Talk:Marcan priority

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content only found in Mark

The Comment "Significant too is Mark 8:22-26, where Jesus has to try twice to heal a man, his first attempt not being entirely successful". Is Misleading,

Jesus does not Have to Try twice to heal a man, it is recorded that the man was healed on a single occasion using a two step process to do so, i.e if you ever go to an opticians they use several lenses and tests before the Best prescription is used.

The Man was Totally blind! Jesus compassionately uses a slower two stage process to heal him and the comment infers Jesus struggled to heal him at all!

Mark 8:22-26 (NWT) Now they put in at Beth·sa´i·da. Here people brought him a blind man, and they entreated him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand, brought him outside the village, and, having spit upon his eyes, he laid his hands upon him and began to ask him: “Do you see anything?” 24 And the man looked up and began saying: “I see men, because I observe what seem to be trees, but they are walking about.” 25 Then he laid his hands again upon the man’s eyes, and the man saw clearly, and he was restored, and he was seeing everything distinctly. 26 So he sent him off home, saying: “But do not enter into the village.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.150.166 (talk)

I'm pretty sure I read the "2 attempts" interpretation in some book on Matthew; I can try and chase it down if I must; it may have been Davies and Allison (or not). Evercat (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I've edited it now to no longer imply anything. Evercat (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek language based argument

Would love to see someone provide the Greek language based argument for Markan priority. I've read it but don't have the scholarship to explain it adequately.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.202.227.235 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 November 2005.

We need a larger article...

The article should be larger so that we can discuss the traditionally held view that Mark's Gospel was written second. The original founders of the Church must have had some clue as to why they felt that way in the early second century...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Band Aide (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 July 2007.

Merger with Two-source article?

I would like to suggest that this article be merged with the two source article. Part of the same evidence used for showing Markan priority is also used for discussion of the two-source hypothesis. The two source hypothesis should first discuss the evidence for Markan priority, and then the evidence for the two-source hypothesis can be placed at the end. And then include discussion of the four-source hypothesis:

Markan priority
Two source
Four source

Having separate articles on these issues seems redundant.172.165.126.194 00:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a lot of work expanding the Two source hypothesis article. It now has a small section on Markan priority. Despite this, I'd like to see this article kept and expanded, so that anyone reading the other article and wanting extra information can come here, without this wealth of information overwhelming the first article. PiCo 13:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this can be merged with 2SH, since there are theories which accept Markan Priority but reject Q, e.g. the Farrer hypothesis. Evercat (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Evercat to keep separate. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

It seems helpful to clarify here what the scope of this article should be.

There are other articles on the synoptic problem and on the two-source theory (as well as other theories involving Marcan priority). At present, however, there are no articles on Matthaean or Lucan priority.

I do think this article has a place, as in-depth discussion of Marcan priority is well beyond the scope of Synoptic problem and both the two-source and Farrer theories would otherwise end up repeating this common premise on which they both agree.

It's tempting, though, to expand its scope to synoptic priority in general. Priority is just one aspect of the synoptic problem, though very much a key one. Many of the arguments in favor of Marcan priority work against the alternatives, and vice versa. So it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other. But, more generally, it's hard to talk about any aspect of the synoptic problem without talking about all of them.

On the other hand, Marcan priority is most naturally contrasted with Marcan posteriority, which is usually identified with the Griesbach theory (though the seldom-discussed Büsching theory supposes it as well). But between these extremes there are also theories that place Mark in the middle (Augustinian, Jerusalem school).

So, I propose, keep the article focused on Marcan priority. Mention the alternatives, especially Marcan posteriority, by way of contrast. Mention particular theories that embrace Marcan priority, including two-source and Farrer, and briefly point out what divides them, namely, the origin of the double tradition.

Thoughts?

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

There has apparently been some disagreement over whether the term is "Markan" or "Marcan". Currently the language in the article uses "Markan" but the title is "Marcan". We should either do a page move to make the title reflect the article, or change the language to make the article reflect the title. Evercat (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. After a cursory search, it seems that "Marcan" may be preferable. Merriam-Webster has "Marcan" as the primary entry and lists "Markan" as a variant. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marcan) It seems that this may be related to the fact the the adjective in question was derived from Latin (c-spelling) before it would have been derived from English (k-spelling). (http://slb-ltsu.hull.ac.uk/awe/index.php?title=Marcan) Ebbillings (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcan priority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://users.ox.ac.uk/~rege0695/tuckett.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marcan priority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of Marcan priority by Leonardo da Vinci in 15th century.

