Karl Lachmann and Markan Priority

During 19th-century debates about the Synoptic Gospels’ sources, Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) observed that when Matthew and Luke preserved tradition found in Mark, the order of events in Matthew and Luke corresponded closely. However, no such correspondence existed when Matthew and Luke used material not found in Mark (Lachmann, “De Ordine,” 570). Based on this observation, Lachmann proposed that Mark preserved the Gospel tradition at an earlier stage than Matthew or Luke.

C. H. Weisse and H. J. Holtzmann subsequently refined Lachmann’s proposal and developed the so-called “Markan hypothesis“—the view that Mark was the earliest, most historical Gospel upon which the later Gospels drew. The Markan hypothesis particularly affected the quest for the historical Jesus: If Mark was the earliest Gospel, then perhaps it would contain the most reliable information about the historical Jesus.

The Markan hypothesis became the accepted scholarly position in the generation following Weisse and Holtzmann and remains the dominant position in New Testament scholarship. According to this position, while the later Gospels may reflect the early church’s developing theology, Mark’s primitive style and theology and his brief and uncomplicated presentation of Jesus was based upon early, well-attested, reliable tradition. Further, one could confidently reconstruct the plot and framework of the life and ministry of Jesus using the Gospel of Mark because it was the most realistic and least theological Gospel—and least shaped by the concerns and needs of the early church (Lane, “From Historian to Theologian,” 602). Despite this position’s continued prominence, historicity of Mark’s presentation of Jesus has been subject to scrutiny (see Lane, “From Historian to Theologian,” 601–17).