This week I’m taking a break from the 1689 study. I’ll get back to Chapter 3 of the Confession either next week or the week after. This week I wanted to discuss a topic in Biblical Studies which deals with the four gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Often you may hear their fuller titles such as The Gospel According to Matthew. Have you ever wondered why there are four? Why not just one? It would certainly make Biblical Studies a lot simpler. And who wrote first? Did the gospel writers use each other's work in writing their own?
The issues are often centered around the first three gospel accounts. These three are collectively known as the Synoptic Gospels. The word synoptic means “seeing together”. They’re called this because there is so much common material between them. Especially Matthew and Luke which are very close in length. But there are also differences too. Most are minor, but some can also be confusing. And of the Synoptics, Mark is the red-headed child of the bunch being much shorter, punchier, but yet has more details in its events than the other two. And John is off doing his own thing. Though there are some common events between John and the Synoptics, John’s gospel is very much in a category of its own.
I’ll admit that this is more of a “fun topic” than something dealing with doctrine or theology. This is one of those conversations Christians have over coffee or Diet Coke. Where one lands in this area really shouldn’t affect how Christians see each other or to an extent, how we interpret the Gospels. It may impact our background studies, but the content doesn’t change. A lot of this discussion is speculation, and at the end of the day we can all affirm as believers that the Gospels are Holy Scripture, breathed out by God, and are accurate recordings of the actions and sayings of our Lord during His earthly ministry. I do find theological significance in the nature, number, and writing order of the Gospels, but if others don’t, it’s not a big deal. Also remember that this discussion is attempting to ascertain the human means by which God worked. Why are there four gospels? Because God ordained it. But God works through means and that’s what we’re attempting to figure out here.
The Synoptic Problem is the label given to this area of study. Why do we have the gospels we have? Why are three so close, yet so so different? In what order were they written? And did they use each other as sources for their own work? These questions are very intertwined. Let’s first focus on the question, who wrote first?
Current Landscape
The current prominent views are split between Markean and Matthean priority, whether Mark or Matthew were written first. Although there are fringe views of Lukan or Johannian priority, they are not very popular and have little if any historical support. To lay my cards on the table, I hold to a Matthean priority theory known as the Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis advocated by Dr. Bernard Orchard and made accessible by Dr. David Alan Black’s book Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels. I find their arguments very compelling and Dr. Black does an excellent job connecting this historical question with the redemptive plan that God executed with the New Covenant.
Before I go much further, I want to acknowledge a sad fact and give a warning to those who wish to dive into the “scholarly” side of Biblical Studies. Sadly, much of modern biblical scholarship has been taken over by Enlightenment thinking which has plagued Biblical Studies with unbelieving people attempting to study a living, breathing book which has a divine author. Because of this, modern scholars push the dates so far past the ministry of Jesus, into the late first and early second centuries, that claims of corruption or reliance on second-hand accounts are common. This then gives them grounds to claim that the gospels weren’t actually written by the apostles or their companions, and were in fact written by later generations. This is nonsense. From our earliest records, the gospels have always been attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There’s never been a question about the authors and there’s no good reason to start now. All it does is attempt to strip them of their divine authorship by casting doubt on what they record. There is no scholarly or historical reason to do this other than to make people doubt the Christian faith. That’s not to say we must reject everything that comes out of these schools of thought, but that we should be cautious and remember that everything is theological, even if people aren’t overt about it. So from the beginning, we’re coming at this with a historical, believing, Christian perspective. Let’s first look at the Mark-first view.
Markean Priority
Modern scholarship is quite divided when it comes to the synoptics. Regarding the questions of who wrote first, who depended on whom, what were their sources, why did one author have more details than another, there is no consensus. Though there are a few popular theories, scholars and theologians remain split on the issue. And there are many believing Christian scholars on various sides of this issue. The current majority view, especially in scholarly circles, is that Mark wrote first, followed by Matthew, Luke, and lastly John. So we’ll look at a few arguments for Markean priority, then arguments for Matthew. I’ll leave you to decide which is more convincing. The arguments for Mark assume that Matthew and Luke are directly referencing Mark and using it as a sort of “base text”.
