Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending

Steven Avery

Gloag rips the Markus Interruptus theory to shreds.

Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (1895)
Paton James Gloag

If, then, the Gospel once had a conclusion, actual or intended, we are entitled to ask the objectors to this passage, What has become of it ? Two answers have been given to this question. The one, favoured by Norton,3 is that Mark was prevented finishing his Gospel; either because Peter, to whom he was indebted for his information, perished at this time in the persecution by Nero (Michaelis), or because Mark himself died (Davidson). Both of these are merely gratuitous suppositions. Mark was not so entirely dependent on Peter that he could not finish his Gospel without his aid; and it would be most extraordinary that he himself should die at the very time when he was about to finish his Gospel.

3 Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 221.


Joseph Waite talks of Mark's familiarity with the Matthew and Peter truths, does not discuss the issue of the reader.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Additional writers who use the Galilee verses in Mark as support for the non-authenticity, theorizing a lost ending.

From Tradition to Gospel (1971)
by Martin Dibelius, Bertram Lee Woolf

The gospel according to St. Mark: the Greek text with introduction, notes and indices (1905)
Henry Barclay Swete

The Resurrection and Modern Thought (1915)
William John Sparrow-Simpson
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Mark 16:9 (AV)
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Luke 8:2 (AV)
And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Mark is using what was reported by Luke.

Steven Avery

Also from Peter Head, these Luke-Mark connections should be checked:

In relation to content there is a significant issue that the Longer Ending draws upon parallel material in the other Gospels.6 The individual appearance to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9–11) parallels John 20:14–18; the appearance to two people walking in the country (Mark 16:12–13) parallels the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13–35; the appearance to the eleven while reclining (Mark 16:14) parallels Luke 24:36–43; the commissioning (Mark 16:15) parallels Matthew 28:19–20; and the mention of the ascension (Mark 16:19) parallels Luke 24:50–51. This synthesizing feature of the content of the Longer Ending has long been recognized as reflecting a different relationship to the other Gospels than is reflected within Mark’s Gospel.7

Steven Avery


Demian said...
The venerable Bede in his commentary on 1 Peter 5:13, seems to suggest that Mark wrote his gospel during the time of the emperor Claudius and after that was sent to Egypt. If that is correct, then his gospel would have been written no later than 54. Here’s what he says:

“Peter and Mark both came to Rome during the time of the emperor Claudius and Mark himself, having written his Gospel at Rome, was sent to Alexandria. Hence it is gathered that when it is asked where and when Peter wrote this Letter (the 1st letter of Peter), the place was Rome, the time that of Claudius Caesar”

Theophylact is also of the same mind. Here’s what he says in the preface of his commentary to the gospel of Mark:

“The Gospel According to St. Mark was written ten years after the Ascension of Christ. This Mark was a disciple of Peter, whom Peter calls his son, that is, his spiritual son. He was also called John,' and the nephew of Barnabas, and the companion of Paul. But eventually he accompanied Peter the most, and was with him in Rome. The believers in Rome begged Mark not only to preach orally, but also to give them a written account of Christ’s life. He agreed, and composed it immediately. God revealed to Peter that Mark had written this Gospel, and when he saw it, Peter confirmed its truth, and sent Mark as bishop to Egypt. There Mark preached and established the Church in Alexandria, enlightening all those in that sunny land to the south”

PS: Both fathers commented on the gospel of Mark and had in their bibles the long ending of Mark, by the way.


Steven Avery
Theophylact is interesting. And I see Theophylact as missing the high priest Theophilus, which makes Luke c. AD 41 rather than late 40s.
Theophylact gives a date in the 60s for John, which feels late, but is possible, it would need its own study.
Plus, Luke preceded Mark, as explained by Ben C. Smith, and I tweaked from a more evangelical perspective.
Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending
As for what most scholars think, that is totally irrelevant. Only a handful will even contemplate the New Testament completed before AD 70. Those early daters are the only scholars really worth considering on this question, imho. (You might allow them to have a late Revelation date, and still consider their writings.) Even writers like eyewitnesses Richard Bauckham are irrelevant on NT dating.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Theophylact of Orhid, who lived in the 11th century

Patristics for Protestants
Richard Leigh
YES! Bl Theophylact said Matthew was written "...eight years after Christ's Ascension....Mark wrote his Gospel ten years after Christ's Ascension, instructed by Peter. Luke wrote his Gospel fifteen years after the Ascension, and John the most wise Theologian, thirty-two years after the Ascension...." That's from Theophylact's Preface to The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chrysostom Press, 1992, Stade, trans. p. 8. I might add that Theophylact is known to have gotten most of his information about the the Holy Scriptures from Chrysostom. Don't know if that's where he got his dates which no serious scholar accepts today.

Steven Avery
Here is Theophylact in a nice readable blog.

Casey Perkins
Top contributor
Steven Avery, from Eusebius History of the Church, Book 6, chapter 14:
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.

Steven Avery

Mark borrows from Luke/Acts

Charles Dunster (includes MacKnight)

Genealogies first

Robert Lindsey
Jerusalem Perspective



William Baird

William Reuben Farmer


Lukan priority per Meyer






luk priority not pbf not dunster not bchf not iidb not synoptic-l