts which the Marcan priority hypothesis fails to adequately explain is also against the supposed independence of Matthew and Luke. Here it is shown that they have a very similar form. "Each is more like the other than either is like any other document"[37] They have asserts Farmer at least 20 topics which they have in common.[38] Mark misses some of these topics and so can not explain the phenomenon. The topics include: birth narratives, genealogy, a temptation story, the Sermon on the Mount, and large collections of parables. Matthew has seven separate discourses which are represented in Luke and apart from one difference they occur in the same order. This data is considered a "remarkable concatenation of compositional agreement"[39]
D The Two Document Hypothesis is contrary to external evidence
The first clear usage of the gospel of Mark is said not to be until the middle of the second century with Justin Martyr, whereas Matthew is said to be known by Ignatius. The letter of 2 Peter refers to the incident of the transfiguration and the story recorded appears to be closer to the Matthean record. The importance of external evidence is also supported by C Mann Anchor Bible commentary, The Gospel of Mark. The Church fathers who deal with the order of gospels put Matthew first. "Those who defend Marcan priority ignore their responsibility to account for the fact that there is little or no support for it from external evidence"[40]
E It does not Explain the Historical Movement of the Gospel from Jewish to Gentile
Here Farmer focuses on the fact that Matthew is the most Jewish of the gospels, followed by Luke and then Mark which is the one most well adapted for a Gentile audience. We would historically expect the Jewish to come first and the Gentile to branch out from this. But in the assumption that Mark is first the situation is reversed. Matthew who is writing a gospel for Jews is assumed to wait on a writer among the Gentiles as a source. Although this is not impossible it is unlikely. The reasoning has not focused on the historical but rather on the theological. Mann has made a number of pertinent observations on this issue.
From the beginning of this century up to the present, the acceptance of Markan priority in synoptic relationships has led to a torrent of critical work on Mark. It is not too much to say that it has been emphasis on the theological concerns of the evangelists which has lead to skepticism in many quarters as to the possibility of knowing anything at all of the life of Jesus…in some circles the specific theological contributions of Matthew and Luke are seen as reactions against, or modifications and developments of, theological concerns thought to exist in Mark.[41]

I believe this is a very important point, and illustrates the lack of focus on the historical development, which would clearly make it very unlikely for a writer for Jews in the Palestinian tradition to wait for a writer for Gentiles to use as a model for writing on the Jewish Jesus. Mann went on to emphasize the theological motivations "of those who first proposed solutions to the synoptic problem"[42]
The fifth inadequacy of Farmer then is that there is no explanation as to why the "more Jewish and Palestinian Gospel, Matthew, must be perceived as coming after and as dependent upon the less Jewish and less Palestinian Mark. This is a historical difficulty of very great consequence."[43] The arguments of Farmer when taken together appear to me quite formidable. I do not think they are all as strong as one another.
Lindsey does not hold the Griesbach hypothesis on all points. His argument agrees with the fact that the agreement, in order, points not to Markan priority but to the opposite. Regarding the phenomenon mentioned above regarding the order of the pericope, Lindsey asserts:
Unfortunately, Markan Priorists have misunderstood this phenomenon and supposed that it strengthens the Markan hypothesis
He cites Streeter on the agreements:
Whenever Matthew departs from Marks order, Luke supports Mark, whenever Luke departs from Mark, Matthew agrees with Mark[44]
However since they were working independently the problem comes down to:
Mark's failure to ever stand alone as due to the authors deliberate change of the order of his source synoptist and the subsequent decision of the third evangelist to follow Mark's order against any other he may know"[45]
He like Farmer takes the issue out of the hands of chance and into the hands of the evangelist. His conclusion although agreeing that Mark did not write first, disagrees with Farmer on who wrote first. For him it has to be Luke. He understands that Mark translates very well into Hebrew except for a number of "non Hebraisms". Matthews retains a number of these non Hebraisms and Luke has none of them. So Luke was the closest to a written source which Lindsey posits which he calls a Proto Narrative[46], parallel to Mark but different.[47] For Lindsey the order is Luke, Mark and Matthew.