First is a linguistic argument. The Greek of Mark is rough and quick compared to Matthew and Luke’s which is much cleaner and polished. The Greek of Matthew and Luke are from the hand and/or mouth of someone who knew the language well, either as their mother tongue or an early second language. The argument goes that since an author commonly smooths over their source material, Matthew and Luke came later since their Greek is smoother than Mark’s. If Mark came later, assuming he relied on Matthew and/or Luke, the question arises of why he didn’t maintain the better Greek of his sources.
Related to the last argument is another one regarding Mark’s preservation of Aramaic. Mark often records the Aramaic words of Jesus along with a Greek translation. This, according to scholars, points to an earlier authorship which more closely preserved the “original voice” of Jesus. If Mark were last, why would he maintain these Aramaic terms? This also connects with the modern view that the gospels, at least Matthew, Luke, and John, were written much later in the first century. By that time, it would make sense that the other gospel writers would dispel of Aramaic hangovers as the church had been largely Gentile at that point.
A third argument is regarding content. Mark is obviously much shorter than Matthew and Luke. If Mark were an abridged version of the other two, why would he remove important pericopies such as the birth narratives, the Sermon on the Mount, or the Lord’s Prayer? But at the same time, why would Mark have additional details in the events he did write that weren’t in the preceding accounts? The argument is that it makes more sense that Matthew (and Luke) added to and cleaned up Mark’s accounts rather than the reverse.
There are other arguments, but these give a good overview of the position. The problem with these arguments and others, is that they can be easily explained by Mark’s relationship with Peter and the circumstances around Mark’s writing, which Clement and Origen mention, and don’t necessarily point to Mark being written first.
A common theory within the Markean priority camp is what’s called the two-source hypothesis. This says that Mark was written first, then Matthew and Luke each expanded on Mark by using a different document that’s simply called Q. This Q document is believed to be a written document of the actions and sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke consulted in writing their own Gospels. The problem is that we have no evidence of this so-called Q document. There’s nothing mentioned in the Church Fathers about such a document, and we have no manuscript evidence of it. If such a document existed, one would think that it would have been preserved by the church. There are other theories that don’t require Q, but this is a popular one. However, I believe there’s a better and simpler explanation if we assume Matthew was the first written gospel.
Patristic Witness
The writings of the early Church can help shed light on this topic. Among the Church Fathers there’s slight variation, but a common theme. In book 6 of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, he records that Clement of Alexandria believed the order was Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John: “Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first.”1 The only two gospel accounts that contain genealogies are Matthew and Luke. He goes on to talk about the circumstances of Mark’s composition being the recordings of Peter’s teaching in Rome, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
In the same book of Eusebius, he records that Origen believed the order was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John:
In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew…. The second is by Mark…. And the third by Luke…. Last of all that by John.”2
There’s some parts I left out of Origen’s descriptions of the gospels, but again we’ll come back to that in a moment.
Irenaeus also records the history of the gospels. In his writing Against Heresies he writes:
For after that our Lord rose from the dead…they went out into the ends of the earth, bearing the good tidings of the blessings we have from God, and announcing to men heavenly peace. Now these, all and each of them alike having the Gospel of God,—Matthew for his part published also a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, whilst Peter and Paul were at Rome, preaching, and laying the foundation of the Church. And after their departure, Mark, Peter’s disciple and interpreter, did himself also publish unto us in writing the things which were preached by Peter. And Luke too, the attendant of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His Breast,—he again put forth his gospel, while he abode in Ephesus in Asia.3
So again we have evidence of the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Notice that in the writings of the early Church, whenever this topic is mentioned, Matthew is always first on the list and John is always last while Luke and Mark get swapped around. This indicates that there was a common belief about the order of the gospels and as we’ll soon see, the purpose of the gospels. With this Patristic evidence, does a traditional Matthean priority view make sense? It absolutely does.
The Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis
Matthew
As mentioned earlier, Eusebius records that both Clement and Origen believed that Matthew was written first. From a theological perspective, this fits perfectly. After all as Paul writes, the gospel was to the Jew first, and also the Greek. Matthew is a very Jewish gospel. From the first chapter he heavily quotes the Old Testament to point to its fulfillment in Jesus. He uses Jewish terms and themes to show that Jesus was the Messiah foretold long before. Acts can actually be a great guide here. The first half of Acts is all about the gospel message being proclaimed to the Jews in Jerusalem and the surrounding region. It’s not until years later that focus changes to the gentiles with Peter’s visit to Cornelius and later, Paul’s conversion. Matthew would be the perfect evangelism tool since the apostles couldn’t be everywhere at once. So why not commission one of the Twelve to make a written account of the highlights of Jesus’s ministry? It’s also interesting to note that Matthew, and Luke, are about the length of a commercial scroll at that time, which was about 30 feet. They were written specifically to be published and used among the churches.
Origen corroborates this saying, “I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.”
There is an interesting comment from Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen (the first two being quoted by Eusebius) that Matthew was first written in Hebrew. Perhaps that’s a topic that I can dive into later, but for now we simply say regardless of the first writing, the gospel that God has preserved in history is Matthew’s version in Greek. And to that, we make our final appeal as Holy Scripture. That explains Matthew’s gospel and why he would’ve been the first to write.
Luke
So then, why Luke? If there was already a perfectly good recording of Jesus’s life and teachings in circulation, why the need for another? Well, think again about Acts and the greater redemptive story. What was the major turning point of the early Church? What was the bombshell moment? It was the inclusion of the gentiles. A people that knew nothing Jewish religion, history, or practice. Perhaps this was the initiative for the Greek version of Matthew, but even so, Matthew’s gospel is still very Jewish. The gentiles probably had a difficult time understanding it because of its rich Hebrew background. This makes sense when we also remember who Luke was associated with, Paul. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Luke often accompanied him. Their mission and work was primarily among them. They no doubt had a copy of Matthew during his journeys, maybe multiple to give to churches. But they would’ve been the first to experience the pain points of using Matthew’s Jewish gospel to evangelize the gentiles.
So what do they do? Luke takes it upon himself, probably at the behest of Paul, to write basically a gentile version of Matthew. A version that kept the details, events, and sayings of Jesus, but removed the overtly Jewish, Hebraic, and Aramaic terms or phrases. For example in the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24:15 says “‘So when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place’ (let the reader understand)” while Luke fills in the “let the reader understand” part for the gentiles and says in 21:20 “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that its desolation has come near”. And Luke dedicates his gospel, and his Acts of the Apostles, to a man named Theophilus. Perhaps he was the final catalyst that pushed Luke to write his version. And Luke was no slouch. Though he used Matthew as a starting point, he did his own homework. As his prologue says,
Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. So it also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed. (Lk 1:1-4)
If Luke was going to take on this project, knowing full well the weight and reception that Matthew’s gospel already had, he needed to be sure that everything he wrote was accurate. But Luke’s gospel had a problem. Neither Luke nor Paul were eyewitnesses to Jesus’s earthly ministry. Paul was taught directly by Jesus right after his conversion, but he wasn’t part of the original Twelve. This would potentially cast doubt upon Luke’s work, if not by the gentile churches, more so by the Jerusalem church who for so long at this point had been disseminating Matthew’s gospel. An eyewitness approval was needed to ensure that Luke’s gospel was accepted.
