For the sake of argument I’m referencing the second narrative (gospel) as authored by Mark since it is universally received as such. (See my note entitled, Andrew the author – not Mark.) My aim in this note is to consider the merit of Markan priority. I will also briefly discuss the particular emphasis that Mark is receiving these days.
The priority of Mark as being the first written gospel upon which Matthew and Luke drew is a firmly established, that is, entrenched, theological position of the Christian Church. This was not the case among the Patristic Church. They never maintained that Mark held source priority among the gospels. They rightly considered Matthew to be the first written. The Markan priority phenomena is relatively recent and was born and bolstered in Europe within educational institutions amid the ongoing struggle between German Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. In winning the day, the protestants (who developed Markan priority) acquired the upper hand. The scheming of men does not concern us here. It is not a litmus test for the merits of Markan priority. Literary considerations need to take center stage as litmus test.
The literary positions held are the relative brevity and rugged nature of Mark with the presupposition that these characteristics demand chronological priority, its large presence in both Matthew and Luke, the supposed Q material, and oral traditions. When one is predisposed to accept these positions it does not matter how the data is aligned, Mark comes out preeminent as source among the three synoptic gospels.
How should this be judged? There is great weight in upholding the reality of the aforementioned brevity and nature of Mark and the oral traditions that functioned in the first century among believers. To assume that these characteristics demand chronological priority is sheer theory. Q must be dispensed with. Aside from circular reasoning, Q is pure theory, but a handy one for the purpose of Mark’s priority among Matthew and Luke. These realities do not carry the day for the priority of Mark because as facts to consider they can just as easily be viewed as holding Mark secondary to Matthew.
See my note entitled, The Synoptic Problem for a closer look and my opinion on this state of affairs.
Mark has recently been given undue and erroneous attention as a kind of functional and adapting play based on an author-actor-genre model. This speculative theory has been run with to the degree that almost everywhere and constantly Mark is written about as being the intentional author of an intentional living and changing drama. This drama was allegedly created to inspire his readers to enact, modify, and re-write his gospel as a timely, progressive, evolving and living word. This pervasive position which began modestly in the latter part of the 1970s has become a standard model of modern day scholars in all ad nauseam repetition and detail.
This theory completely misses the mark and is the current darling of scholars.