Countering Arguments for Markan Priority
What follows is a response to some of the most common arguments for Markan (Markan) priority used by Christian apologists, academics, and scholars.
1. The Argument that Mark is the Shortest Gospel
Mark is the shortest gospel in overall length. This is usually the first point made in arguing for Markan priority. However, when looking at gospel parallels, Mark is significantly longer than Luke, as noted by Harvor Ronning:
“The stories Mark told are almost always (literally 80% of the time) longer than the parallel accounts in Luke and Matthew. Mark is the longest Gospel, not the shortest in terms of the actual stories he decided to incorporate. Mark is shortest only in terms of overall length, but that is only because of the stories and sayings he chose to omit. Mark’s expansionist style fits his character as a sophisticated targumic story teller.” (H. Meijboom A History and Critique of the Origin of the Markan Hypothesis 1835-1866 (trans. John J. Kiwiet; Macon: Mercer, 1993; Dutch 1866), 105-115.) (Halvor Ronning, A Statistical Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Part 4—Non-Linear Hypotheses, Jerusalem Perspective (2016))
Progressive Embellishment, Luke→Mark→Matthew is a key article on the Integrity Syndicate site IssuesWithMark.com. It details 36 parallel passages of Luke-Mark-Matthew and 28 parallel cases between Luke and Mark. It provides solid evidence that Mark is predominantly a work of expansionism. Compared to Luke, Mark is more than 46% longer in these 64 parallels, which account for 65% of the entire Gospel of Mark.
The diagrams below give a quantitative measure of the expansionist nature of Mark. Not only does Mark contain many more words than the parallels in Luke, but the author of Mark also further embellishes the narrative by adding dialogue, intriguing elements, and sensational details. Making a judgment based on overall length is a superficial criterion to prove priority because it doesn’t account for what Mark is according to its genre of literature. Mark is composed as an action-packed novel in which much biographical information and the sayings of Jesus are largely omitted. Mark is shorter overall because the author chooses to omit a lot of content that does not contribute to the drama and intrigue of its gospel narrative.
2. The Argument That Mark Is a Transcription of Oral Tradition
Because of its fast pace, abrupt style, and minimum use of antecedents, it has been suggested by some that this is an indication that Mark is a direct transcription of oral tradition. However, a massive amount of evidence shows the contrary, that Mark being a written form of an oral tradition couldn’t be further from the truth.
As outlined in my article Mark the Rewrite Man, in-depth analysis of Mark reveals a Midrashic method of homologizing and blending terminology from various sources, replacing more authentic wording with various synonyms and expressions he culled from certain Old and New Testament books, and other sources. Mark is essentially an annotated commentary and remix of the more primitive Gospel of Luke. Robert Lindsey describes the modus operandi of Mark:
“Mark’s principal method was to replace about half of Luke’s earlier and more authentic wording with a variety of synonyms and expressions he culled from certain Old and New Testament books that, today, we can identify usually simply by consulting Greek and Hebrew concordances of the Bible… Like the rabbis, Mark loved to find linguistic parallels to the text he was copying in other, often unrelated, books, and then mix words and phrases taken from these parallels with others of his sources. This method resulted in an amplified text that many scholars had thought gave an authenticity to Mark’s work, but which, in reality, should be described as a fascinating but rather inauthentic dramatization of the Gospel story. Due to Mark’s quite normal midrashic and aggadic Jewish methods, his Gospel is the ‘first cartoon life of Christ.’ Mark was a ‘re-write man.’”(Robert L. Lindsey, My Search for the Synoptic Problem’s Solution, Jerusalem Perspective (2013))
Halvor Ronning, concurred after conducting an extensive analytical analysis:
