And why does it matter?

One popular theory among scholars is called Marcan Priority. It suggests that Mark’s Gospel was written before gospels of Matthew and Luke. This theory is based on the belief that Mark was written around 70 AD, while Matthew and Luke were written later. According to this theory, both Matthew and Luke used Mark’s Gospel as a source, adding their own insights and expanding on the material. Some argue that Matthew and Luke even quote Mark’s Gospel word-for-word up to 50% of the time.

This theory also suggests that there was another gospel which is no longer available, an original source from which the traditional gospels drew. This was first proposed in the 18th century by German theologian Christian Herman Weisse in relation to his work in the Synoptic Gospels. The German word for “source” is “quelle” so this unknown gospel is referred to as the “Q Gospel”. This view was later popularized in the 19th century by German theologian Heinrich Julius Holtzmann. It should be noted that there is no physical evidence for either Q or Marcan Priority, and to date no unknown source gospel has been found.

What the Fathers Believed

This view was not the view of the very early Church Fathers, nor was it the consensus of Biblical Scholarship throughout the ages (which is self evident in the this view did not exist until seventeen-hundred years after the four gospels were written).

The early Church Fathers universally agreed that Matthew was written before Mark (although there is minor disagreement among some as to which was written second – Mark or Luke).  Nor did any of them consider some unknown gospel existed besides the four evangelists. Let’s take a look at what they said:

Papias (60-130 AD)

Although we no longer have the five volumes Papias wrote, we do have his statements concerning the Gospels as recorded by Eusebius in his Church History where he quotes Papias (3.39.16).  There he writes: 

“περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαίου ταῦτ̓ εἴρηται: ‘Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ̓ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.’”

(But concerning Matthew [Papias] writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”)

Most scholars believe this quote of Papias was originally written around 110 AD.  Papias claims that Matthew first wrote in Hebrew (although some think this means that Matthew’s Greek was in Judaean-Greek, which is true in that both Matthew and John were Judaean).

Irenaeus (115-202)

Like Papias, Irenaeus says Matthew wrote in Hebrew and was the first Gospel.  He writes:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” (Against Heresies 3.1.1)

So Irenaeus claims that while Peter and Paul were alive that Matthew issued his gospel and that after their deaths Mark wrote his gospel having been influenced by Peter.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

Clement also held to the view that Matthew wrote first followed by Mark and then Luke (see History of the Church by Eusebius 6.14.7)

There are other examples from the Fathers stating that Matthew was written first, but these serve to establish the point that this was the view of the early Fathers only differing in who wrote second (Mark or Luke).  

It is possible that the Fathers were mistaken as to which gospel was written first.  But the fact that they believed Matthew was first written is not a question open to debate.

5 Hypotheses

Historically, scholars have presented several differing hypothesis as to the order of the four Gospels and who wrote first. They are as follows:

1.) The Augustinian hypothesis

As the name suggests this position was held by St. Augustine (354-430 AD) who also produced a Harmony of the Gospels.  His view was that Matthew wrote first, then Mark abbreviated a version of Matthew only adding a small amount of his own material, and then Luke wrote, followed by John (thus the order of the Gospels as we have them in the New Testament; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).

2.) The Griesbach hypothesis

Johann Jakob Grisebach (1745-1812) held that Matthew wrote first, but that Luke wrote second, followed by Mark who combined passages from Matthew and Luke in an abbreviated version.  This is the second most popular view among scholars.

3.) The Farrer hypothesis

Presented by Austin Farrer (1904-1968) an English scholar held that Mark wrote first and then Luke using an expanded version of Mark, while Matthew wrote last in the synoptics drawing on Mark and Luke.

4.) The Wilke hypothesis

German scholar Christian Gottlob Wilke (1786-1854) who also held that Mark wrote first, followed by Luke who used Mark and other sources, and then Matthew using both Luke and Mark.

5.) The two-source hypothesis

This is the view most modern scholars hold to today and addressed above in relation to the Q Gospel.

Contextual Evidence

While it is possible that Mark was the first gospel writer, the contextual evidence suggests otherwise. When we compare the texts we often see Mark’s Gospel combining comments from both Matthew and Luke. The logical conclusion would be that when Mark wrote, having been influenced by Peter, he also had a copy of Matthew, and perhaps Luke, before him. This would agree with the early Fathers. What is evident, despite the claims by some that Matthew and Luke copied word-for-word for Mark only to expand his Gospel, is ,that when one compares the texts that apart from quotations, the narratives are not word-for-word.

This can be illustrated in the following 3 passages. For the sake of clarity, I will first quote from Matthew, then Luke, and then Mark. For Matthew I will use a bold dark green text. For Luke I will use blue italics text. And for Mark a plain green text. All these examples are taken from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) because of its literal accuracy to the Greek text.