He reviewed and evaluated the Griesbach hypothesis and concluded that its strength was its explanation of the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark.[48]

Developing a sound hypothesis as to the solution to the Synoptic Problem
External Evidence
In Eusebius a tradition is handed down that Clement of Alexandria received it from the Elders that:
" The gospels were first written which included genealogies" (H.E. 6:14:5)[49] This testimony of Clement takes us into the second century and clearly indicates that Matthew and Luke preceded Mark. The character of Clements witnesses might help us get closer to the first century:
This work is not a writing composed for show, but notes stored up for my old age …and a sketch of those clear and vital words which I was privileged to hear, and of blessed and true and notable men. One of these the Ionian, was in Greece, another in South Italy, a third in Coele-Syria [Lebanon]
The external evidence all points to a Matthean priority. If we compare the coincidence of Matthew to Mark as compared to apocryphal gospel parallels, we find a very strong witness for the Matthean priority. Of just over 150 citations in Gospel Parallels we find that only about 5 citations parallel Mark and more than 120 parallel Matthew. The traditions represented in the gospel of Matthew by the second century are used far more widely and regularly than those in Mark. This would suggest that they go back to an earlier time, giving them greater opportunity to spread abroad and find there way into apocryphal gospels.[50]
This all leads on to a basic assertion, From the internal evidence of the Synoptic Gospels it is very difficult to come to a position of certainty regarding who wrote first and who was dependent on whom. This being the case we look to develop the best possibility and the most likely relationship between the three documents. To ascertain this we have to develop some criteria for looking at the relative dating of the three Synoptics. I also believe it necessary to develop some external independent criteria by which the dating of the gospels can be measured. This would be linked to the historical and cultural context of the life of Jesus and the early Church. In this context I believe the suggestions of David Daube on "The Dating of Rabbinic Material in the New Testament"( Daube 2000,8) can help shed light on the relationship of the three gospels.
We know that the life of Jesus took place in a Jewish context. It was then later adapted for presentation to Gentile audiences. I believe then it is safe to assume that all things being equal, a Gospel that reflects the actual context of the life and ministry of Jesus, is likely to precede one that has been adapted for a new context. If we apply this to our gospels, all things being equal we would expect the Jewish oriented Gospel of Matthew to precede the far more Gentile oriented Luke and Mark. If this hypothesis were true we would predict that in the second century there would be more sources using this original tradition than the adapted gospel which applied to Gentile audiences. And this is exactly what we find. Matthew’s gospel is cited far more regularly than Mark and Luke put together. This does not mean we can be certain as to who wrote first but can go to helping us come to the most reasonable conclusion in light of the complexity of the issue and the paucity of evidence.











Bibliography
A Bibliography which may help us approach the status of the subject would include:
Allen, W. C. Matthew, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Edinburgh: ICC, 1912)
Butler, B. C., The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis, (Cambridge: University Press, 1951)
Daube, New Testament Judaism, 2000
Farmer W. R. The Synoptic Problem, London and New York: Macmillan, 1964
Farmer, W. R., "A Skeleton in the Closet of Gospel Research," BR 6,1961, 18ff
Farmer, W. R. Jesus and the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982)
He is convinced of Matthean priority.
