In what Order were the Gospels were written?

[FishyPete]

Greetings friends in Christ!

So I was listening to a lecture from my Cardinal (who is a great man and a fine speaker) and he mentioned curiously that the Gospel of Mathew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as an inspiration/source.

Now I know that the Gospel writers each had their own audiences and reasons to write. And that they all had different sources of information (Luke has first hand accounts from our Heavenly Mother etc.) And I know they all were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But…

I always thought that Mathew wrote first, perhaps in Aramaic, and that Mark wrote from the preaching of Peter, hence the fact that it is more concise and almost in bullet point form. Especially since Mathew uses Aramaic words.

And I know that some of the very earliest Church Fathers said that Mathew wrote first. Clement of Alexandria specifically said that the earliest was Mathew, and he was quoting the very earliest presbyters. No one disagreed with him.

However it seems that many modern thinkers think that Mark wrote first.

I’ve read convincing arguments otherwise, however I was surprised to hear my Cardinal say that Mark wrote first.??

My questions:

1. At the end of the day does it matter (My guess is no)?
2. What does the Catholic church officially tell us? Why would my Cardinal present the order this way?
3. Who wrote first?

 

[FishyPete]

I’m curious to hear anyone’s thoughts!

thanks.

 

[Sirach2]

From the Vatican website, we read that Mark, although the shortest gospel, was apparently the first one written and gives more details than the other two synoptic gospels with respect to Jesus’ miracles.

But I agree with you, it is not important when they were written, since all of them are written to help us know, love and serve God.

 

[FishyPete]

From the Vatican website, we read that Mark, although the shortest gospel, was apparently the first one written and gives more details than the other two synoptic gospels with respect to Jesus’ miracles.

But I agree with you, it is not important when they were written, since all of them are written to help us know, love and serve God.

That’s just the commentary from the New American Bible isnt it? I don’t think its official Church teaching is it?

Besides it says “that Mark is likely first, not IS first to have written”.

 

[Murmurs]

I think the short answer is: no one really knows for sure (though John was, I think it is almost universally agreed, written much later than the 3 synoptic Gospels), though there are several main strands of thought among Biblical scholars:

A) The ‘Two Gospel’ theory, which suggests Matthew was written before Luke, and both before Mark;

B) The ‘Two-Source’ or ‘Q’ theory (I think this is the most widely accepted_, which states that Matthew and Luke both draw from Mark (about 75% of St Mark’s Gospel is also found in the other two), and also from a now-lost ‘Q’ source.

Others are kind of developments of one of those ideas, or suggest that each developed from a single ‘protogospel’ and from oral tradition, before being written down. All were probably more or less ‘complete’ by 100AD, with the 3 synoptic Gospels somewhat earlier (as befits their more intimate assocation with the events of Jesus’ life, and in the case of the early chapters of St Luke, with quite probably 1st-hand accounts from Our Lady…and that St Luke does not mention in the Acts the persecution of Christians under Nero in the AD60s, which was such an important even in the early Church, and it is fairly certain that the author of Acts was also St Luke, who must clearly have written his Gospel account first).

As you point out, Clement of Alexandria is among those who give the ‘traditional’ order, and it was cemented when St Jerome created the Vulgate. In the 18th century a number of scholars started to question this assumption, on the basis that St Matthew tends to agree with St Mark against St Luke on the order of passages, and Luke with Mark against Matthew, St Matthew and St Luke’s gospels rarely agree with each other. Meanwhile St Mark’s Gospel is said to be more ‘primitive’, less literary, and makes much more frequent use of Aramaic. So the logical explanation regarding dates is that either Matthew and Luke ‘cleaned up’ Mark’s account - or St Mark, writing later, compiled a ‘dumbed down’ (this isn’t quite the right word, of course, but you get my meaning I hope) version of St Matthew and St Luke, using what they had in common.

Someone else might be better placed to say what the ‘official’ Church teaching on the order and dating is…my understanding is that, inspired as they are, at some level it probably doesn’t matter all that much anyway! Scholarly consensus, across all denominations, is that the most likely order is Mark - Matthew/Luke/(Acts) - John. Who else can help?

God bless,
Ellie

 

[FishyPete]

I think the short answer is: no one really knows for sure (though John was, I think it is almost universally agreed, written much later than the 3 synoptic Gospels), though there are several main strands of thought among Biblical scholars:

A) The ‘Two Gospel’ theory, which suggests Matthew was written before Luke, and both before Mark;

B) The ‘Two-Source’ or ‘Q’ theory (I think this is the most widely accepted_, which states that Matthew and Luke both draw from Mark (about 75% of St Mark’s Gospel is also found in the other two), and also from a now-lost ‘Q’ source.