“As a Jewish author, Mark simply followed in the footsteps of good targumic style: he dramatized his source by substituting synonyms, adding words from elsewhere, and rearranging and reversing word orders; anything to hold the reader’s attention and fascination. (Mark also demonstrates that he had an intensely active associative mind by recalling of words and phrases and ideas from the Septuagint and the writings of Paul and working these words and ideas into his paraphrase of Luke’s text.” (Halvor Ronning, A Statistical Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Part 4—Non-Linear Hypotheses, Jerusalem Perspective (2016))
David Bivin, after extensive analysis of Mark’s editorial style, further notes:
“The author of Mark’s modus operandi was to make almost every kind of change to his text that an editor can make. Often, his changes appear to be without purpose—simply change for the sake of change. Yet, although to post-Enlightenment western readers Mark’s treatment of his sources may seem arbitrary and even indefensible, there are ancient Jewish models for Mark’s editorial techniques in the later rabbinic aggadic midrashim and in the targumim…
“Scholars often refer to the editorial alterations of Mark (alterations often followed by Matthew) as ‘vivid detail’ or ‘freshness,’ assuming these ‘primitive’ readings to be a sign of Mark’s originality. However, once Mark’s Gospel is recognized as dependent on Luke’s, Mark’s editorial style becomes unmistakable. (David N. Bivin, LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, Jerusalem Perspective (2021)
Rather than being a transcription of oral tradition, the abrupt, vivid, and dynamic style of Mark is consistent with it being an enhanced dramatic revision of the more primitive gospel narrative.T
3. The Argument That Mark Is the Only Gospel to Employ Aramaic Transliterations
Mark’s is the only Gospel to incorporate words that are unambiguously Aramaic transliterations (e.g., rabbi). Some have claimed this is an indication that Mark is more primitive.
However, the Midrashic character of Mark suggests that the use of Aramaic transliterations in the Gospel is not a sign of historical primitivity, but rather an intentional literary device meant to add dramatic emphasis and exegetical explanation. This would align with the idea that Mark functions not as a simple historical account, but as a crafted narrative employing literary embellishment to reinforce themes and enhance reader engagement.
In Jewish Midrashic traditions, Hebrew words occasionally appear and are explained within interpretative statements, often to clarify meaning, provide exegetical insight, or reflect linguistic influences of the time. This is also a similar feature to what Aristotle describes as being a characteristic in the diction of poets:
“That diction, on the other hand, is lofty and raised above the commonplace which employs unusual words. By unusual, I mean strange (or rare) words, metaphorical, lengthened- anything, in short, that differs from the normal idiom… A diction that is made up of strange (or rare) terms is a jargon. A certain infusion, therefore, of these elements is necessary to style; for the strange (or rare) word, the metaphorical, the ornamental, and the other kinds above mentioned, will raise it above the commonplace and mean, while the use of proper words will make it perspicuous.” (Aristotle, Poetics, XXII)
The Gospel of Mark follows a similar pattern of Midrash and terms which would appear strange to the reader, indicating the Aramaic phrases are added for effect rather than preserved speech from Jesus. Additionally, the explanatory translations make it clear the intended audience of Mark did not speak Aramaic. Therefore, such Aramaic phrases are likely literary constructs. Here are a few examples:
- Mark 5:41 – “Talitha koum” (ταλιθα κουμ)
- Jesus takes the hand of a girl and says: “Talitha koum” (which means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”)
- The explanation suggests that the audience of Mark would not have understood the phrase, reinforcing the idea that its inclusion is for literary effect.
- Mark 7:34 – “Ephphatha” (Εφφαθα)
- Jesus heals a deaf man and commands:
“Ephphatha” (that is, “Be opened!”) - Mark includes the Aramaic term and then translates it, reinforcing the sense of a dramatic, authoritative command, making the miracle more vivid. This suggests deliberate literary stylization.
- Jesus heals a deaf man and commands:
- Mark 3:17 – “Boanerges” (Βοανηργες)
- Jesus gives James and John the title: “Boanerges” (which means, “Sons of Thunder”).
- The phrase is not essential to the story but adds a symbolic layer.
