Which gospel was written first?
The Bible itself never dates its Gospels, so the question of which came first has been answered from early Christian testimony on one side and from literary comparison on the other. The two methods point in opposite directions — Matthew or Mark — and commentators in this collection differ over which answer to accept.
The Traditional Answer: Matthew
For most of church history the first Gospel in our Bibles was also held to be the first written. One writer traces this view back through the early centuries and notes how long it held:
William KellySince the middle of the second century of our era (apart from a statement by Clement of Alexandria, that the two Gospels with genealogies were the first written), the Gospel of Mark has taken second place, between those of Matthew and Luke... The traditional idea, followed by Origen in the third century, has been that Matthew's was the Gospel written first of all, then Mark's; and this belief was accepted by respected writers after the Reformation, such as Grotius and Bengel.
The early sources not only put Matthew first but explain the circumstances. His Gospel was said to be left behind as a written record for believers in Palestine before he travelled:
J. N. DarbyThey state that Matthew wrote his Gospel to leave it in Palestine before he went out to preach in the world... Matthew's Gospel, if we are to believe the authority of the fathers, was written very early indeed, perhaps before there had been any preaching outside Palestine; John's very late indeed.
The Rival Claim: Mark
The modern preference for Mark is not ancient at all. It began in the late 1700s, and it rests on the fact that Mark is the shortest and simplest of the first three Gospels:
William KellyFrom the time of Herder in 1780, however, the notion arose that Mark's, the shortest and simplest of the three, was the earliest of the Gospels written. Lachmann in 1835 gave formal expression to this belief... It is still an open one, although the votes of most experts, including Westcott in England, are for Mark. Some of these, nevertheless, allow that passages such as Matthew 5:17, Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24 tell against their opinion.
The same writer notes how unstable such conclusions have proved. Earlier scholars had confidently ordered them Matthew, Luke, Mark; the reversal, he observes, illustrates "the vagaries of criticism."
How Early Could Matthew Be?
The dates suggested for Matthew range widely, but all of them fall before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — and the earliest are strikingly early:
J. N. DarbyAccording to all historical evidence, Matthew was written before that — many think long before it... Some think Matthew wrote his gospel in the year 41, a date borrowed from Eusebius, that is thirty years before the siege of Jerusalem... Others, relying on a passage in Irenaeus, think he wrote it as late as 61 or 62, and even 64. But this is the latest date assigned by anyone who has examined the subject.
Why Matthew Stands First
Whatever the calendar says, several writers argue that the position of Matthew in our Bibles is not accidental. Its subject matter joins it directly to what came before:
Frederick W. GrantThe order in which we find the Gospels in our Bibles is most probably that in which they were written. Matthew is the evident link with the Old Testament, which it cites continually, and with which its subject and character correspond; while John is just as clearly the one that opens out the deepest and fullest glories of the Lord's person, as well as the highest character of His work.
The reason goes deeper than literary tidiness. Matthew presents Jesus to Israel as the promised Messiah:
J. A. TrenchMatthew has the first place rightly, for it was of first importance that the One in whom all the promises of God centred should be presented to the nation as the fulfilment of them in His own person, and ready to establish all those promises at once, if the nation received Him.
What Is Really at Stake
Several writers warn that the debate often carries an unspoken assumption — that the Gospel writers were copying rather than being inspired:
Arno C. GaebeleinEqually incorrect are other theories: that the Gospel of Mark was written first and served Matthew and Luke in giving their account, copying from it and making additions; or the hypothesis that there was an original record, a common source, which the Evangelists used. All these opinions are mostly the inventions of men who disbelieve the inspiration of the chosen instruments of God.
The alternative is to read each Gospel as written with its own purpose, so that differences are not errors to be explained away:
William KellyHad they believed in the special design stamped by the Holy Spirit on each and every one of them, mistaken speculation would have been spared... The differences that undoubtedly occur would then have been known to be in no case discrepancy, but springing from God's wisdom, not man's weakness.
Summary
- Tradition — From the second century onward, and through Origen to writers after the Reformation, Matthew was held to be the Gospel written first.
- Challenge — The case for Mark's priority only began in 1780, rests on his being shortest and simplest, and is admitted to be still an open question.
- Dating — Estimates for Matthew run from A.D. 41 to at latest A.D. 64, all before Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70.
- Placement — Matthew stands first fittingly, since it constantly cites the Old Testament and presents Jesus to Israel as the fulfilment of God's promises.
- Design — Theories of copying and common sources often assume the writers were not inspired; read as four purposeful accounts, their differences show God's wisdom rather than human weakness.