마가복음 우선설 비판

Rethinking on and Criticism to Marcan Priority

This paper has a goal to rethink on and to criticize to the Marcan Priority, hereby this author wants to claim that Marcan Priority doesn't have any scientific basis of its theory. Firstly, in relations of sources of Synoptic Gospels, Synoptic Gospels were composed by seven sources, while Marcan Priority presupposes two sources, which can not explain where the other five sources came from. In addition to this, scholars who adopts Marcan Priority tend to mistreat Luke 1:1-4. Secondly, the theory that on the basis of agreements of vocabularies used in Synoptic Gospels Mark was written first has little foundations. The ratio or statistics of using common vocabularies is relatively small in Synoptic Gospels. Thirdly, agreement in the order of arrangement of units does not support Marcan Priority, either. There is no scientific basis that Matthew and Luke followed the order of Gospel of Mark. Rather, the reverse case is to be found. Fourthly, that Gospel of Mark is shorter than the other two Gospels is totally unfounded. The length of each Gospel is depended on theological perspectives of its author not on its priority. Fifthly, the theory that style and/or vividness of the Gospel of Mark can not be foundation of priority, in that style and/or vividness comes from literary tendency of each author of Synoptic Gospels which was ruled by oral tradition. Sixthly, the belief that Matthew and Luke changed the content of Gospel of Mark, especially in Christology, is ill founded. Lastly, editorial characteristics of the three Gospels are resulted in by the interests of the authors not by the priority of writings.