- Jesus renaming disciples is a dramatic element, reminiscent of Old Testament traditions where names carried prophetic meaning.
Additionally, the term Rabbi appears in Mark (9:5, 11:21, 14:45) and is later used by Matthew (but not in Luke). Historically, the term gained prominence after 70 AD, when formal rabbinic structures developed following the Temple’s destruction, as noted by Jewish scholar Rabbi Yehuda Shurpin:
“It was not until the second century that “rabbi,” which literally means “my master” or “my teacher,” became an official title. Until that time, even the greatest Jewish sages and prophets were not given an honorific… At the time that these titles [Rabbi, Rab, Rabban] developed, the Jewish nation was in turmoil. The first to bear them saw the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE, and the institution of an oppressive Roman occupation in Israel.” (Yehuda Shurpin, What Is a Rabbi? A Brief History of Rabbinic Ordination)
Since Rabbi was not widely used as a title during Jesus’ time, its presence in Mark suggests an anachronism (a later narrative change that is out of place during the life of Jesus).
Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark incorporates several Latin loanwords, reflecting Roman influence and possibly indicating a composition context within the Roman Empire. Notable examples include:
- Centurio: Refers to a centurion, a commander of a hundred soldiers (Mark 15:39).
- Denarius: A Roman silver coin (Mark 12:15).
- Flagellare: To scourge or whip (Mark 15:15).
Other Latin terms in Mark are modius (a measure) in Mark 4:21, legio (legion) in Mark 5:9, speculator (executioner) in Mark 6:27, sextarius (container) in Mark 7:4, census (poll tax) in Mark 12:14, and sextarius (container) in Mark 7:4. For more examples see Latin, not Aramaic, explains Mark’s bad Greek.
In contrast, the Gospel of Luke contains fewer Latinisms. While Luke does employ some Latin terms, they are less frequent and less specific compared to Mark. This difference may suggest variations in audience or authorial intent between the two Gospels. The increased Latinisms in Mark indicate later composition in a more Roman context rather than primitivity. If Latinisms in Mark suggest a later date, there is no reason to assume Aramaisms indicate an earlier one.
Rather than demonstrating Mark’s primitivity, the Aramaic phrases in Mark are secondary stylistic additions consistent with its Midrashic nature. Much of Mark’s vocabulary reflects later linguistic trends, not necessarily an early or eyewitness-based tradition. This is clearly evidenced by occurrences of the term Rabbi and Latin loanwords.
4. The Argument That Mark Contains Unflattering Statements About Jesus or the Disciples
The presence of unflattering and humanizing statements about Jesus and his disciples in the Gospel of Mark is often cited as evidence for Markan priority under the assumption that later Gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) would have softened, omitted, or altered them. This argument is primarily rooted in the principles of redaction criticism and the criterion of embarrassment; the idea that historical sources are less likely to invent details that could be seen as damaging or difficult for later believers. The argument suggests that Mark presents a more raw and unpolished portrayal of Jesus and his disciples. Here are some examples of unflattering accounts in Mark:
- Jesus’ Family Thinks He Is Insane (Mark 3:21)
- Jesus’ Power Is Limited in Nazareth (Mark 6:5)
- Jesus Heals a Blind Man in Two Stages (Mark 8:22–26)
- The Disciples Repeatedly Do Not Understand Jesus (Mark 8:17–21, 9:32)
- Jesus Shows Human Emotion (Anger, Sorrow, Frustration) (Mark 3:5, 7:34, 8:12)
- The Disciples Abandon Jesus Completely (Mark 14:50)
- Jesus Cries Out in Despair on the Cross (Mark 15:34)
However, such potentially embarrassing, humanizing, and unflattering statements in Mark should not necessarily be seen as indicators of historical primitivity but rather as literary devices deliberately employed to enhance the intrigue, drama, and thematic elements of the narrative. Mark, being Midrashic in nature, consistently adds sensational and dramatic elements that elevate the intensity of the story. This suggests that the author of Mark was not merely preserving primitive tradition but was intentionally shaping the narrative to make it more compelling. When viewed as a piece of literary storytelling, these elements fit into Mark’s broader pattern of deliberate dramatization.