Farmer, W. R., "State Interesse and Marcan Primacy"p2477-2499 in The Four Gospels (Leuven: LUP,1992)
Goodacre, M.,"A Monopoly On Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q" Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 2000 (Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature, 2000)
Lindsey, R., The Gospel of Mark, 1973
Mann, C., Mark A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible, (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc. 1986)
Parker, P., The Gospel Before Mark, 1953
Stanton, G.N., Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: CUP, 2004)
" " The Gospels and Jesus, (Oxford, OUP, 2002)
Streeter, B. H The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. (London: Macmillan, 1924)
Wenham, J., Redating Matthew, Mark, & Luke (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1992)
Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, (5th ed [New York: 1875]


[1] Wenham in his Redating Matthew Mark and Luke outlines 8 different synoptic problem hypotheses scenarios: Oral theory, Two Document, Four Document (Streeter), Markan Priority, no Q (Goulder), Successive Dependence (Chapman), Two Gospel (Griesbach), Multiple Source (Boisnard), Oral Theory with some measure of successive dependence (Wenham).
[2] Historisch-kritischer Versuch uber die Entstehung und die fruhesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evv., 1818. see Kummel (1966, 38)
[3] Schriften des Lk., ein kritischer Versuch See Kummel (1966, 38)
[4] Einl. In das NT I see Kummel (1966, 37)
[5] This finds support with Zahn, Schlatter, Butler and Farmer.
[6] Treatise in Which the Entire Gospel of Mark Is shown to Be Extracted from the works of Matthew and Luke, 1789. see Kummel (1966,39)
[7] Tr. William Urwick from 2nd edition [1866] (1869,I, 259). He argues that Mark 1:32 opsas de genomenees, hote edusen ho heelios is composed from Mt 8:16 opsas de genomenees and Luke 4:40, dunontos de tou heeliou. This idea was followed by De Wette, Bleek and Baur's school.
[8] In fact Holtzmann posited an Ur Marcus a work similar to what we have today but not the same. This idea was abandoned by later Markan apriorists for the idea that the canonical Mark we have today was the one which Matthew and Luke worked on independently. See Lindsey 1973 Introduction
[9] Kummel (1966,39)
[10] As I understand this problem remains even if Mark did not have access to Matthew and Luke, for the sayings if they existed from the time of Jesus would have been present in the Churches.
[11] The treatment of the Gadarene Demoniac is one example is cited in this line of evidence. Luke is held to expand on Marks treatment of the story.
[12] For me this is the argument from order. The Triple tradition contains 78 pericopae when we follow Albert Huck's Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (ninth edition, 1976) of these 77 Matthew, Mark and Luke agree in the order for 60 of them. Luke goes his own way in 8 and Matthew in 9. Where ever Luke and Matthew supposedly independently go there own way, the other agrees with Mark. What then is the most logical explanation of this process? Not that it happened by chance but that Mark wrote with Matthew and Luke in front of him. When they diverged in order, he went with one and then with another as he felt was right. So it not so much that they agreed with Mark but he agreed with them.
[13] Mann (1986, 51)
[14] As Robert Lindsey in his A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark 2nd Edition 1976
[15] See Farmer (1992)
[16] Some see the form of Q as perhaps hinted by Papias reference to Matthew collecting Logia or Sayings of Jesus in Hebrew, as mentioned by Eusebius.
[17] Here we note that Farmer has noted that Griesbach was remaining with in the bounds of Church tradition that Matthew was written first.
[18] John 21:25
[19] Allen (1912, xiii) who holds to Markan priority notes "Almost the entire substance of the second Gospel has been transferred to the first." The omissions he notes are Mk 1:23-28, 1:35-39, 4:26-29, 7:32-37, 8:22-26, 9:38-40 and 12:41-44, these are considered the substantial omissions. Clearly from the perspective of Matthean priority Mark has almost taken his whole gospel from Matthew.
