Farmer and Stein on the Relationship Between the Synoptics

In his influential work, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (1976), William R. Farmer makes the following observations as they pertain to the history, nature and relationship between the Synoptic Gospels:

First, he traces the historical issues about how the Griesbach hypothesis was rejected to the adaptation of the two-source theory; this was due in contention against the Tubingen School hypothesis. He maintains that Matthew is the earliest Gospel to be written, followed by Luke, and Mark precedes the second Gospel. In other words, he rejects the priority of the Gospel of Mark that is now embraced by the majority of NT scholars. Luke is dependent upon Matthew for its general order and form of his Gospel (201). Mark is an abridged version of Matthew and Luke. In this case, the order is as follows: Matthew, Luke, Mark.For literary evidence clearly demonstrates Mark's reliance on and familiarity with Matthew's and Luke's Gospels. On the other hand, he suggests that Matthew and Luke probably used one or more written sources in producing their Gospels. Luke used Matthew, he argues. In conclusion, Farmer notes, "The similarity between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is such as to justify the assertion that they stand in some kind of literary relationship to one another... (202) There are eighteen and only eighteen fundamental ways in which three documents, among which there exists some kind of direct literary dependence, may be related to one another" (208).

Robert Stein (my former Biblical Hermeneutics teacher), in his helpful introduction to the Synotpic Gospels ("Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation," 2001), reiterates the old argument for Markan priority, this time with more precision. First, Stein outlines four common features that stand out in his investigation of the the Synoptic problem: (1) Agreement in wording, (2) Agreement in Order, (3) Agreement in Parenthetical Material, and (4) Usual Literary Agreements. This positin, in essense, assumes that the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke respectively reflect some common literary [inter-] dependence in terms of their sayings/words used, their order of reported accounts, events, an discourses, and their parenthetical notes underlined by the three Evangelists. As for a Markan priority, Stein argues that Mark is the shortest Gospel (The Argument from Length), Mark exhibits a poorer writing style (The Argument from Grammar), Mark's redundancy (repetition) is also an issue. Moreover, Mark's reading is harder than the other two Gospels (excluding John), his descriptions of the disciples are sufficiently negative, the Gospel of Mark demonstrates primitive theology of the earliest Christianity, the argument from redactionism, the argument from literary agreements, and the arguments from verbal agreements and order as we have already remarked, all contribute to the priority of Mark (19-97). That the Gospel according to Mark was the first to be written.