The Eusebian Canon Tables are usually described as a neutral tool for cross-referencing parallel Gospel passages. They are presented as a technical solution to a practical problem: how to identify where different evangelists recount “the same things” without disturbing the integrity of each Gospel’s narrative. Because of this framing, the canons are rarely examined as an interpretive system with internal assumptions. Yet once the mechanics of the tables are analyzed closely—especially their segmentation, alignment logic, and treatment of narrative sequence—it becomes clear that the system is not neutral at all.
This post re-examines the Eusebian Canons with a narrow but decisive question in view: how does the system determine which Gospel governs alignment when parallels exist? The answer does not lie in Eusebius’s explicit statements, which remain diplomatically non-committal, but in the operational logic of the canons themselves. When that logic is followed consistently, it becomes apparent that the system functions coherently only if Mark serves as the narrative axis. This conclusion emerges independently of later synoptic theory and rests instead on the structure of the canons as Eusebius actually constructed them.
Eusebius’s Stated Aim and Its Implicit Limitation
In the Letter to Carpianus, Eusebius contrasts his method with that of Ammonius of Alexandria. Ammonius had placed parallel passages from the other Gospels alongside Matthew, but this approach, Eusebius claims, “destroyed the sequence of the three Gospels.” Eusebius presents his own system as a corrective: rather than subordinating three Gospels to one, he preserves the body and sequence of each Gospel intact and uses canon tables to show correspondences externally.
What is striking is that Eusebius never identifies which Gospel, if any, functions as a reference point in his own system. The rhetoric suggests a perfectly symmetrical arrangement of four independent narratives. Yet the symmetry breaks down once the tables are examined in practice. The canons inevitably presuppose a governing sequence, because alignment requires decisions about pericope boundaries, narrative order, and the handling of overlap. Those decisions reveal which Gospel is treated as stable and which are adjusted.
The Mechanics of the Canon Tables
Each Gospel is divided into Ammonian sections, numbered consecutively. Each section is then assigned to one of ten canons depending on how many and which other Gospels contain parallel material. Canon I aligns passages shared by all four Gospels; Canon II aligns Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Canon V aligns Matthew and Luke without Mark; Canon X lists material unique to each Gospel.
This description is well known. What is less frequently noted is how the sections behave when mapped across the canons. Matthew and Luke frequently appear out of narrative order in the tables. Their section numbers jump forward and backward as they are aligned with other Gospels. John is redistributed even more radically, often detached from chronological sequence altogether. Mark alone progresses steadily forward, with section numbers that increase monotonically across the tables.
There is no instance in which Mark is repositioned to conform to the sequence of Matthew or Luke. There is no instance in which Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark’s order. This asymmetry is not accidental. It indicates that Mark’s sequence is treated as fixed, while the others are adjusted to it.
The full list of Mark’s Canon X (“unique-to-Mark”) sections (as in the same conversion table)
In the same tertullian.org conversion, Mark’s entries marked with “.10” are the ones assigned to Canon X (unique-to-that-gospel as the system is being applied there). Here are the Mark sections that are explicitly marked Canon X in the Mark list:
Mark §19 = 1:45.
Mark §31 = 3:20–21.
Mark §43 = 4:26–29.
Mark §46 = 4:34B.
Mark §58 = 6:15–16.
Mark §62 = 6:31.
Mark §70 = 7:1–4.
Mark §74 = 7:31–36A.
Mark §81 = 8:22–26.
Mark §90 = 9:14–16.
Mark §92 = 9:28–29.
Mark §94 = 9:33.
Mark §101 = 9:49.
Mark §104 = 10:10.
Mark §123 = 11:19–21.
Mark §132 = 12:32–34A.
Mark §186 = 14:51–52.
Mark §213 = 15:25.
Two things to flag (because this is exactly where “hidden patterns” and “Markan origins” arguments go off the rails if you don’t keep the mechanics straight).
First, the conversion explicitly shows that the Mark apparatus can vary at the end of Mark; it even inserts an “ENDING” block and then lists Mark 16:9–20 as extra sections (234–241) with the note “no tables given.” That’s a live example of how the canon system and the sectioning interact with textual variation at precisely the point where Mark’s ending is text-critically unstable.
Second, Canon X does not mean “historically Markan” or “redactionally Markan” in any genetic sense; it means “this system did not align this unit with anything else in the other gospels.” That can reflect real distinctiveness, but it can also reflect how the compiler chose to carve the pericopes.
Canon II and the Control of the Triple Tradition
Canon II, which aligns Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is the core of the system. In every Canon II alignment, the Markan pericope defines the unit. Matthew typically expands it, while Luke often paraphrases or relocates it, but the boundaries of the episode are set by Mark.
Mark chapter 10 illustrates this clearly. Every pericope in the chapter—divorce, children, the rich man, the passion prediction, the request of James and John, Bartimaeus—is assigned to Canon II. None are treated as unique to Mark. This means that, within the Eusebian system, Mark’s narrative at this point is regarded as fully saturated and structurally complete. Matthew and Luke are responding to it, not correcting or supplementing it.
If Matthew were functioning as the base Gospel, one would expect at least some cases where Matthew and Luke jointly override Mark’s segmentation or sequence. No such cases occur.
Canon V and the Isolation of Matthew–Luke Material
Canon V contains material shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark. This canon is often discussed in relation to hypothetical sources, but its structural implications within the Eusebian system are more immediate.
Canon V material is not reintegrated into Mark’s narrative flow. It is isolated as a distinct block. This decision only makes sense if Mark is already treated as narratively sufficient. If Matthew were primary, Canon V material would represent content omitted by Mark and would require explanation or reintegration. Eusebius does neither. He simply acknowledges the Matthew–Luke agreement without allowing it to reshape the narrative backbone.
Mark’s Canon X Material: Narrative Residue
Mark does have material assigned to Canon X, but the nature of that material is revealing. Mark’s unique sections are not doctrinal expansions or clarifications. They are narrative residues: moments of hesitation, embarrassment, or incompleteness. Examples include Jesus’ family thinking he is out of his mind, the two-stage healing at Bethsaida, the young man fleeing naked at the arrest, Jesus’ silent inspection of the temple in Mark 11:11, and the abrupt ending at 16:8.
These are not the kinds of passages a later epitomator would introduce. They are precisely the kinds of details later authors tend to smooth out or omit. Eusebius isolates them because they resist harmonization, not because they represent secondary elaboration.
The Rich Man Pericope as a Case Study
The pericope of the rich man (Mark 10:17–31) provides a concrete illustration of how the system operates. In the Eusebian apparatus, this material is divided into several Markan sections (107–111 in standard conversions), all assigned to Canon II. The corresponding Matthew sections (Matt 19:16–30) are subdivided more finely, with some subunits remaining in Canon II and others reassigned to Canon X or Canon V. Luke’s parallel (Luke 18:18–30) remains entirely within Canon II.
This asymmetry shows that Mark defines the core unit, while Matthew’s expansions are selectively detached. The system does not attempt to preserve Matthew’s narrative unity at this point; it preserves Mark’s.
Why Eusebius Remains Silent
Eusebius inherited traditions that constrained what he could say explicitly. Clement of Alexandria had claimed that the Gospels “with genealogies” were written first. Ecclesiastical usage privileged Matthew. Anti-Marcionite polemics reinforced the need to emphasize apostolic continuity. To state openly that Mark functioned as the narrative axis would have conflicted with these traditions.
Instead, Eusebius encoded his solution structurally. The canon tables perform the work silently. They allow inherited claims about authorship and order to remain formally intact while building a system that only functions coherently if Mark is treated as primary.
Conclusion
The Eusebian Canon Tables are not merely a concordance. They are an interpretive machine. When examined closely, they reveal a hierarchy that Eusebius never articulates but consistently enforces. Mark’s narrative sequence governs alignment. Matthew and Luke are redistributed around it. Canon V material is quarantined. Canon X material in Mark consists of narrative residue rather than theological innovation.
The result is a system that presupposes Mark as the backbone of the Gospel tradition. This conclusion does not depend on modern synoptic theory. It follows directly from the mechanics of the Eusebian apparatus itself. Eusebius did not argue for Mark’s priority. He built a structure that assumes it—and left that assumption embedded in the canons for anyone willing to follow their logic to its end.
