Lukan Priority: A Comprehensive Analysis

The theory of Lukan Priority posits that the Gospel of Luke was written before the other Synoptic Gospels (Mark and Matthew), challenging the more widely accepted Markan Priority theory. This analysis explores Lukan Priority’s evidence, counterarguments, and scholarly perspectives, presenting a compelling alternative to Markan Priority with linguistic, statistical, and structural support for Luke’s primacy.

The Concept and Historical Context of Lukan Priority

Lukan Priority proposes a sequence of gospel composition that places Luke first, followed by Mark, and then Matthew, with John generally acknowledged as the latest gospel¹²³⁴⁵. This contrasts with the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis which presumes Markan Priority and posits a hypothetical Q document to explain the double tradition material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark³.

The theory has a significant scholarly history, though it remains a minority position in biblical studies. William Lockton articulated key arguments for Lukan Priority in the 1920s, suggesting that “the order of writing of the Synoptic Gospels was St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew,” and that the “development of thought” could be clearly traced in this sequence⁴. The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, comprised of Jewish and Christian scholars collaborating in Israel, has further developed and advocated for this position in recent decades⁵.

The Synoptic Problem Context

The relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) has long presented scholars with the “Synoptic Problem”—explaining the similarities and differences between these texts. According to Huck-Lietzmann’s data, Matthew, Mark, and Luke share approximately 77 pericopae (narrative units), with 60 placed in the same order⁶. This pattern of agreement in order but divergence in wording presents a complex puzzle that any viable theory must address.

Key Evidence Supporting Lukan Priority

Linguistic Evidence: Hebrew Retranslation and Semitic Features

Robert Lindsey, a key proponent of Lukan Priority, made a groundbreaking discovery when attempting to translate the Gospel of Mark into Hebrew. He found that “Luke’s Gospel contained almost none of the non-Hebraic expressions so common in Mark”⁶. This observation led him to conclude that Luke preserves a more primitive tradition that retranslates easily into Hebrew, suggesting its closer proximity to the original Aramaic/Hebrew sources².

David Flusser of Hebrew University supported this assessment, noting that “any normal philological reasoning would indicate the priority or greater authenticity of Luke’s accounts,” adding that “water does not flow uphill. It is simply impossible to believe that the Matthaean-Markan account could be changed secondarily into the Lukan form”²⁴.

The Markan Cross-Factor

Lindsey identified what he termed the “Markan Cross-Factor,” a crucial observation in the debate over gospel origins. The Markan Cross-Factor includes four elements that require explanation:

1. Matthew and Luke agree substantially on pericope order when paralleling Mark
2. Matthew and Luke rarely agree on pericope order in the double tradition (non-Markan material)
3. Matthew and Luke share minimal verbal agreement in the triple tradition (Markan material)
4. Matthew and Luke show high verbal agreement in the double tradition⁶

This pattern raises a fundamental question: Why would Matthew and Luke “treat Mark’s pericopae order with great respect, but his wording with little respect?”⁶ This pattern is more comprehensible if Luke preceded Mark and Matthew.⁶

Progressive Embellishment Pattern

The analysis of parallel passages across the three gospels reveals a pattern of progressive embellishment from Luke to Mark to Matthew. One study examined 36 cases of “two-stage embellishment” showing how Mark embellishes Luke’s simpler account, and Matthew further embellishes Mark’s version¹⁷¹. This pattern accounts for approximately 30% of Mark’s gospel and 25% of Matthew’s gospel, providing substantial evidence for the Luke→Mark→Matthew sequence¹.

Statistical Analysis

Halvor Ronning conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis of all potential chronological arrangements of the Synoptic Gospels. His four-part study examined empirical data including thousands of words in the three gospels, calculating similarities (material of Identical Form and Sequence) and differences (Contrary Agreements). The results strongly indicated that “the correct sequence and dependency of the gospels is Luke-Mark-Matthew with Luke having priority as the first gospel”⁸.

Minor Agreements Against Mark

The “Minor Agreements” between Matthew and Luke against Mark in triple tradition material present a significant challenge to Markan Priority theories. These are instances where Matthew and Luke share the same wording, omission, or addition against Mark’s text. Such agreements are difficult to explain if Matthew and Luke independently used Mark but become more comprehensible if both had access to a more primitive source reflected in Luke’s gospel⁶.

