马可福音的版本

在马可居先说出现之后，学者发现《马太福音》与《路加福音》当中有些内容，在《马可福音》中并未出现。他们认为《马太福音》与《路加福音》在《马可福音》之外，应该还有参考另外的文件，称为Q来源，因此建立了双源假说。

概论

传统说法，在四福音书中，最早出现的是《马太福音》。这个说法常被溯源至圣奥古斯丁，被称为奥古斯丁假说，或是马太居先说。

在1786年，德国学者Gottlob Christian Storr首次提出《马可福音》早于《马太福音》的说法，被称为马可居先说。

马可居先说，解释了对观福音问题中的三重传统（triple tradition）。马可福音当中76%的内容，都可以在《马太福音》与《路加福音》当中发现。根据文本分析的方法，这一派学者认为，《马可福音》出现的时间最早，《马太福音》与《路加福音》都曾参考《马可福音》。

Marcan priority (or Markan priority) is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the three synoptic gospels to be written, and was used as a source by the other two (Matthew and Luke). It is a central element in discussion of the synoptic problem—the question of the documentary relationship among these three gospels.

Most scholars since the late 19th century have accepted the concept of Marcan priority. Others support either different forms of Marcan priority or reject it altogether. It forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory.

History

The tradition handed down by the Church Fathers regarded Matthew as the first Gospel written in Hebrew, which was later used as a source by Mark and Luke. It is seen as early as in Irenaeus's book Against Heresies. Augustine of Hippo wrote in the 5th century: "Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four,...are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John." And: "Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done...".

Dependent hypotheses

If Marcan priority is accepted, the next logical question is how to explain the extensive material, some 200 verses, shared between Matthew and Luke but not found at all in Mark—the double tradition. Furthermore, there are hundreds of instances where Matthew and Luke parallel Mark's account but agree against Mark in minor differences—the minor agreements. Different answers to this question give rise to different synoptic hypotheses.

The most widely accepted hypothesis is the two-source hypothesis, that Matthew and Luke each independently drew from both Mark and another hypothetical source, which scholars have termed the Q source. This Q, then, was the origin of the double-tradition material, and many of the minor agreements are instances where both Matthew and Luke followed Q's version of a passage rather than Mark's.

Alternatives

Marcan posteriority states that Mark's correspondence with other synoptics was due to Mark taking from them. The view of the Church Fathers such as Augustine was that the order in the New Testament was also the order of publication and inspiration – Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, then John. This is usually called the Augustinian hypothesis. A modern tweak of this view that maintains Matthaean priority is the two-gospel (Griesbach) hypothesis which holds that Mark used both Matthew and Luke as a source (thus, in order, Matthew—Luke—Mark). This view envisions a Mark who mostly collected the common material shared between Matthew and Luke.

Lucan priority has been revived in recent decades in the complex form of the Jerusalem school hypothesis, which also places Mark in the middle. Here, Mark uses Luke, then Matthew uses Mark but not Luke, while all three Synoptics draw from a hypothetical Greek translation of an earlier Hebrew work.

Evidence

Arguments for Marcan priority are usually made in contrast to its main rival, Matthaean priority, bringing into focus the question of whether Matthew was a source for Mark or vice versa. The evidence supporting Marcan priority is entirely internal.

Many lines of evidence point to Mark having some sort of special place in the relationship among the Synoptics, as the "middle term" between Matthew and Luke. But this could mean that Mark is the common source of the other two (priority), or that it derives from both (posteriority), or even that it is an intermediary in transmission from one to the other—in other words, many such arguments can support both Marcan priority and its rivals. Famously, the so-called "Lachmann fallacy", concerning the order of pericopae in Mark, was once used to argue for Marcan priority but is now seen as a largely neutral observation.