Others are kind of developments of one of those ideas, or suggest that each developed from a single ‘protogospel’ and from oral tradition, before being written down. All were probably more or less ‘complete’ by 100AD, with the 3 synoptic Gospels somewhat earlier (as befits their more intimate assocation with the events of Jesus’ life, and in the case of the early chapters of St Luke, with quite probably 1st-hand accounts from Our Lady…and that St Luke does not mention in the Acts the persecution of Christians under Nero in the AD60s, which was such an important even in the early Church, and it is fairly certain that the author of Acts was also St Luke, who must clearly have written his Gospel account first).

As you point out, Clement of Alexandria is among those who give the ‘traditional’ order, and it was cemented when St Jerome created the Vulgate. In the 18th century a number of scholars started to question this assumption, on the basis that St Matthew tends to agree with St Mark against St Luke on the order of passages, and Luke with Mark against Matthew, St Matthew and St Luke’s gospels rarely agree with each other. Meanwhile St Mark’s Gospel is said to be more ‘primitive’, less literary, and makes much more frequent use of Aramaic. So the logical explanation regarding dates is that either Matthew and Luke ‘cleaned up’ Mark’s account - or St Mark, writing later, compiled a ‘dumbed down’ (this isn’t quite the right word, of course, but you get my meaning I hope) version of St Matthew and St Luke, using what they had in common.

Someone else might be better placed to say what the ‘official’ Church teaching on the order and dating is…my understanding is that, inspired as they are, at some level it probably doesn’t matter all that much anyway! Scholarly consensus, across all denominations, is that the most likely order is Mark - Matthew/Luke/(Acts) - John. Who else can help?

God bless,
Ellie

Thanks for your thoughtful response!

The theory that holds most weight with me is that Mathew wrote first, and that Mark is not badly written in terms of being primitive, it is simply a different writing style, i.e. summaries of sermons given by Peter for a different audience than Mathew, by a writer who wasn’t as eloquent as the previous guy. Mathew’s original could have been quite oral too no?

 

[FishyPete]

From the Vatican website, we read that Mark, although the shortest gospel, was apparently the first one written and gives more details than the other two synoptic gospels with respect to Jesus’ miracles.

But I agree with you, it is not important when they were written, since all of them are written to help us know, love and serve God.

Further, those NAB footnotes are notorious for presenting theories as fact, simply because of how the footnotes are written (or perhaps translated).

Who wrote the NAB footnotes anyway?

 

[FishyPete]

Good stuff! Thanks!

 

[Joe_5859]

There is no official Church position, but the idea of “Markan priority” is fairly widespread in biblical criticism at present. Personally, I agree with the excerpt from Karl Keating. It just doesn’t add up to me (though I’m less confident that the theory will be “junked” anytime soon). But it’s not as though either view is “heresy”. It’s a matter of history, not faith and morals.

No, it doesn’t really matter as far as I can tell.

 

[Murmurs]

This is my (and really, everyone’s!) problem with the theory of Markan priority: there is no actual historical evidence for the so-called ‘sayings gospel’ or ‘Q-source’. To my mind, given that ultimately the order of the Gospels is a matter of historical curiosity rather than affecting how we read them as Holy Scripture, I am more or less happy to accept the prevailing academic view until someone comes along with a more convincing alternative.

 

[powerofk]

Greetings friends in Christ!

So I was listening to a lecture from my Cardinal (who is a great man and a fine speaker) and he mentioned curiously that the Gospel of Mathew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as an inspiration/source.

Now I know that the Gospel writers each had their own audiences and reasons to write. And that they all had different sources of information (Luke has first hand accounts from our Heavenly Mother etc.) And I know they all were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But…

I always thought that Mathew wrote first, perhaps in Aramaic, and that Mark wrote from the preaching of Peter, hence the fact that it is more concise and almost in bullet point form. Especially since Mathew uses Aramaic words.

And I know that some of the very earliest Church Fathers said that Mathew wrote first. Clement of Alexandria specifically said that the earliest was Mathew, and he was quoting the very earliest presbyters. No one disagreed with him.

However it seems that many modern thinkers think that Mark wrote first.

I’ve read convincing arguments otherwise, however I was surprised to hear my Cardinal say that Mark wrote first.??

My questions:

1. At the end of the day does it matter (My guess is no)?
2. What does the Catholic church officially tell us? Why would my Cardinal present the order this way?
3. Who wrote first?

