10
immensely useful to redactional critics by helping to identify the theological concerns and
development from the first gospel to that of the other two Synoptics.
Markan priority also shows how Matthew and Luke cleaned
up some of the language and passages that they knew would
be difficult for their readers. A good example of this are the
so called “harder readings” found in Mark. An instance of a
harder reading can be found in Mark 6:5, “And he (Jesus)
could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands
upon a few sick people and healed them.” The parallel verse
to this, Matthew 13:58 reads, “And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their
unbelief” (Emphasis mine). Based on this evidence, it makes much more sense to think that
Matthew redacted Mark’s version to make it more palatable than it would be to say that Mark
changed Matthew’s version in order to make it more difficult or scandalous.32
A point that also deserves mention, as it pertains to the discussion of oral tradition in
the Synoptic tradition, is that of the grammar of Mark’s gospel. It has long been counted as a
proof of Markan priority that the Greek found in Mark’s gospel is rougher than that which is
found in Luke and Matthew.33 Both Matthew and Luke appear to have a stronger grasp of
Greek than Mark based on the textual evidence and both gospels tend to be written in better
style.34 This style of writing in Mark’s gospel has also led to the speculation on the oral tradition
that lies behind it. Goodacre notes this in his work on the Synoptic gospels.
32
Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, location 860-861, Kindle edition.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Priority of Mark and 'Q' Sources of Luke," Jesus and Man's Hope, vol. 1 (Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary, 1970), 139.
34
Ibid, 140.
33