If Luke existed first as a more straightforward, primitive narrative, then it would make sense that Mark took that simpler account and deliberately infused it with more intriguing and sensational elements. These embellishments are characteristic of Mark’s storytelling that exhibited Midrashic tendencies of amplifying dramatic tension, exaggerating conflicts, and creating vivid, action-packed narratives. Mark does not simply recount events but reshapes them to enhance suspense, intrigue, and irony. The less flattering portrayal of the disciples and Jesus is a deliberate part of the stylized narrative. For example, Mark theologically emphasizes the theme of the “suffering servant” and intentionally portrays Jesus’ followers as failing until after the resurrection to create a dramatic arc.
Moreover, the fact that Luke and Matthew never agree in wording against Mark in the unflattering parallels indicates that Mark was the later redactor, not the source. Mark often adds unnecessary but highly dramatic details to scenes that, in more primitive form, may have been far simpler. Luke, simple and blander, is the primitive form of the narrative.
Furthermore, A number of dramatic themes and motifs exist in Mark that are not as accentuated in Luke. Particular literary frameworks in Mark include the Messianic secret motif (Jesus frequently telling people not to reveal his identity) and the suffering servant motif (emphasizing Jesus being misunderstood, rejected, and suffering).
Accordingly, Mark’s structure, dramatic additions, and intriguing elements indicate that it is not the earliest Gospel, but a creative retelling of an earlier, simpler tradition exemplified by Luke.
5. The Argument That Mark Contains Rougher Greek and Poorer Grammar
Some claim that Mark’s Greek is more colloquial and unrefined and that Matthew and Luke often improve Mark’s grammar and style when they appear to be copying from him. Although it is the case that Matthew is more polished and refined than Mark, it is not the case with Luke. Mark is much more expansive than Luke, where there are parallels, including parallels of Jesus sayings. The following table shows numerous quotations of Jesus which are more rudimentary in Luke and improved in Mark.
| # | Primitive Jesus Sayings of Luke (ESV) | Improvements of Mark (ESV) |
| 1 | “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown.” (Luke 4:24) | “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” (Mark 6:4) |
| 2 | “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” (Luke 5:10) | “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” (Mark 1:17) |
| 3 | “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old.” (Luke 5:36) | “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.” (Mark 2:21) |
| 4 | “And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.” (Luke 8:14) | “And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.” (Mark 4:18–19) |
| 5 | "Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” (Luke 8:18) | “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you. For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Mark 4:24-25) |
| 6 | “For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” (Luke 9:25) | “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?” (Mark 8:36–37) |
| 7 | And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!” (Luke 9:35) | And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” (Mark 9:7) |
| 8 | “Let these words sink into your ears: The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men.” (Luke 9:44) | “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” (Mark 9:31) |
| 9 | “For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.“ (Luke 9:48) | "If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.“ (Mark 9:35) |
| 10 | “Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”(Luke 12:10) | “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29) |
| 11 | “Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away.” (Luke 14:35) | Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.” (Mark 9:50) |
| 12 | “If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.” (Luke 17:6) | “Have faith in God. Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, |
| 13 | And they will say to you, ‘Look, there!’ or ‘Look, here!’ Do not go out or follow them. (Luke 17:23) | And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. (Mark 13:21-22) |
| 14 | “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.” (Luke 18:29–30) | “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.” (Mark 10:29–30) |
| 15 | “By your endurance you will gain your lives.” (Luke 21:19) | “But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mark 13:13) |
| 16 | “And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” (Luke 21:27-28) | “And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. (Mark 13:26-27) |
| 17 | “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near.” (Luke 21:29-30) | “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. (Mark 13:28) |
| 18 | “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. (Luke 22:24-27) | “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 20:42-45) |
| 19 | "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me." (Luke 22:34) | "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." (Mark 14:30) |
| 20 | “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke 22:42) | “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36) |
| 21 | “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” (Luke 22:67-68) | “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62) |
| 22 | “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke 23:46) | “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:24) |
These all indicate that Luke is actually often less polished (more primitive) than Mark regarding Greek syntax and grammar. In some areas where there are no parallels between Luke and Mark, such as the prologue to Luke, it is obvious that the Greek syntax and grammar are highly advanced. However, where Luke incorporates primitive source material for the gospel narrative, the syntax and grammar are of a primitive nature, as would be expected of someone who is staying true to his sources with minimum alteration.
It is true that there are other examples where Mark uses suboptimal grammar and is more abbreviated and punchier. Here is an example where Mark doesn’t follow a typical grammatical syntax:
- Mark 1:32 – “That evening, at sunset, they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons.”
- Luke 4:40 – “Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to him.”
One can see that in Mark, the syntax fits with the aims of a dynamic, fast-paced narrative. It can be seen in such cases; the more abrupt syntax is most complementary to a dynamic narrative. The stylistic feature of Mark having concise, fast-paced, and abrupt syntax, rather than being an indication of primitivity, is employed to heighten the sense of urgency and action in the narrative.
Although Mark is typically Longer than Luke, there are some cases, like the above example, that Mark sometimes omits unnecessary detail, keeping the sentence short and forceful. Similar stylistic abbreviations occur periodically in Mark, where brevity and directness are characteristic of its energetic and action-driven storytelling.
One should not be fooled, Mark’s unpolished Greek is likely a deliberate literary choice to enhance the sense of rapid action and urgency. This aligns with Mark’s frequent use of:
- The historical present tense (“Jesus says” instead of “Jesus said“) makes the story feel more immediate.
- The Greek word καὶ (kai, “and”) repeatedly links events, creating a breathless, non-stop sequence of actions.
- The adverb εὐθύς (euthys, “immediately”) is used over 40 times in Mark (compared to much lower usage in Matthew and Luke), further emphasizing swift action.
These above techniques, including the punchiness of several verses in Mark as compared to Luke, draw readers into the action, making Mark feel like an unfolding event rather than a bland biographical narrative.
B.H. Streeter made the argument that Mark’s Greek could be proved to be “crude” and “vulgar” in comparison to that of Matthew or Luke. Streeter’s idea originates from Abbott, in his famous article “Gospels” in Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1879 which substantially influenced English critical opinion of this issue. Abbott presented “linguistic” evidence in support of the originality of Mark listing nine expressions or words used by Mark, which were expressly forbidden by the grammarian Phrynichus. However, eight of these nine examples of bad Greek are exhibited in other New Testament books, including John, the Pauline epistles, and Acts. Moreover, seven of the nine examples are seen in either Matthew or Luke-Acts. The fact is that various Gospel writers on occasion used words condemned by grammarians. It is also true that at the time of the Attistic grammarians (2nd – 4th centuries), contemporary writers also used bad grammar.
In his article, Abbott lists two “barbarisms” found in Mark (where a word is combined with another word having the improper case or a particular word is used improperly to ask a question). However, Abbot acknowledges that both these “idioms are common in the Acta Pilati, and perhaps indicate Latin influence.” The Acta Pilati is an apocryphal text believed to have been composed in Greek in the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD, but later translated into Latin. Thus grammatical “barbarisms” in Mark actually suggest that Mark has affinities with later Apocryphal Gospel literature, both in its bad grammar and in its Latinisms (which some mistake for Aramaic idioms).
There were scholars, well-known to Streeter, including C. H. Turner, who were familiar with the topic and were particularly aware of the impact that Latin had on Mark’s Greek usage. In response to the question of Latin influence upon Mark, Turner states, “Whence did Mark derive his occasional use of an order of words so fundamentally alien to the Greek language?” and further continues:
“Greek puts the emphatic words in the forefront of the sentence, and the verb therefore cannot be left to the last. Latin, on the other hand, habitually closes the sentence with the verb. The conclusion seems irresistible that … Mark introduces in the Greek of his Gospel a Latinizing order” (C.H. Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XXIX, July, 1928, p. 355)
The use of bad grammar in Mark indicates a later date of composition, based on the deliberate and eccentric literary style of an author who liked to employ Latin syntax. For more, see Latin, not Aramaic, explains Mark’s bad Greek. Thus, in the case of Mark, the “poor” grammar is actually an indication that Mark is a stylistic revision of a more primitive narrative (Luke).
6. The Argument That Mark Lacks an Infancy Narrative and Genealogy
One of the common arguments for Markan Priority is that the Gospel of Mark does not include an infancy narrative, while Matthew and Luke do. This absence is often interpreted as evidence that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke later added birth narratives to fill in what they saw as missing details about Jesus’ origins. However, Mark’s omission of an infancy narrative does not necessarily mean it was written earlier—it could simply reflect Mark’s literary focus on Jesus’ public ministry rather than his origins.
Mark is seen to omit all sorts of biographical information that does not contribute to the dynamic, action-packed narrative. Mark’s focus is on Jesus as an adult, starting with being empowered with the Holy Spirit at his baptism rather than at birth. In Mark, the focus is more on signs and wonders that would appeal to a Roman audience and less on Jewish Messianic fulfillment. Since there are a number of indications that Mark was written to a Gentile audience less concerned with Jewish messianic genealogies, there was no need to emphasize Jesus’ biological origins, such a narrative is constructed to be most intriguing to a Hellenistic audience. Mark, being overall a shorter gospel, serves the purpose of communicating the Gospel to Hellenistic society, as Brad Young notes:
“A shortened edition of the gospel could have performed some important functions. For one thing, it certainly could have provided an effective tool for communicating the gospel to Hellenistic society. The instruction of Jesus would probably be less important to a non-Jewish, pagan audience. Conversely, the miracles and activities of Jesus would be considered a better vehicle of communication.” (Brad H. Young, Jesus and his Jewish Parables, p. 138)
To summarize, there are primary reasons why Mark would have intentionally omitted an infantry narrative:
- The author is not concerned with Jesus’ birth but with his public ministry.
- The author’s fast-paced, action-driven style does not dwell on background details.
- The author was writing for a Gentile audience who would not have been interested in Jewish genealogies or messianic birth prophecies.
It is also worth noting that the Gospel of John also omits an infancy narrative and begins with Jesus’ ministry, yet no one argues that John is the earliest Gospel based on this omission.
Furthermore, since some scholars argue that Luke’s infancy narrative may have been a later addition, its absence in Mark cannot be taken as evidence that Mark was written first. If the infancy narrative was introduced after the initial composition of Luke, this would have no bearing as to priority concerning the numerous parallels between Mark and Luke. The weight of the evidence suggests that Luke, either in a form like what we have today or in a slightly earlier version without the infancy narrative, served as the foundation for Mark’s Gospel.
Regarding the genealogy in Luke 3:23-38, there is compelling textual and structural evidence that it was not original to Luke but was later inserted into the manuscript tradition. Here are some points which indicate the Genealogy of Luke might not be part of the original composition:
- In one early Greek manuscript, Codex Washingtonianus (W, 032), the genealogy is entirely absent, suggesting that some early versions of Luke circulated without it.
- In another manuscript, Codex Bezae (D, 05), Matthew’s genealogy was inserted into Luke in reverse order.
- When comparing early manuscripts of Luke, the genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 has a higher concentration of textual variants than any other portion of Luke.
