What came first the Gospel of St. Mark, or of St. Matthew

[Kristopher]

Can someone tell me if the Catholic Church still holds that Matthew was first written, or has it been well enough established among Protestants for Mark to be recognized as the first gospel written?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Neither John Paul II’s Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition (1997) nor the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) (1965) address the issue directly.

An implicit preference for Matthew may or may not be seen in *Dei Verbum, *paragraph 18, where the Gospels are mentioned and Matthew appears before Mark, Luke, and John.

The Navarre Bible: New Testament, Compact Edition, (Scepter Publishers: 2001), known for its fidelity to the Magisterium, does not address the issue.

The New American Bible, 2nd edition (NAB) (1991), whose notes don’t seem especially faithful to the Magisterium in my opinion, rejects the traditional view that Matthew was written first and supports the modern theory that Matthew borrowed from Mark and Q (an unknown source), though the NAB acknowledges that the view that Matthew was written first is “a view that goes back [at least] to the late second century A.D.”

 

[joshua1]

IM not trying to be funny or sarcastic, but this has been a question in my mind. Why does it matter which one was written first. Is it something theological or apologetic?

 

[Contarini]

Well, for one thing Marcan priority means that Matthew probably wasn’t an eyewitness account by the apostle Matthew, since whichever of them was written second is obviously dependent on the other. Furthermore, there are aspects of Mark (no birth narrative, less emphasis on Jesus’ superiority to John the Baptist, more references to Jesus being tired and ignorant, and in the oldest manuscripts a highly truncated account of the Resurrection) that have led many scholars to argue that Matthew and the other later Gospels have embroidered the original account to get rid of embarrassing elements and turn Jesus into a divine figure.

On the other hand, historically Mark was almost completely ignored, because if it was written after Matthew it has very little to add. Only after it came to be seen as the first Gospel written did scholars (those not obsessed with the reductionistic agenda I’ve described above) begin to notice Mark’s special theological emphases (Luke Timothy Johnson is particularly good on this). That alone is a very strong theological reason for accepting Marcan priority, since God does not inspire books for no reason. And I for one find the scholarly arguments for Marcan priority quite compelling, although there’s no way to be sure, and I’ve heard that Matthaean priority is attracting some defenders recently.

Edwin

 

[Fidelis]

Here is an absorbing article on this topic that appeared in This Rock magazine some years ago. It appears to take for granted the primacy of Matthew and goes from there:

THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOSPELS
By BERNARD ORCHARD, O.S.B.
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp

From the same issue is an article by Catholic Answers founder Karl Keating which further discusses this controversy.

**PROBLEMS WITH THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM **
By KARL KEATING

Finally, here is a synopsis of Matthew’s Gospel, written by Antonio Fuentes, the chief editor of the Navarre Bible Commentary series. As noted above, he does not explicitly say Matthew was written first, but he does give it’s composition date as around 50 AD. I don’t have his composition date for Mark, but I doubt it is earlier than this.

Matthew
By Antonio Fuentes
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9207ntg.asp

 

[Verbum]

Hi Todd,

The New American Bible, 2nd edition (NAB) (1991), whose notes don’t seem especially faithful to the Magisterium in my opinion

I don’t particulary like the NAB, but it happens to be publlshed by the Magisterium as represented in the United States, namely the American bishops.

Verbum

 

[JimG]

As Karl Keating pointed out in a different thread, the supposition of the existence of a “Q” document is only necessary if one takes the view that the Gospels were not written in the traditional order–Matthew first.

Since no evidence of Q has ever been discovered, I would say this gives even more weight to accepting the traditional view that Matthew was written first. That tradition is rather ancient.

The view that Mark was written first, on the other hand, is quite recent.

 

[Zooey]

The way that I was taught, growing up, (in the Methodist tradition), was that the first gospel was Matthew (Aramaic).
Mark & Luke used Matthew as a source.
Sometime around this time, also, Matthew was translated into Greek.
John’s gospel was the latest, & stands on its own. (By which I mean, John’s gospel is not contradictory, but a complement to the 3 synoptics.

More recently, this newer idea of Mark being first came along. I don’t buy it, a lot of people (including my pastor) do.

But (& I emphasize, this is my own thought on how to harmonize the 2 views), I think that the easiest way to explain the “Q” material is, to accept as “Q”, the text of Matthew (Aramaic).
Using this as a basis for thinking, it explains the tremendous similarities: all 3–Matthew (Greek), Mark, & Luke-- were leaning on Matthew (Aramaic). It also explains the differences…three writers, led by the Holy Spirit, tailor one common source into three separate, but interrelated, gospels.