Mark
Mark is this approval. An interesting piece of evidence is what Eusebius records from Clement about the writing of Mark. He is the one who said that the gospels with the genealogies were written first. Eusebius continues recording Clement saying:
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. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.4
And in his commentary on 1 Peter, he says:
Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Cæsar’s equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.5
Whenever Mark is mentioned in relation to the gospel in his name, he’s always associated with Peter. Other sources such as Irenaeus, Eusebius in book 2, Papias of Hierapolis, and Jerome also note that Mark’s gospel was a product of Peter’s memoirs and published either with Peter’s knowledge or after his death. When one reads Mark against Matthew and Luke, it becomes apparent that Mark is a zig-zag compilation of the other two. Understanding this, and the circumstances surrounding its composition, a probable hypothesis is that Peter, while in Rome around the same time as Paul, gave lectures to a Roman audience, perhaps consisting of both Christians and non-Christians, and during these lectures he used scrolls of Matthew and Luke to give his lectures. According to Clement, Peter’s audience wanted a written copy of what Peter was saying, so Mark, or other scribes, wrote down Peter’s speeches to give to the people.
This provides a simple explanation for all the quirks of Mark. Its rough Greek and the Aramaic leftovers are explained by Peter himself. Greek wasn’t his native language but being in Rome, he was doing his best speaking in the lingua franca of the day so naturally his second, or even third, language would be a bit rough and his native tongue of Aramaic would peek through. The “quickness” of Mark is also explained by the way Peter was doing his lectures. Assuming he was following Matthew and Luke, he was going from event to event where he had been physically present and remembered the details. This also explains why Mark, though it has fewer pericopies, has more details overall. Peter would naturally be adding detail that Matthew and Luke didn’t have.
From a human perspective, Mark wasn’t meant to be another gospel in competition to Matthew or Luke, it was simply the recording of Peter’s speeches for his audiences. But it proved so valuable, in the providence of God, that it was compiled as a single work and distributed, not as competition, but as a bridge. The gospel started with the Jews in Jerusalem, expanded to the gentiles, and the church had to deal with their inclusion. The written gospels reflect this. Matthew was first as the gospel to the Jews. Luke was second as the gospel to the gentiles, and Mark was the bridge connecting the two. The church is a unification of Jew and gentile as one people for God. The written gospels are a literary embodiment of this.
In the patristic evidence, the overwhelming view is that Matthew wrote first and John wrote last. There’s some switching between who wrote second and third, but this theory even makes sense of these differences. If Paul was wanting to acquire eyewitness approval of Luke’s version, he wouldn’t have wanted to distribute it too widely until then. So from one perspective, the order Matthew, Luke, Mark makes sense because that was the order of physical writing. But the order Matthew, Mark, Luke also makes sense because that was the order of publication. Both orders are correct depending on how one views it.
Conclusion
For me, the Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis provides a satisfactory answer to the so-called Synoptic Problem. With this perspective, there is no problem as all three fit naturally together while John provides a capstone on the story of Jesus’s earthly ministry by providing additional details and events that Matthew and Luke didn’t have. John is not redundant, but complementary. I find this theory the most probable of any others. It correlates the best with the patristic evidence without requiring twisting their writings. It explains the similarities and differences of Mark compared to Matthew and Luke. And it fits a theological purpose by fitting the structure of Acts and the inclusion of the gentles and all that was required in rethinking God’s work in the world. But as I mentioned at the beginning, if you disagree with this theory, that’s fine. If anything is a third-tier issue, this is is. Does one’s interpretation of the gospels depend on their order of composition or dependence? Not at all. Regardless of who wrote first, we can use all three, sometimes four, to compare and get a full picture of the earthly life of Jesus. And for that, we can give all glory, praise, and thanksgiving to God.
I hope you found this topic interesting. Perhaps you never thought about this before and this is another rabbithole you can explore. I’ll put the bibliographical information for Dr. Black’s book in the show notes if you’d like to read his explanation. He provides additional support that I didn’t include and does a great job laying out the issues. If you have any questions or comments, you can send them to me on the post for this episode or to the email address in the show notes. May the Lord bless you and keep you. And I’ll see you next time on God’s Word Speaks.
Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 6.14.5-7.
Eusebius, 6.25.3-6.
S. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, Five Books of S. Irenaeus against Heresies, trans. John Keble, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London; Cambridge: James Parker and Co.; Rivingtons, 1872), 3.1.1.
Eusebius, 6.14.6-7.
Clement of Alexandria, “Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. William Wilson, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 573.
