Which is second gospel, Saint Luke's or Saint Matthew's?

[javid]

Accordint to Holy Tradition, after saint Mark who wrote his gospel sooner, Saint Luke or Sain Matthew?

 

[StephenEstes]

Accordint to Holy Tradition, after saint Mark who wrote his gospel sooner, Saint Luke or Sain Matthew?

Actually, according to Holy Tradition Mark isn’t the first Gospel, Matthew is. Mark is certainly widely thought to be the first Gospel written and Matthew and Luke drew on it while adding other things, but this is a view that originated with secular scholars doubting the Resurrection. but if we listen to the early fathers, then Matthew was the first Gospel, St. Augustine:

“Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, …are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John.”
“Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done.”
St. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, 2.

and in fact it is pretty easy to show counter evidence to and debunk all claims that would point to Mark as the first gospel. There are other theories amongst scholars such as: that the Gospel of Matthew that the fathers say was written first is was actually not Matthew in its completeness found today etc. but to have a traditional view we excpet the gospels in order as listed in the canon.

 

[Joe_5859]

The above poster is correct, the tradition has long been that the Gospels were written in the order in which they are found in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

It is only in the past couple hundred years that a certain segment of scholars has asserted that Mark came first. That is now the dominant view, but it is far from the only view.

I’ve even seen some suggest that Matthew was written as early as 38AD. There is quite a bit of textual evidence that suggests Matthew was written originally in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.

 

[Evan]

I’ve even seen some suggest that Matthew was written as early as 38AD. There is quite a bit of textual evidence that suggests Matthew was written originally in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.

From my readings, there is some discussion as to the original language of Matthew. I believe it was described as* the language of the Hebrews*. So the question stands as: the language spoken by the Hebrews (Aramaic) or the scholarly written language (Hebrew)?

In either case it was translated into Greek and we have lost the original.

 

[NotWorthy]

The above poster is correct, the tradition has long been that the Gospels were written in the order in which they are found in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

It is only in the past couple hundred years that a certain segment of scholars has asserted that Mark came first. That is now the dominant view, but it is far from the only view.

I’ve even seen some suggest that Matthew was written as early as 38AD. There is quite a bit of textual evidence that suggests Matthew was written originally in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.

St. Irenaeus attested to this, I believe.

Also, St. Jerome claimed to have a copy of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew, didn’t he? That’s good enough for me!

 

[Rainaldo]

Philosophically, if two people are born on the same day and die on the same day, and both of them keep diaries, how do you decide which diary is earlier?

 

[patrick457]

Also, St. Jerome claimed to have a copy of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew, didn’t he? That’s good enough for me!

My own unimportant personal opinion: the Fathers did preserve the tradition that Matthew wrote in ‘Hebrew’ first (note: when Matthew is spoken of as writing first among the Evangelists, it is usually in the context of this ‘Hebrew’ Gospel), but I doubt whether the version(s) that some of the later Church Fathers claimed to be that very same document are genuine: they could very well be (different versions of) Jewish-Christian Gospels which were in use among some Jewish Christian groups, while the true ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ aka the Logia has never really survived.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I recall reading many years ago that the structure of the language in Matthew is characteristic of a translation rather than of something written originally in Greek. I don’t recall where I read i or how authoritative it was, but it was long enough ago that it probably had an imprimatur.

 

[thistle]

Accordint to Holy Tradition, after saint Mark who wrote his gospel sooner, Saint Luke or Sain Matthew?

churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm