The Gospel Tradition: Dates and Order

All Gospel ordering and dating are based on assumptions and piecemeal evidence. The Gospel of Mark is at the crux of all controversies because of the "synoptic problem," namely that the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) share a large percentage of the same material (90% of Mark is found in Matthew and more than 50% is found in Luke) indicating a commonality of the literature. Determining the links between these three authors has been the source of controversy for 200 years. It was not a problem prior to this because Christians simply accepted the Augustinian view of the ordering: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Their consistency was simply confirmation that they were all telling the same true story.

The reason it is considered a synoptic "problem" is because of both the consistency and inconsistency of the texts. If the Gospels are as the literalists claim; writings guided by the Holy Spirit himself, there would be no need for more than one version and even different versions should be identical in their order and account. That the accounts vary in numerous details, if not the general message, identify them as human authored. That they are strikingly similar, using the exact phrases and descriptions in many places, demonstrates a shared literary tradition. It would be virtually impossible for two accounts to use the exact phraseology to describe an event if there were entirely unrelated.

A brief summary of the evidence:

Mark's Gospel is by far the shortest of the three and include many incidental details that are not particularly germane to the plot line. This indicates Mark is recounting the stories given by an eyewitness. Early Christian tradition has the Gospel of Mark being written by a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul who stayed on in Rome to interpret for Peter. He later wrote down Peter's sayings and concepts, but not in an orderly fashion (as stated by second century writer Papias). The traditions also imply that Mark was a Palestinian Jew. The Gospel is not written in a high Greek literary style which is consistent with Hebrew or Aramaic being the authors natural tongue. Paradoxically, Mark also has Latinisms in it, which implies the author was more familiar with Latin than Greek.

For Christians it is absolutely critical to place the authorship as early as possible. This reduces the oral tradition problem and connects Mark more closely with Peter, who supposedly gave Mark his content. It also allows for an earlier writing of Matthew and Luke, if this is the order the Gospels were written. The second century Christians as well as Augustine writing two centuries later; though, generally put Matthew as the earliest Gospel, with Mark following. There are a number of reasons for discounting this version, although there are still adherents. With 90% of Mark included in Matthew, there would be no reason for Mark to be written and well circulated. A "Cliff Notes" version would not carry the same weight as the work it was based on and the numerous illustrious tidbits in Mark that are not in Matthew would be useless since an author summarizing a larger work is not likely to add biographical details not found in the original. In either case (Mark priority or Matthew priority) the Christian desire is to push the authorship back in time as much as possible.

A more recent theory postulates that Matthew, as an eye witness, was the original source, writing down his information as he heard it, in Aramaic. It was later translated into Greek and formed the basis for all three Gospels, including the later version of Matthew that made its way into the New Testament. This differs slightly from the "Q" theory which dates back to 19th Century German scholars and is currently the dominant theory. According to this theory, Q (Source) was a no-longer-available collection of sayings and details that formed the basis of Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke. This new revision essentially makes the source of Q Matthew himself.

There are at present at least a dozen differing theories on how to deal with the synoptic problem although about 90% of the bible scholars support: 1) a two-source hypothesis with Mark and Q providing the materials for Matthew and Luke, 2) a modification of this known as the four-source theory, or 3) the Augustinian hypothesis that reverses Matthew and Mark. A small minority support what is known as the two-gospel hypothesis which postulates that Luke copied from Matthew and Mark used both Matthew and Luke for his summary. Most importantly, the only "theory" which is ruled out by the synoptic problem is the Holy Spirit theory that has all the Gospels being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It does appear the New Testament Gospels shared a literary and/or oral tradition. They cannot be viewed as separate entities but instead, form a pattern of evolving theology in first century Christianity. Contrary to some atheist claims, the Christian canon of scriptures was not simply voted upon and chosen to refute heretical claims. There was a reason for each' inclusion and a perspective the New Testament was trying to convey. It evolved into a general message universitas, a total message.