In the late 1700s the German scholar J.J. Griesbach proposed the hypothesis to which his name is often attached: that Matthew was the first of the synoptic gospels to be written, that Luke used Matthew, and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke [1].
Griesbach’s hypothesis
Griesbach’s source theory was influential into the early decades of the 1800s, but by the mid-1800s the hypothesis of Markan priority (the hypothesis that Mark’s gospel was the first) was becoming dominant and Griesbach’s hypothesis fell out of favour.
In 1964 the American New Testament scholar William Farmer published his book The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis which called into question the scholarly consensus on the priority of Mark and argued for a reconsideration of the Griesbach hypothesis [2].
Farmer’s revival of the hypothesis
One of Griesbach’s arguments that Farmer attempted to revive was the argument from alternations of agreement. Griesbach had observed that Mark’s order appears to alternate between the orders of Matthew and Luke, which Griesbach interpreted as evidence that Mark must have had both the other synoptic gospels to hand when he wrote. Farmer re-articulated Griesbach’s argument from alternating agreements, though without much reference to the details of the alternations in question.
In response to Farmer’s argument critics argued that the appearance of alternations of agreement could be a spurious consequence of the general tendency of the synoptic gospels to agree in narrative order [3]. Nowadays the Griesbach-Farmer inference from alternations of agreement finds relatively little scholarly support . My own work seeks to develop a new version of the argument from order based on a more detailed analysis of the narrative orders of the synoptic gospels than has been undertaken in any previous studies, and which does not suffer from the logical weaknesses of previous arguments.
In the decades following Farmer’s intervention a group of mostly American scholars gathered around him and succeeded in making the Griesbach hypothesis, which they came to call the Two Gospel hypothesis, the main rival to the Two Document hypothesis (Markan priority with Luke and Matthew each having independently used Matthew and a lost document, Q).
Partly because of the fierce criticism Farmer had faced, the American neo-Griesbachian group largely dropped the argument from alternating agreements. Instead they focussed on demonstrating the redactional plausibility, at a verse-by-verse level, of Luke having used Matthew, and of Mark having used them both.
Farmer’s followers
The output of the IIGS (International Institute for Gospel Studies) group, as they called themselves, included two major volumes: Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew [4] and One Gospel From Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke [5]. The members of the group were a significant presence at conferences on the synoptic problem and stimulated a number of shifts and developments in the thinking of Markan prioritists, who were forced to refine their arguments in the face of the revival of the Griesbach hypothesis.
Since the turn of the twenty first century the Griesbach hypothesis has become less of a force in debates about the synoptic problem. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, as noted above, the argument from alternations of agreement (at least as it had been developed up to that time) was persuasively criticised. For example, David Neville undertook a comprehensive reexamination of the literature on arguments from order and concluded that such arguments do not work, either in practice or in principle [3]. My work represents a challenge to that conclusion.
Criticism and decline
Second, although Markan prioritists acknowledged that the neo-Griebachians had made valid criticisms of the usual arguments for Markan priority, they responded by refining their arguments and developing new ones. The new arguments include the argument from editorial fatigue (Mark Goodacre, [6]) and the argument from ancient compositional practices (Robert Derrenbacker and others [7]). The latter argument suggests that the constraints imposed by having to work with papyrus scrolls, without the benefit of writing desks, would have made the micro-conflations and macro-reordering required on the Griesbach hypothesis impractical to the point of impossibility. This conclusion has not gone unchallenged [8]. My projected monograph will examine all the main arguments for Markan priority currently in use, including these relatively recent ones.
Third, the mantle of primary challenger to the Two Document hypothesis has been taken over by other theories involving Markan priority, as opposed to the Griesbach hypothesis’ advocacy of the posteriority of Mark. Mark Goodacre [9] has been particularly effective in developing and promoting the Farrer hypothesis (Markan priority without Q), and a surprise contender has emerged in the form of Matthew Conflator hypothesis (Mark first, Luke second, Matthew conflates Mark and Luke), a solution favoured by Alan Garrow and others[10].
Fourth, a more general factor in the decline of the Griesbach hypothesis is probably a certain weariness about the whole synoptic problem debate among many New Testament scholars, connected with a feeling that traditional source criticism is somewhat passé as a method and a recognition of the fluidity and multi-media (oral and written) nature of the early transmission of the Jesus tradition.
The preceding paragraphs may suggest that the prospects for the Griesbach hypothesis are bleak!
However, although there is currently a very strong consensus in favour of Markan priority, few Markan prioritists would claim that their arguments are infallible. Unless this proper exercise of intellectual caution is concealing a hidden dogmatism, that must mean that they acknowledge, at least in principle, that contrary evidence could come to light. It is my contention that the new evidence on the relation between the narrative orders of the gospels is just such a development, and that the consensus is much less secure than is widely supposed.
Future prospects
In addition, it is well recognised that political, cultural, theological and institutional factors can influence the establishment and maintenance of paradigms that claim to be objectively grounded. Such factors may be more significant in relation to the hypothesis of Markan priority than its advocates would like to admit [11].
In fact, the current rise in the popularity of the Farrer hypothesis represents an implicit acknowledgement of the power of such mechanisms, since how else is one to explain the vitality of the “Q industry” if the supposed lost document Q is an entirely unnecessary hypothesis?
I suggest, then, that although the 20th century revival of the Griesbach hypothesis may appear to have lost momentum, it would be a mistake to dismiss the new evidence from narrative order out of hand. As my projected monograph will argue, the current consensus in favour of Markan priority may be more precarious than it appears.
[1] Griesbach, J.J., ‘A Demonstration that Mark Was Written After Matthew and Luke’, in J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776–1976 (ed. Bernard Orchard and Thomas R.W. Longstaff, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 103–135. Originally written in 1789–1790, published in revised form in 1794.
[2] Farmer, William R., The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York, London: Macmillan, 1964).
[3] For criticisms of the argument from order see, David J. Neville, Mark’s Gospel – Prior or Posterior: A Re-appraisal of the Phenomenon of Order (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) and Christopher M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
[4] Allan J. McNicol with David L. Dungan and David B. Peabody (eds.), Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Trinity Press International, 1996).
[5] David B. Peabody with Lamar Cope and Allan McNicol, One Gospel from Two: Mark’s use of Matthew and Luke (Harrisburg, London, New York, Trinity Press International, 2002).
[6] Goodacre, Mark, ‘Fatigue in the Synoptics’, New Testament Studies, 44 (1998), pp. 45–58.
[7] Robert A. Derrenbacker, Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem, (Biblioteca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium v. 186, Leuven: Peeters, 2005).
[8] James W. Barker, ‘The Use of Sources in Ancient Compositions’, in The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels, ed. Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023, pp. 44–62
[9] Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002).
[10] Garrow, Alan, ‘Gnats, Camels, and Matthew’s Use of Luke’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 45 (2023), pp. 284–303.
[11] See, for example, Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, pp. 178-198 and Hans-Herbert Stoldt, History and Criticism of the Marcan Hypothesis (translated and edited by Donald L. Niewyk, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1980).