- The genealogy of Luke interrupts the natural flow of events from Jesus being baptized (Luke 3:23-38) to being led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness (Luke 4:1).
- Luke typically presents chronologically ordered events, yet this genealogy breaks the typical chronological sequence of the narrative.
The above points suggest that early copyists handled the genealogy differently, the manuscript tradition was unstable, and the genealogy was in an inappropriate location, raising doubts about its originality to Luke. Given the likelihood that the genealogy was added to Luke later, Mark’s lack of a genealogy serves no basis for proving that Mark was composed before Luke.
Furthermore, even if a genealogy was part of the original composition of Luke, the absence of a genealogy in Mark does not necessarily indicate that Mark is more primitive than Luke. Instead, the omission aligns with Mark’s narrative structure and literary style, which focuses on action, immediacy, and mystery rather than biographical detail. If Mark is best understood as a dramatized, novelized account of Jesus’ ministry, including a genealogy would have disrupted its literary flow and thematic emphasis.
7. The Argument That the Resurrection Story in Mark Is More Primitive
Another common argument for Markan Priority is that Mark’s resurrection account is more primitive than those in Matthew and Luke. This argument is based on the claim that Mark’s brief, abrupt, and seemingly incomplete resurrection narrative represents an earlier stage of tradition.
However, an abrupt ending does not necessarily indicate primitivity. Mark may have deliberately left the ending open-ended for theological or literary reasons. If Mark was a shorter adaptation of Luke, then the omission of post-resurrection appearances may be an editorial decision to create suspense or to maintain the Gospel’s punchy, action-driven narrative style. It is plausible that Mark ends abruptly at 16:8 to deliberately create a cliffhanger (like many thrillers do) to make sure the audience is left in suspense. Ancient storytelling often employed open-ended conclusions to evoke emotion and engagement. Greek tragedies and Jewish apocalyptic literature sometimes ended with ambiguity, requiring the audience to interpret the outcome. Mark’s ending aligns with this tradition, making it less about providing a resolution and more about provoking a response. Moreover, Mark contains themes of mystery, faith, and the unknown, often emphasizing secrecy and ambiguity. The abrupt ending of Mark fits this pattern.
Another possible explanation for Mark’s abrupt ending at 16:8 is that its original ending was either lost or intentionally transplanted into John 21, with some modifications. Several scholars have noted that John 21:1-18 exhibits themes, syntax, and grammar characteristic of Mark, suggesting that this chapter may preserve a lost or reworked conclusion to Mark’s Gospel. One of the strongest motivations for this hypothetical transplantation would be to rehabilitate Peter, as John’s Gospel, until chapter 20, portrays Peter in a less flattering light than the Synoptic Gospels. This would also explain why John 21 appears to be an appendix rather than a natural continuation of John 20.
It is also well-documented that the resurrection narrative of Luke 24 underwent textual alterations over time, as evidenced by differences among early manuscripts. These scribal changes were likely to provide a more embellished and structured ending. As a result, the common text of Luke 24 appears more developed than it originally was, leading to the false impression that Luke’s resurrection account was always fully formed in contrast to Mark’s abrupt ending. By stripping out later interpolations and textual expansions from Luke 24, Mark’s ending appears no less vivid and dramatic than Luke’s.
Greek Codex Bezae (D, 05) and Old Latin(a b e ff2) and Syriac(sys syc) manuscripts of the “Western” text type exhibit shorter readings of Luke 24, suggesting that several details (verses and portions of verses) were added later. The following is absent from most of these manuscripts:
- Luke 24:3, “of the Lord Jesus”
- Luke 24:6, “he is not here, but has risen”
- Luke 24:7, “sinful”
- Luke 24:12, “But Peter, having risen, ran to the tomb and stooping down, he sees the linen cloths alone, and he went away to himself, marveling at what had happened.”
- Luke 24:30, “with them”
- Luke 24:36, “and said to them, ‘peace to you.’”