1.) The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law

Scholars have noted that Mark’s Gospel exhibits vocabulary unique to Matthew. This is illustrated by the phrase “when evening came” which in Greek is a rare expression. It only occurs 7 times in the entire New Testament – 6 times in Matthew and 1 time in Mark in the above passage where Mark seems to be combing Matthew and Luke.

2.) The man cleaned of leprosy

Mark uses terms found in both Matthew and Luke. This suggests that it is unlikely for Matthew and Luke to have independently taken a section that matches Mark. It is more probable that Mark borrowed from Matthew and possibly Luke.

3.) The healing of the man with a withered hand

If Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke copied from him, how did Mark include parts from Matthew and Luke? Another possibility is that Mark’s account was edited from Matthew’s. Alternatively, one could argue that Matthew wrote first, followed by Luke who consulted eyewitnesses, including Matthew. And finally, Mark based his Gospel on the accounts of Matthew, Luke, and Peter’s verbal testimony, as the Church Fathers say.

Other examples can be provided to further establish what the three above do; such as Matthew 20:40-43 with Luke 9:49-50 and Mark 9:38-41. Or, the passages regarding the Passover in Matthew 26:17-24; Luke 22:7-23; and Mark 14:12-21.

While historically, the view that Matthew wrote first can be established by the early Church Fathers, they are not alone in this position. There are several scholars today who hold to this view. The belief that Matthew was the first Gospel to be written is based on internal evidence found within the New Testament itself and external testimonies from early Christian writers.

One of the key pieces of internal evidence is the fact that Matthew’s Gospel includes more detailed explanations of Jewish customs and practices compared to the other Gospels. This suggests that Matthew was writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, which would make sense if it was written earlier, when the early Christian community was largely Jewish.

Furthermore, as already noted, the early Church Fathers, such as Papias and Irenaeus, who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries respectively, attributed the Gospel of Matthew as the first to be composed. They were in close proximity to the apostolic tradition, having learned from those who had direct contact with the apostles themselves. Their testimony carries significant weight when considering the order of Gospel composition.

Additionally, modern scholars who hold to the view that Matthew wrote first often point to the similarities between Matthew and Mark. Here are a few scholars who believe Matthew wrote first.

“It should be noted that the parallel between Mark and Matthew begins at precisely the point where parallel between Mark and Luke ceases. An examination of these verses taking account of the wider context in which they occur will support the suggestion that the alternation of agreement between Mark and Luke and then between Mark and Matthew, may be explained by the hypothesis that Mark has conflated the other two Gospels when writing this section.”

Dr. Thomas Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark?: A Study in the Synoptic Problem, p. 170

“Some of Mark’s most famous gaucheries look like results of mixing Mathean and Lukan materials . . . half of the redundancy is like Matthew and the other half is like Luke.”

Dr. Pierson Parker writes, “The Posteriority of Mark” in New Synoptic Studies, p. 105

“Though it is possible that Matthew and Luke each adopted a separate half of Mark’s sentence, not knowing that the other evangelist had chosen the other part, it is a lot easier to see Mark combining the phrases of both Matthew and Luke.” (Orchard, “The Solution of the Synoptic Problem”, SB 18, 1987, p. 9)

Dr. J. B. Orchard, The Scripture Bulletin, “The Solution of the Synoptic Problem”, SB 18, 1987, p. 9

Once more, Dr. Lonstaff notes:

“It may be concluded, therefore, that although this analysis does not prove that Mark’s summary statement is in fact a conflation of those found in Matthew and Luke, such a hypothesis is a plausible one, and one which seems to better to explain the complex alteration of agreement and disagreement in the pericope than does the generally accepted two document hypothesis.”

Longstaff, p. 152

Why Does It Matter?

It is important because the idea that Matthew and Luke were written before Mark seems plausible and provides the best explanation for the passages mentioned above. When combined with evidence from the early Christian leaders, it forms a compelling argument. If this is true, then there is stronger reason to believe that both Matthew and Luke were written before 70 AD, possibly in the 40s or 50s, considering they are referred to as Scripture by the Apostolic Fathers and even quoted by the Apostle Paul.

Some argue against the authenticity of the Gospel of Matthew, claiming it was written much later and not by the Apostle Matthew, if Matthew was indeed written earlier and first, it supports the early Church’s belief that it was authored by Matthew himself, who witnessed the events firsthand. This would mean that there are two eyewitness accounts of the life and resurrection of Christ (which is a Biblical teaching – Deuteronomy 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1), including Matthew and John, as well as accounts by Luke who says eyewitness accounts were “handed down to us” (Luke 1:2), and Mark who recorded Peter’s account.