[20] Griesbach cited in Farmer 1982,3 from J. J. Griesbach, "A Demonstration that Mark was Written after Matthew and Luke, " in J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776-1976, Society for New Testament Studies Monographs 34, trans. Bernard Orchard, eds. B. Orchard, T.R.W. Longstaff (Cambridge: CUP,1978, 111)
[21] To me we may add that Mark, whenever Mark wrote whether the conservative 40 AD or the later 70 AD, he must have had access in an oral manner to some of the sources of Matthew, Luke, and John for that matter. The idea of Mark not being aware that Jesus taught the Church to feed their enemies when they were hungry, after the Church had been in existence for between 10 and 40 years is unreasonable. Paul referred it in AD 57 to the Church of Rome (Rom 12: 20) and Matthew referred to it in Matt 5:44. Could Mark have been interpreter of Peter and never heard this saying? This is very unlikely. Therefore Mark's omission does not mean he did not know but that he did not feel this particular thought needed to be directly passed on to his readers. Nor does it stand against him writing second or third, the fact that he did not mention these things for he knew them one way or another, orally or in writing.
[22] Farmer (1982, 4) We might find evidence for this is B.C. Butler, The Originality of St Matthew, 1951
[23] For me it seems very unlikely that the phenomenon of Matthew and Luke never agreeing in order or chronology against Mark could have happened by chance. This is especially the case if they had used Mark independently of one another. It seems far more likely that someone went systematically through the data and selected one point of order or another and decided himself "I will go with Matthew on this one", or "I will go with Luke on this one". This would then explain how Matthew and Luke never agree together against Mark in order, he had designed his gospel order on to make this the case.
[24] Farmer (1982,4)
[25] Allen (1912, xxxvi) Examples can be seen in the omissions from Mark. !:13, 1:29,2:26, 3:17, 4:38, 5:13, 6:37, 6:39, 6:40, 9:3, 14:51, 15:21 and 15:44 by both Luke and Matthew. Clearly now if we look from the perspective of Matthean priority, these are all additions by Mark in order to give more detail in each situation. For example Matthew and Luke tells us that Jesus came to Peter's or Simons house but Mark adds it was also Andrews house and that they were with James and John.
[26] Allen, (1912, xxxvi)
[27] Luke shows only one example of this in Luke 8:49 and Mark 5:35. Clearly if Mark was using Matthew and Luke he would be changing many.
[28] See Mk 1:32, 4:2, 5:13,17, 6:7, 12:18, and 14:72 and the parallels for examples.
[29] Farmer (1982,5) refers to Morgethaler
[30] For examples see parallels to Mk 1:32, 1:42, 2:15, 2:16, 2:19, 2:25, 5:12, 5:19, 6:35, 10:27, 10:46, 11:28 and 12:14.
[31] See for example Mark 1:10, 1:12, 2:11 for more example see Allen (1912, xxxvii)
[32] Allen (1912, xxxix) He cites this but considers it unsatisfactory. Linsey on the other hands is favourable to a parallel Markan tradition (1973, 16-18)
[33] Farmer (1982, 5)
[34] Farmer ibid, refers to Morgenthaler.
[35] Austin Farrer is the champion of this approach See A. M Farrer " On Dispensing with Q," StG 1957, 55ff. A revival of his hypothesis is now supported by Mark Goodacre of Birmingham University. See "A Monopoly On Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q" Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 2000 (Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), pp538-622
[36] See Goodacre (2000)
[37] Farmer 1982, 5
[38] This issue is treated by Bernard Orchard in Matthew, Luke, and Mark: The Griesbach Solution to the Synoptic Question, vol 1 (Manchester : Koinonia, 1976)
[39] Farmer, (1982, 5)
[40] Farmer 1982, 6)
[41] Mann (1986, 48)
[42] Mann (1986, 49)
[43] Farmer (1982, 9)
[44] Streeter, (1924, 161)
[45] Lindsey (1973,XIV)
[46] Allen doesn't like the idea of theis proto narrative at all see Allen 1912, xxxix
[47] This is seen as Holtzmans Ur Marcus
[48] It has been pointed out a number of times that this so called "minor agreements" are in no sense minor for they are the arrow in the Achilles heal of the Two Document hypothesis, it does not explain them adequately.
[49] Cited in Wenham (1992, 188)
[50] See Gospel Parallels Introduction