 

[buffalo]

Matthew, Luke, Mark and John - the Clementine Tradition

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]

		 [**By**](http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

		 [**Dennis Barton**](http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

		 [**
		The Gospels are Historical**](http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm)

THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION

			 +  Challenged 				by Markan priority, Protestants and Catholics, at the beginning of the 20th century, encouraged a deeper study of ancient languages and placed large resources at the disposal of 				archaeological researchers in Palestine. This has born rich fruit.

			 + Linguists 				have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

			 + In the early 				records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.

			  

			 + Clement 				of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. 				The Church Fathers used the same order.

			 +  When 				Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John 				sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.

			 +  A 				growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternatively, 				so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.

			 +  Both the historical and literary evidence 				shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles

			 +  Historical 				evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternatively 				quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke 				(a non-eyewitness Apostle).

			 +  The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made 				requests. This explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was 				an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.

			 +  By 				Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel..

			 +  This 				vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting 				that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.

			 +  The 				Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect 				agreement.

			 THE CHURCH

			 +  Dei 				Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, 				insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.

			 +  The 				Markan priority theory, as normally understood, is in conflict with Dei Verbum.

			 +  The 				Clementine Tradition is in agreement with Dei Verbum.

			 +  Rome 				urges the use of both historical evidence and scientific literary analysis

			 +  The 				Holy See has issued many recent statements in which the historicity of the Gospels is accepted as a fact.

			 ================

			    				**THE CLEMENTINE TRADITION**

			 **is 				in full accord with:**

			 **The 				earliest Christian historians**

			 **Modern 				literary analysis**

			 **The 				doctrine of the church**

			 **Recent 				Church statements**

			 The following pages contain the evidence for 				the claims made in this summary. They also contain chapters on the Epistles; how Markan priority grew; its baneful 				effect on both Protestant theology and Catholic Catechetics, and a history of the Church`s reaction.

 

[Della]

I remember seeing a documentary about a fragment of Matthew’s Gospel found in Egypt that dated his Gospel to within 50 years of Jesus’ ascension. I recorded it off the tube, but didn’t want to dig through a large box of VHS tapes to find it. I can’t remember the name of the documentary and am having no luck finding it with a google search. Does anyone know the one I mean?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Della:

I remember seeing a documentary about a fragment of Matthew’s Gospel found in Egypt that dated his Gospel to within 50 years of Jesus’ ascension. I recorded it off the tube, but didn’t want to dig through a large box of VHS tapes to find it. I can’t remember the name of the documentary and am having no luck finding it with a google search. Does anyone know the one I mean?

It may be the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64) that you refer to.

 

[Della]

Todd Easton:

It may be the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew (P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64) that you refer to.

I found my tape. It was a program on the Discovery Channel titled: Eyewitness to Jesus: the Matthew Fragment. Unfortunately, they don’t sell it anymore. I’ll have to view it again to see if they call it the Magdalen Papyrus.

It was found at an English college sent there by an English clergyman living in Egypt. He bought the fragment from a vendor and sent back to his college where it sat for years unnoticed.

It’s a fascinating story in and of itself, but the program gives pretty good evidence for the Matthew fragment being a copy of Matthew’s Gospel written much closer to the time of Christ than many modern scholars are placing the Gospel of Matthew.

Personally, I believe the Early Church Fathers on this issue since they lived close to the events and were the first disciples of the Apostles themselves.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Please forgive me on two counts. First, I have not read each post slowly. Second, I cannot recall what the official teaching of the Church.

Is there an official teaching?

If so, what is the official teaching?

Thanks!!!

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

buffalo:

             + Dei Verbum, a Doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, insists that eyewitness Apostles wrote two of the gospels.

Without me reading the whole thing, anyone know where in Dei Verbum this is found?

 

[puzzleannie]

Contarini:

Well, for one thing Marcan priority means that Matthew probably wasn’t an eyewitness account by the apostle Matthew, since whichever of them was written second is obviously dependent on the other.

not necessarily, they could have been written independently by eye-witnesses or those recording the testimony of eye witnesses, during the lifetime of the eye witnesses, and their testimony corroborating each other, not dependent on each other.

 

[Evan]

The Jerusalem Bible, in the introductory notes, give this order

Matthew Aramaic
Mark
Luke
Matthew Greek
John

I don’t know what the ‘New’ Jersalem bible says.