First of all, it doesn’t matter. All the Gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And, they were written to different audiences. Matthew was written to the Jewish community, trying to convince them that Jesus was (a) the Messiah, and true heir to the Davidic throne, and (b) the new Moses. Mark was written to the Roman community, and tried to convince them of Jesus’s overarching power over evil (which is why his gospel focuses on Jesus’s miracles and generally skims over His teachings). Luke was written to the Greek community, and Luke’s point was the universality of the Gospel - anyone can be a follower of Christ, regardless of his/her social status. Remember, Luke has a huge focus on women, the poor, and the outcastes - all people who were considered of lower social status in his world. The message of Jesus shows that all are equal in God’s eyes - and that we need to care for those who need our help as brothers and sisters in Christ. And of course, John’s gospel was written to people who were already Christian - it defines Jesus as the Word of God made flesh (and the 1st Letter of John defines God as Love Itself), completely aware of, and in control of, His own destiny. John’s Gospel was written to help Christians ward off early heresies.

Until recently Catholic (and Christian in general) tradition (and I present this with a small “t”, because it’s different from infallible “Tradition”) was that the gospels were written in the order that they appear in the Bible, and that’s why they were ordered that way in the Bible. But, it was not considered infallible in this regard, and always held open options for other chronologies. The reason why the Cardinal presented the order this way is due to recent scholarship (from the late 1800s onward). The current academic scholarship is called the historical/critical approach, and is the scholarship used in the introductions of many books in the New American Bible. The scholarship states that by looking at the Gospels how they are written, it would appear that Mark was written first (because it is much shorter - and leaves out most of Jesus’s preaching), with Matthew and Luke supplementing Mark with a second source, often called “Q”, along with their own material. Unfortunately, because we can’t go into the past, it’s impossible to know for sure which Gospel was written first.

My personal opinion is that the Gospels were written fairly independently of each other, due to the audiences they were written for, and that the evangelists (Luke specifically mentions in his introduction to Theophilus that there were other people who wrote down Jesus’s story, so he at least had heard about other gospels - though, it’s unknown if he had actually read them) might not have had access to the other gospels. For me, this would easily explain the timeline and location differences in the gospels, along with the differences in details (Luke’s “Our Father” is shorter than Matthew’s, for example). These are things that can be easily jumbled in oral transmission, as they’re considered secondary to the overriding message.

 

[FishyPete]

I agree with you on both points above!

 

[FishyPete]

There is no official Church position, but the idea of “Markan priority” is fairly widespread in biblical criticism at present. Personally, I agree with the excerpt from Karl Keating. It just doesn’t add up to me (though I’m less confident that the theory will be “junked” anytime soon). But it’s not as though either view is “heresy”. It’s a matter of history, not faith and morals.

No, it doesn’t really matter as far as I can tell.

Agreed. Thanks!

 

[FishyPete]

First of all, it doesn’t matter. All the Gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And, they were written to different audiences. Matthew was written to the Jewish community, trying to convince them that Jesus was (a) the Messiah, and true heir to the Davidic throne, and (b) the new Moses. Mark was written to the Roman community, and tried to convince them of Jesus’s overarching power over evil (which is why his gospel focuses on Jesus’s miracles and generally skims over His teachings). Luke was written to the Greek community, and Luke’s point was the universality of the Gospel - anyone can be a follower of Christ, regardless of his/her social status. Remember, Luke has a huge focus on women, the poor, and the outcastes - all people who were considered of lower social status in his world. The message of Jesus shows that all are equal in God’s eyes - and that we need to care for those who need our help as brothers and sisters in Christ. And of course, John’s gospel was written to people who were already Christian - it defines Jesus as the Word of God made flesh (and the 1st Letter of John defines God as Love Itself), completely aware of, and in control of, His own destiny. John’s Gospel was written to help Christians ward off early heresies.

Until recently Catholic (and Christian in general) tradition (and I present this with a small “t”, because it’s different from infallible “Tradition”) was that the gospels were written in the order that they appear in the Bible, and that’s why they were ordered that way in the Bible. But, it was not considered infallible in this regard, and always held open options for other chronologies. The reason why the Cardinal presented the order this way is due to recent scholarship (from the late 1800s onward). The current academic scholarship is called the historical/critical approach, and is the scholarship used in the introductions of many books in the New American Bible. The scholarship states that by looking at the Gospels how they are written, it would appear that Mark was written first (because it is much shorter - and leaves out most of Jesus’s preaching), with Matthew and Luke supplementing Mark with a second source, often called “Q”, along with their own material. Unfortunately, because we can’t go into the past, it’s impossible to know for sure which Gospel was written first.

My personal opinion is that the Gospels were written fairly independently of each other, due to the audiences they were written for, and that the evangelists (Luke specifically mentions in his introduction to Theophilus that there were other people who wrote down Jesus’s story, so he at least had heard about other gospels - though, it’s unknown if he had actually read them) might not have had access to the other gospels. For me, this would easily explain the timeline and location differences in the gospels, along with the differences in details (Luke’s “Our Father” is shorter than Matthew’s, for example). These are things that can be easily jumbled in oral transmission, as they’re considered secondary to the overriding message.

