The "Triple Tradition": A large amount of material (stories, sayings, events) is found in all three Synoptic Gospels. When Matthew and Luke agree in their wording of these "triple tradition" passages, they almost always also agree with Mark's wording. In other words, when Matthew and Luke share a story with Mark, their agreements largely align with Mark.
The "Double Tradition" (Q): There is also a significant amount of material (mostly sayings of Jesus, but also some brief narratives) that is shared only by Matthew and Luke, and not found in Mark. This is often referred to as the "Q" source (from German Quelle, meaning "source"). The crucial point is that these Matthew-Luke agreements without Mark are typically found in sections that are distinct from Markan material.
The Implication: If Matthew and Luke had each copied from some other source, or from each other, or if Mark had copied from them, you would expect to find significant instances where Matthew and Luke agree verbatim on material that is not in Mark. The lack of such a phenomenon strongly suggests that when Matthew and Luke share material and it's found in Mark, they are both drawing from Mark. When they share material and it's not in Mark, they are drawing from a different common source (Q).
Why this supports Markan Priority:
Explaining Agreements: If Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke used Mark independently as a primary source, it perfectly explains why:
- Matthew and Luke share so much material with Mark.
- Matthew and Luke often follow Mark's order of events.
- Matthew and Luke often reproduce Mark's wording, even including some of Mark's less polished Greek or "harder readings" (theologically or grammatically challenging passages that Matthew and Luke often smooth out).
Explaining Disagreements and Omissions:
If Matthew and Luke used Mark, their individual editorial choices, theological emphases, and specific audiences can explain why they sometimes alter Mark's wording, add new material (from Q or their own unique sources), or omit certain Markan passages.
Conversely, if Matthew or Luke were written first, it's very difficult to explain why Mark, if he were abbreviating or copying from them, would consistently omit so much important material (like the birth narratives, the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, the Lord's Prayer, etc.) that is present in Matthew and Luke. It's much more plausible that Matthew and Luke added to Mark's shorter narrative.
Minor Caveats/Nuances (for a complete understanding):
"No verbatim stories": While the principle holds very strongly for substantial verbatim agreements, scholars sometimes discuss "minor agreements" where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in very small details within passages that are otherwise clearly Markan. These are usually explained as coincidental harmonization or textual transmission issues, and don't undermine the overall pattern.
"Copying has occurred": The assumption of literary dependence (copying) is foundational to the Synoptic Problem. The extreme verbatim agreement (sometimes entire sentences or even paragraphs) makes the idea of independent oral tradition or eyewitness accounts alone highly improbable to explain the similarities.
The "Synoptic Problem": This argument is one pillar of the Two-Source Hypothesis (Markan Priority + Q), which is the dominant solution to the Synoptic Problem. Other hypotheses exist (e.g., Matthean Priority, Griesbach Hypothesis, Farrer Hypothesis), but they face more significant challenges in explaining the intricate patterns of agreements and disagreements between the Synoptics.
In summary: The statement accurately describes a powerful and widely accepted argument for Markan Priority. The observation that verbatim agreements between Matthew and Luke almost always occur in material also present in Mark is a cornerstone of the two-source hypothesis and provides strong evidence that Mark served as a source for both Matthew and Luke.
End