While discussion about the relationship between synoptic gospels was ongoing since the beginning of Christianity the first definite statement about Marcan priority was made by Leonardo Da Vinci in his famous work “The Last Supper.” The painting was finished in 1498 and a pinnacle of the clandestine project about origins of Christianity that was started by Andrea Del Verrocchio and continued by Leonardo da Vinci. The main body of the research was completed between the years 1472 and 1498. The whole painting of the “Last Supper” is a coded secret message about the historic origins of Christianity that were discovered in the 15^th century. Three figures on the painting represent synoptic gospels. Second, third and fourth figures from the right to the left are Leonardo’s depiction of the gospels. The fourth from the right is a figure of a very young man, representing (Gospel of) Mark, the third figure is a mature man that represents (Gospel of) Matthew, and the second figure from the right is the old man that represents (Gospel of) Luke. The ages of the men are the pointer to the length of time that passed since the crucifixion until the writing of particular gospel. Because of the threats of violent suppression of the rational discourse that originated from the church in centuries since the discovery the concept of Marcan priority existed for several decades, but then got lost and forgotten. It was re-discovered (as described in the main article) in the late 18^th century and firmly established in 19^th century when the threats of prosecution diminished, and later were removed altogether by the political forces beyond the control of the church. Gchernya (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a WP:Source that says this, you can add it to the article. However, we cannot include WP:Original Research.

TypistMonkey (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a book called "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" by Igor Chernyavskiy. First part of this book is an argument based on the New Testament and non-canonical literature about what is actually written in Gospels. A second part of this book is dedicated to the re-discovery of the similar research completed in the 15th century and conveyed through the multiple messages encoded in paintings. Last Supper alone was duplicated several times for the concern of being find out and destroyed. There is a YouTube channel dedicated to a book, and in Wikipedia there is a talk entry on the "Last Supper" by Leonardo with full decoding of the painting. Gchernya (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This book appears to be a fiction book, and not an especially notable one. Please ensure that it meets the standards for sources in Wikipedia.

TypistMonkey (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chernyavskiy‘s story is certainly interesting, and I would like to believe it. Unfortunately, apart from this self-published novel, I cannot find any reliable source to support his assertions. DiverDave (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPH

@Remsense The Synoptic Problem 2022 is an overview of a conference on the Synoptic problem by recognized critical scholars, including Paul Foster (University of Edinburgh), Eric Eve (Oxford University), and Simon Joseph (UCLA) that was held at Loyola University Chicago. This is not a theological statement by a university. It is also worth noting that Loyola is an R1 research university as of 2025.

The increasing support for MPH and the decline of the “once-dominant” two-source approach has also been recognized by Mark Goodacre of Duke University.

While this is now the main competitor to the once overwhelmingly dominant Two-Source Theory, another theory has begun to get a hearing, one that retains Marcan Priority and builds on the similarities between Matthew and Luke, but reverses the direction of dependence, so that Matthew uses Luke… It is worth beginning, therefore, to focus with a statement of the strengths of the recent resurgence in support of Matthean Posteriority, represented in the works of Ronald Huggins, Alan Garrow, and most importantly Robert MacEwen.^[1] Birjeta01 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I have to appreciate you for your clear and even-handed explanation after my jumping a bit to conclusions. (Not making excuses, but I'm sure you have a broad sense why someone would have hackles up about claims concerning newfound relevance of Matthean priority, even if proven ignorant of the cutting edge in actuality.)

I truly do appreciate your work on these articles, and I promise the next time I have a question about an addition you make, you've more than earned that I ask you for clarification first.

I don't mean to further show my ignorance, but from the "MPH-leaning" list given in the cited introduction to the symposium proceedings – Alan Garrow, Ronald V. Huggins, Edmondo Lupieri, Robert K. MacEwen, Chakrita M. Saulina, Jeffrey M. Tripp – all seem to be theologians or otherwise faculty at divinity schools (save Huggins, who even I know is firmly working in the wheelhouse of apologetic scholarship). Is there something I'm missing here? Apologies in advance. Remsense ‥ 论 16:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! Your initial skepticism is absolutely understandable, with the introduction of The Synoptic Problem 2022 describing the momentum MPH generated during the 2010s as “somewhat unexpectedly generated.” It is true that many current proponents of MPH are affiliated with confessional institutions, but this is not too unexpected given the number of religious schools present in the US alone(perhaps a fifth). It should not come as a surprise to know that many scholars hail from seminaries and divinity schools, many of which like Yale and Vanderbilt produce a large part of critical scholarship of the Bible. Many of the most esteemed New Testament scholars today, such as Joel Marcus,Raymond E. Brown, Dale Allison, and Adela Yarbro Collins are with such institutions. The late Martin Hengel of Tubingen and Tosten Lofstedt of Linnaeus University (I’m fairly sure the latter is a public school) were/are proponents of MPH as well. The point being that working for a religious body does not automatically render a scholar in question.

One thing should be made absolutely clear: advocacy for MPH does not imply Christian apologetical motivations. One notable proponent, Bartosz Adamczewski, is probably as far from this as a scholar can get. Adamczewski has advocated for a rather late dating of Mark in the 2nd century his book. Now I do not endorse any fringe theories in either apologetic or skeptical directions, but I think this makes clear that regardless of institution, MPH scholars are not trying to push a theological agenda as a whole. Birjeta01 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Gospel Reading and Reception in Early Christian Literature. Cambridge University Press. 2022. p. 72. ISBN 9781316514467.

[1] Gospel Reading and Reception in Early Christian Literature. Cambridge University Press. 2022. p. 72. ISBN 9781316514467.

[1]