Here are a few more examples (from the NRSV) to argue for Markan Priority. I will go through each to show why I believe Markan priority makes better sense than Markan posterity, but the best thing a new student of the NT can do is to grab a synopsis and a highlighter and work out the Synoptic Problem for themselves.
But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl got up. (Matt 9:25)
He took her by the hand and said to her, ‘Talitha cum’, which means, ‘Little girl, get up!’ (Mark 5:41)
But he took her by the hand and called out, ‘Child, get up!’ (Luke 8:54)
It makes more sense to see Matthew and Luke omitting older Aramaic expression for their Greek-speaking audiences than Mark (who is supposed to be an abridgement, hence summarizing Matt/Luke) to add these details. For other Aramaic words in Mark, see 3:17; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22, 34. For the argument that Mark translates from older Aramaic sources (especially at 2:23-3:6; 9:11-13; 10:35-45; 14:12-26) while Matthew/Luke make corrections to Mark’s Greek text, see Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’ s Gospel.
He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests… For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath. (Matt 12:3-4, 8.)
And he said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 26He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.’ 27Then he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; 28so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.’ (Mark 2:25-26)
Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?’ Then he said to them, ‘The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.’ (Luke 6:3-5)
There are two issues: the first is that Ahimelech (not Abiathar) was high-priest during this incident (1 Samuel 21:1-6) which is why it was omitted by Matthew and Luke (the proposed solutions for this problem in Mark I may come back to another time). The second is that Matthew and Luke (independently?) get rid of the generalizing statement in Mark 2:27 yet retain Mark 2:28 as a Christological title (Matthew also seems to raise the Christology by Jesus claim to be greater than the temple in v 6).
But when the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified, saying, ‘It is a ghost!’ And they cried out in fear. 27But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’ 28 Peter answered him, ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’ 29He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came towards Jesus. 30But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’ 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’ 32When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’ (Matthew 14:26-33)
But when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; 50for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’ 51Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, 52for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. (Mark 6:49-52)
A common theme in Mark is the dullness of the disciples, whereas Matthew has a much higher regard for Peter and the Twelve (for another example, compare Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi in Mark 8:29-30 versus Jesus’ praise of Peter in Matt 16:17-18). Thus, Mark’s portrayal of the disciples is problematic for Matthew, who alters Mk 6:52 so that the disciples do recognize Jesus identity and adds the bit about Peter following Jesus onto the lake.
‘So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), 16then those in Judea must flee to the mountains (Matt 24:15-16)
‘But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains (Mark 13:14)
‘When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, (Luke 21:20-21a)
Despite those who argue for an earlier date for Luke-Acts (cf. Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History; John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament), I see this as a clear sign (along with Luke 19:42-44) that Luke is re-reading the earlier oracle in Mark (and Matthew) in light of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (can I plug my talk on the dating of Luke-Acts and Papias at San Francisco this November ). Again, this makes it unlikely that Mark is later than Luke.
As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross. (Matt 27:32)
They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. (Mark 15:21)
As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus. (Luke 23:26)
In this example, the naming of Simon’s sons almost seems superfluous and is most likely because these individuals were known to the community of readers. At the later time when Matthew and Luke wrote, the named individuals are no longer relevant and so drop out.
There are many more examples outside of this post and the last and I would again invite readers to check out Mark Goodacre’s The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze that is available in its entirety online. For instance, one of his major contributions to the debate is his examples of editorial fatigue on pp. 71-76 (where Matthew or Luke alter their Markan source but fail to make the changes all the way through so that when they revert back to Mark it creates continuity errors). But all these examples convince me that Markan priority is the most likely scenario.