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.
Example 1:
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.
Example 2
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).
Example 3
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.
Example 4
‘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.
Example 6
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.
Good examples and discussions, thanks.
While I agree that the addition of Simon of Cyrenes’s sons’ names is unlikely if Mark is synopsizing Matthew and Luke, I have never been persuaded by the idea that they were individuals known to the community of Mark. For one thing, Alexander and Rufus: a quintessentially Greek name and a quintessentially Roman name. I think the relevance that was lost was not their identity as known individuals but that Mark intended some symbolism that was lost on the authors of Matthew and Luke (and possibly on later scholarship as well).
To this point more generally, I have an idea for a blog post you might consider, a subject I would like to see a discussion of, or some suggested resources for further study if you know of any. Goodacre touches on it in that essay we talked about, Scriptualization in Mark’s Gospel.
Basically, he mentions the need to make a distinction between “the Markan community” and “the Markan audience”. In so much treatment of Mark in popular and scholarly books, there is a lot of emphasis on this Markan community, and the roles of the community to which Mark belonged and the community of persons for whom Mark was written (or who first received and transmitted it in any case) are treated as synonymous. Goodacre seems to suggest a distinction should be drawn there, and I’d be interested in your take on the idea.
Thanks C.J. for your comments. Interesting idea about the names as symbolic. My hesitation is that we do sometimes get Greco-Roman names in Palestine – for instance Simon Peter’s brother Andrew and Phillip (both Greek names) said to come from Bethsaida or the author of Acts puts John “Marcus” in Jerusalem. So the names Alexander and Rufus might be just be the actual names of Simon of Cyrene’s sons.
Great idea about a post on the “Markan community.” I have been wanting to do a series on the provenance of Mark (was it written in Rome, Galilee, Syria?) so could add something on Gospel communities. I have one more Synoptic post to publish but I can get to this stuff more in June. I think I still accept that Mark was written to a limited community that shared the author’s interests, even though it may be a problem and a bit circular reconstructing that community from Mark’s text. But if you are looking for books that challenge the idea of “gospel communities,” Richard Bauckham has an edited volume entitled “The Gospel for all Christians” (and various journal articles have been written in response to Bauckham’s position from D.C. Sim, Philip Esler, Michael Bird, etc.). Or for another critique, check out Dwight N. Petersen, “The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate.”
I know it wouldn’t have been unheard of to have given names in the region that were stereotypically Greek (and he’s supposed to be from Cyrene anyway). What I mean is those names specifically. Alexander, the ultimate Greek conqueror, and Rufus, a very specifically Roman cognomen, also the name of a Roman prefect of Judaea (Annius Rufus, 12-15 CE). What suggests symbolism to start with is the typically Markan irony of having someone named Simon carry the cross, when it was Simon Peter who Jesus instructed to “take up your cross and follow me”. However, as I say, what the extended meaning of giving his sons these names might be I cannot fathom.
Anyway, thanks for the suggestions for further reading. I will await your discussion of the provenance of Mark, which is a subject of great interest to me.
Thanks CJ for the interesting discussion on the names. I remember there is also a Rufus in Rom 16:13, but not sure we can speculate if it is the same person (and right now, I am not so sure the provenance of Mark was Rome, but could get into that in a later post).
[...] the term “boring” ). I have attempted to make the case in three different posts for Markan priority, but many students may wonder why the order of the gospels and who was doing [...]
Regarding the names Alexander and Rufus, Livio Stecchini suggested many years ago that these typically Greek and Roman names were assigned by Mark to the sons of Simon in order to give Simon credentials as a reliable witness to the crucifixion. For Mark’s audience a Jewish man who named his sons Alexander and Rufus would have been very assimilated to Graeco-Roman culture and hence likely a Roman citizen, i.e., someone whose testimony could be trusted.
Jan, I am not familiar with his work but thanks for the reference.
[...] 5772 « The Set Table1More Evidence for the Priority of Mark « Euangelion Kata Markon [...]
[...] and the Sabbath « Preaching the Gospel1More Evidence for the Priority of Mark « Euangelion Kata Markon [...]