Fantastic info, thanks!

 

[PNEUMA]

I’m curious to hear anyone’s thoughts!

thanks.

Well I think John and Paul wrote about Jesus first and then Mark, Luke, Matthew who partly disagree with John and Paul, wrote their gospels.

 

[FishyPete]

Anyone Catholic. Thanks.

 

[Nan_S]

From the Catholic Answers front page:
Was Matthew’s Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

catholic.com/quickquestions/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation 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)

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, “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, 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” (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

What matters here is that Catholics respect and pay attention to the writings of the Early Church Fathers. We do not relegate history to the trash can, then resurrect and reconstruct what we wish based on our own whims.

The Early Church Fathers recorded that Matthew wrote first, in Aramaic. That is why the gospels in the New Testament are ordered Matthew - Mark - Luke - John.

The scholars tell us that Matthew’s Greek gospel was a document completed after Mark’s gospel, and draws on it for certain accounts. That is not an unreasonable conclusion, but it does not negate the testimony of the Fathers that the VERY first account was Matthew’s Aramaic account.

Many authors of significant works continue to expand their writings after publication. There is absolutely nothing irrational with the idea that Matthew wrote first to the Hebrews, in Aramaic, then later wrote a significantly more expanded gospel in Greek that incorporated elements from Mark’s Greek gospel.

 

[FishyPete]

From the Catholic Answers front page:
Was Matthew’s Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

catholic.com/quickquestions/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

What matters here is that Catholics respect and pay attention to the writings of the Early Church Fathers. We do not relegate history to the trash can, then resurrect and reconstruct what we wish based on our own whims.

The Early Church Fathers recorded that Matthew wrote first, in Aramaic. That is why the gospels in the New Testament are ordered Matthew - Mark - Luke - John.

The scholars tell us that Matthew’s Greek gospel was a document completed after Mark’s gospel, and draws on it for certain accounts. That is not an unreasonable conclusion, but it does not negate the testimony of the Fathers that the VERY first account was Matthew’s Aramaic account.

Great answer! Thanks!!

 

[Neofight]

Greetings friends in Christ!

So I was listening to a lecture from my Cardinal (who is a great man and a fine speaker) and he mentioned curiously that the Gospel of Mathew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as an inspiration/source.

Now I know that the Gospel writers each had their own audiences and reasons to write. And that they all had different sources of information (Luke has first hand accounts from our Heavenly Mother etc.) And I know they all were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But…

I always thought that Mathew wrote first, perhaps in Aramaic, and that Mark wrote from the preaching of Peter, hence the fact that it is more concise and almost in bullet point form. Especially since Mathew uses Aramaic words.

And I know that some of the very earliest Church Fathers said that Mathew wrote first. Clement of Alexandria specifically said that the earliest was Mathew, and he was quoting the very earliest presbyters. No one disagreed with him.

However it seems that many modern thinkers think that Mark wrote first.

I’ve read convincing arguments otherwise, however I was surprised to hear my Cardinal say that Mark wrote first.??

My questions:

1. At the end of the day does it matter (My guess is no)?
2. What does the Catholic church officially tell us? Why would my Cardinal present the order this way?
3. Who wrote first?

1. At the end of the day, it does not matter.
2. The Church does not require the faithful to accept the order of the writings…that is a purely academic, rather than spiritual exercise.
3. Most recent biblical scholarship points to Mark being the first of the gospels written, John being the last…Matthew and Luke in the middle, I’m not absolutely certain, but my hunch is Luke followed Matthew, because while Matthew was a witness to the ministry (an Apostle), Luke was a disciple of Paul, and gathered his information from interviewing those who were present, and oral tradition of the day).

As far as accepting what Church Fathers say, it should be noted that they are not infallible, and its interesting that St. Augustine discounted Mark and Luke’s gospels, because they were not Apostles, and he was down right uncharitable in his characterization of Mark’s work as plagiarism of Matthew’s, because of the similarity (Matthew contains 90% of Marks accounts). Later scholars have pretty much concluded Mark wrote first, based on Q.

As far as language being the key, that can’t necessarily be relied on, because the copies that became canonical may have not have been the original texts. Matthew may have written in Aramaic, but his target audience were Jewish Christians. Mark and Luke, on the other hand were targeting pagan converts, which would have made sense to write in Greek, because Greek was a universal language at the time.

 

[FishyPete]

Its interesting to note, that at one time, St. Augustine discounted Mark and Luke’s gospels, because they were not Apostles, and he was down right uncharitable in his characterization of Mark’s work as plagiarism of Matthew’s, because of the similarity (Matthew contains 90% of Marks accounts). Later scholars have pretty much concluded Mark wrote first, based on Q.

You say that “at one time”, St. Augustine… did he change his view later?