Scholarly Perspectives on Lukan Priority

The Jerusalem School Hypothesis

The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research has developed the most comprehensive case for Lukan Priority in recent decades. Founded by Robert Lindsey and David Flusser, this group of scholars argues that Luke’s version is most accurate, with Matthew often influenced by Mark’s less precise texts.⁵

B.H. Streeter and Proto-Luke

Even B.H. Streeter, a prominent advocate of Markan Priority, acknowledged that in many parallel passages, Luke exhibited an earlier tradition than Mark. To reconcile this with his commitment to Markan Priority, he proposed a “Proto-Luke” document (Q + L) used by Luke’s editor, acknowledging Luke’s preference for non-Marcan traditions.⁴

William Lockton’s Analysis

William Lockton provided key reasons for viewing Matthew as the last Synoptic Gospel and Luke as the first:

1. Differences between the Synoptics are best explained by development from Luke to Mark to Matthew
2. Matthew has the most developed and artificial structure of the three
3. The vocabulary of the double tradition is more characteristic of Luke than of Matthew⁴

Brad H. Young’s Assessment

Biblical scholar Brad Young articulated how Mark could function as an intermediary between the gospels: “It is also quite possible to suggest that Mark is the mediator between Matthew and Luke, and that Mark altered the arrangement of the earliest gospel and then influenced the sequence of pericopae in the remaining gospel”².

Criticisms and Counterarguments to Lukan Priority

The Dominance of Markan Priority

The most significant challenge to Lukan Priority is the overwhelming academic consensus supporting Markan Priority. Scholars like Stein have presented six primary arguments for Markan Priority:

1. Mark’s poorer writing style compared to Matthew and Luke
2. The softening of Mark’s challenging teachings in Matthew and Luke
3. The lack of Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark
4. Matthean redactional emphases compared to Mark and Luke
5. Mark’s more primitive theology
6. The presence of Q material in Matthew and Luke but not Mark³

The Problem of Double Tradition

Critics note that if Luke came first, it becomes difficult to explain why Mark would have omitted all the double tradition material (the material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark). As one scholar notes: “Lukan priority raises the same issues (why does Mark have none of the double tradition material)”⁹.

Questions of Theological Development

Some scholars argue that Mark shows a more primitive theological understanding compared to the more developed perspectives in Matthew and Luke, suggesting Mark’s chronological priority. This includes Mark’s more challenging portrayal of Jesus and the disciples, which appears to be softened in later gospels³.

Implications for Biblical Studies and Theology

Historical Jesus Research

Lukan Priority has significant implications for historical Jesus research. If Luke preserves a more primitive tradition closer to the Hebrew/Aramaic sources, it might provide more reliable access to the historical Jesus. David Flusser argues that Luke “gets it right” where Matthew and Mark don’t, particularly regarding Jewish legal matters².

Reassessment of Q

The acceptance of Lukan Priority would necessitate a reassessment of the Q hypothesis. If Luke preceded Mark and Matthew, the double tradition material might represent Matthew’s use of Luke rather than both evangelists’ independent use of a hypothetical Q document¹⁰¹¹.

Understanding Gospel Development

The theory provides an alternative framework for understanding how the gospel tradition developed. Rather than seeing the tradition evolving from Mark’s sparse narrative to the more elaborate accounts in Matthew and Luke, Lukan Priority suggests a process of progressive embellishment from Luke’s foundational narrative through Mark’s dramatic reworking to Matthew’s further theological development¹⁷.

Conclusion

While Lukan Priority remains a minority position in New Testament scholarship, the evidence supporting it is substantial and compelling. Linguistic analysis, statistical studies, patterns of progressive embellishment, and the problematic Markan Cross-Factor all provide reasons to reconsider the conventional wisdom of Markan Priority.

The work of the Jerusalem School, alongside earlier scholars like William Lockton and even the qualified admissions of Markan Priority advocates like B.H. Streeter, suggests that Lukan Priority is gaining scholarly attention for its robust evidence, challenging Markan Priority in ongoing Synoptic Problem debates. As research continues, particularly in the areas of Hebrew/Aramaic backgrounds to the gospels and statistical analysis of textual relationships, Lukan Priority may gain increased recognition as a viable solution to the enduring puzzle of Synoptic relationships.

The debate underscores how fundamental questions about the origins and development of the gospel tradition remain vibrant areas of scholarly inquiry, with significant implications for our understanding of early Christianity and the historical Jesus.

Further Reading

For readers interested in exploring Lukan Priority further, the following resources offer high-quality, scholarly insights into its evidence, scholarly perspectives, and implications for the Synoptic Problem:

• The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis by William R. Farmer: A peer-reviewed book challenging Markan Priority and exploring Lukan Priority’s textual evidence.
• The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem by Mark Goodacre: A seminal work critiquing the Q hypothesis, supporting Lukan Priority’s view of Matthew’s use of Luke.
• The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction by Keith F. Nickle: A peer-reviewed introduction discussing Lukan Priority and minor agreements.
• The Synoptic Problem: A New Approach by David L. Dungan: A scholarly reevaluation of Synoptic theories, including Lukan Priority’s historical context.
• The Synoptic Gospels: Conflict and Consensus by Craig L. Blomberg: A peer-reviewed analysis of Synoptic differences, engaging with Lukan Priority’s implications.
• The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism edited by Camille Focant: A peer-reviewed essay collection on Lukan Priority and Synoptic dependencies.

Sources