- Luke 24:40, “And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.”
- Luke 24:51, “and was carried up into heaven”
- Luke 24:52, “having worshiped him”
These are just some of the textual variants in Luke 24 as can be seen on GPT.bible. With the recognition that the ending of Luke had been significantly altered and expanded through hundreds of years of scribal copying, it is possible to reconstruct a version closer to its original form. Once later textual additions are identified, a more primitive and streamlined version of Luke’s resurrection narrative emerges.
Thus, the original composition of Luke exhibited a much less embellished ending. Accordingly, Mark’s abrupt ending cannot be used as a decisive argument for Markan Priority as compared to our altered versions of Luke. It is only because Luke’s later interpolations create the illusion of a more developed resurrection narrative, that the argument appears to hold water. The most dramatic and suspenseful place to end the narrative in reference to the original composition of Luke is when the women depart from the tomb, which is exactly where Mark ends it.
The Unreliability of Patristic Tradition Regarding the Mark
What the above section demonstrates, by revealing the character of Mark’s gospel, is that the traditional patristic account of John the presbyter according to Papias according to Eusebius is a lie:
“Regarding Mark, the writer of the Gospel, he [Papias] states: ‘The Presbyter used to say this also: “Mark, became Peter’s interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord, For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark did not err in writing down some things just as he recalled them. For he had one overriding purpose: to omit nothing that he had heard and to make no false statements in his account.”’” (Paul Maier, Eusebius, The Church History, 3.39)
This account of an account of an account is anything but the truth as Mark is anything but a transcript. The following statement of Irenaeus, affirms that Mark was written after Peter’s departure, conflicting with the Eusebius’s account of Papias:
“After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1)
Irenaeus’s quote indicates that Mark wrote his Gospel after Peter’s death, implying a date sometime after 64 AD, which contradicts Papias, who implies Mark wrote while Peter was alive. The quote of Irenaeus further conflicts with Clement of Alexandra according to Eusebius:
“Clement has included a tradition of the earliest elders regarding the order of the Gospels… that Mark originated as follows. When, by the Spirit, Peter had publicly proclaimed the Gospel in Rome, his many hearers urged Mark, as one who had followed him for years and remembered what was said, to put it all in writing. This he did and gave copies to all who asked. When Peter learned of it, he neither objected nor promoted it.” (Paul Maier, Eusebius, The Church History, 6.14)
Now, according to Clement, Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, at the request of Peter’s listeners. Peter did not explicitly authorize it, but he also did not reject it. This contradicts Irenaeus, who claims Mark wrote after Peter’s death. Irenaeus’ statement also does not make sense, since Peter’s own disciples wouldn’t need a written account if they had heard Peter firsthand. Furthermore, the idea that Peter was neutral about Mark’s Gospel seems unlikely if Peter was Mark’s direct source. Jerome, in around 393, makes a claim of Peter’s approval against Clement:
“Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority. (Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 8)
What Jerome is doing, as he does elsewhere, is make historical claims most favorable to orthodoxy. The truth is likely that Mark was only composed after Peter’s death, that it was not any kind of transcription of Peter’s testimony, and that it was not approved by Peter. When Patristic writers claimed Mark was Peter’s interpreter, the relationship with Mark and Peter probably is likely exaggerated to assign apostolic authority to the Gospel of Mark.
The evidence and conflicting testimonies above establish that the early Patristic writers cannot be trusted to convey the actual circumstances in which Mark was composed and, by extension, the truth regarding the origin and acceptance of the other Gospels. We cannot rely on statements attributed to Papias, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria. We also cannot rely on Eusebius’s church history to convey the truth accurately. Furthermore, Papias is possibly the least reliable of all patristic witnesses (apart from the forgeries attributed to Ignatius) as Eusebius says of Papias:
“He was a man of very limited intelligence, as is clear from his books.” (Paul Maier, Eusebius, The Church History, 3.19)