Even if the Church takes an “official” stand on this (and it does not), it would not be the last word. History is not something that is revealed to the Church. Truth is revealed. IE The 4 books are inspired.

“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” by “The Pontifical Biblical Commission” says “the interpretation [of scripture] must necessarily show a certain pluralism…Thus, the interpretation of one particular text has to avoid seeking to dominate at the expense of others.”

If an expanded understanding of scripture is made by assuming Mark is first, then use that. If more understanding is made by assuming Matthew is first use that. Neither is first in the eye of God.

Some of the justification for a later Matthew is the rejection that Jesus could see the destruction of the temple (non-christian scholars try to eliminate all miracles) Some of the justification of the early Matthew is the lack of evidence for Q for 1800 years. The question is not as important as knowing if the hypothesis reveals more of Gods plan.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Dandelion_Wine:

Without me reading the whole thing, anyone know where in Dei Verbum this is found?

I believe the poster was refering to section 18 of the Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation:
It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our Savior.
The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[Ignatius]

Zooey:

The way that I was taught, growing up, (in the Methodist tradition), was that the first gospel was Matthew (Aramaic).
Mark & Luke used Matthew as a source.
Sometime around this time, also, Matthew was translated into Greek.
John’s gospel was the latest, & stands on its own. (By which I mean, John’s gospel is not contradictory, but a complement to the 3 synoptics.

the easiest way to explain the “Q” material is, to accept as “Q”, the text of Matthew (Aramaic).
Using this as a basis for thinking, it explains the tremendous similarities: all 3–Matthew (Greek), Mark, & Luke-- were leaning on Matthew (Aramaic). It also explains the differences…three writers, led by the Holy Spirit, tailor one common source into three separate, but interrelated, gospels.

I agree with you completely with one exception. I don’t think “Q” needs to be explained at all. “Q” is an invention only necessary if you take the Markan priority. Additionally, it should be noted that there is not a single shread of evidence that there ever was a “Q” gospel. That being said, the original Hebrew/Aramic Matthew could be what some are hypothesizing as “Q”. I think Mark and Luke were expanding and filling in detail in addition to the original Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew from their own knowledge. The final Greek translation of Matthew could have then incorporated additions from Mark and Luke so that you have an instance of iterative refinement of the Gospel of Matthew in the final Greek translation.

 

[Ignatius]

buffalo:

             + Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternatively quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).

             + The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent `poor Greek` of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.

             + By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel..

This is wonderful. I am very interested in this. Where can I find this information, for instance where “Historical evidence . . . point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternatively quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own.” Thank you.

 

[TEME525]

Of coarse this is strictly my opinion, however, I believe that Mark is the oldest of the four canonical Gospels. Most of the basis for my belief has been previously mention (the brevity of Mark, internal elements of the prediction of the temple etc. and not mention, i think is the prediction of Peter’s death which could point to the influence of Peter on Marks Gospel) However, I would like to focus on a couple of factors not mentioned directly - if my memory serves me right.

First, and most important is the development of the Gospels as a Faith document from a faith community. One of the most important questions of those scholars who study the Gospels from a lower Christology ask the questions, “When and how and why did Jesus become the man of history to the Christ of Faith?” These scholars’ study show that different faith communities had different emphasis in answering those questions. And from the various communities of faith came different respones to the question - the Christ of faith had different meaning for different people. Matthew seems to have come from and was written for a predominily Jewish/Christian Church, Mark from the Church in Rome (thus the belief of Mark being based in the Kyregma preached by Peter.) Luke is from the faith respons of a more general and widespread gentile community and John is a Gospel onto itself in that its developed theology and faith response is unique to John.

So the important thing to remember is that the Gospels historically speaking while being authored at the same time clearly reflect a particular faith response to Christ. And that is, for me, more important than trying to establish which Gospel is the oldest.

From this comes my second point, that is the “Q” question and also the definition of the term “Authorship”.

In regards to “Authorship” I believe in our 21st century mentality we equate Authorship with the understanding that it means the one who put the words to paper ( to use a modern expression). But this wa not the understanding ofthe term at the time of the formulation of the Gospels and Letters. In ancient times the two were not necessarily considered the same. We knowthis from secular writings. A student could and would attribute the authorship of the writing to someone other than the one who is doing the actual writing itself. A student back then had now trouble writing in the name of his teacher - it was an accepted practice. Using the tool of form criticism, it is held that parts and whole Letters of Paul were not written by Paul himself but a disciple of Paul. But the authorship was readily accepted as a work of Paul because taught the lessons that that were written by an Apostle

(More a little later.)