The Question of Priority

Which Gospel was written first? The patristic tradition and the canonical order put Matthew first; the dominant modern theory puts Mark first. This file sets out the two great families of solution — the traditional/patristic Matthean priority (Augustine; the Griesbach or Two-Gospel hypothesis revived by W. R. Farmer) and the now-dominant Markan priority with a sayings-source Q (the Two-Source theory of Lachmann, Weisse, Holtzmann, and Streeter) — with their arguments, proponents, and dates, and notes the Orthodox liberty on a question no council has defined.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (Apostle and Evangelist)

Matthean Priority: the Traditional View

The traditional answer, held by the Fathers and embedded in the canonical order, is that Matthew was written first. Augustine gave the classic patristic form: the evangelists wrote in their canonical sequence, each later knowing his predecessors, and Mark followed and abridged Matthew — “the follower and abridger of Matthew,” pedisequus et breviator (Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels 1.2.4; NPNF I/6). This rested on the unanimous early testimony that Matthew, the apostle, wrote first and for the Hebrews (Papias in Eusebius, HE 3.39.16; Irenaeus, AH 3.1.1; Origen in HE 6.25), and it remained the standard view of the Church for a millennium and a half.

In the modern period Matthean priority took a new and influential form in the Griesbach hypothesis, named for J. J. Griesbach, who in 1789–1790 argued that Mark was written last, conflating and abridging both Matthew and Luke (which on his scheme came second, using Matthew). This is the Two-Gospel hypothesis: Matthew first, Luke second (using Matthew), Mark third (using both). It dispenses entirely with the lost source Q, since on this view the double tradition is simply Luke’s use of Matthew. The Griesbach theory, dominant in parts of nineteenth-century Germany, was eclipsed by the rise of Markan priority but was vigorously revived in the twentieth century by William R. Farmer (The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis, 1964) and is still defended by a determined minority school. Its strengths are that it honors the ancient testimony to Matthew’s priority, needs no hypothetical Q, and accounts neatly for the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (since on this view Mark used both). Its difficulties are the converse of Markan priority’s strengths, discussed below — above all the question why Mark, if he conflated two fuller Gospels, would so often produce the longer, rougher, harder version of a shared episode.

Markan Priority and Q: the Dominant Modern View

Since the mid-nineteenth century the prevailing scholarly solution has been the Two-Source theory: Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke independently used (1) Mark and (2) a lost sayings-source, Q, to account for the double tradition they share but Mark lacks. Markan priority was argued by Karl Lachmann (1835, on the order-argument), Christian Hermann Weisse (1838, who first combined Markan priority with a sayings-source), and Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1863), and was given its classic English statement by B. H. Streeter, who expanded it into the Four-Document hypothesis by adding special sources for Matthew (M) and Luke (L) (B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 1924). It is today the majority position in critical scholarship.

The arguments commonly advanced for Markan priority are: (1) Length and content — Mark is the shortest Gospel and almost all of it recurs in Matthew and/or Luke, which is more easily explained if Mark is the source they expanded than if Mark abridged them (and abridged by omitting the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s Prayer, and the resurrection appearances). (2) Order — Mark is the “middle term”: Matthew and Luke agree in order when they agree with Mark and diverge from each other when they leave him, which is explained if both follow Mark independently. (3) The harder reading — Mark frequently has the rougher Greek, the more difficult or potentially embarrassing wording (e.g. limits on Jesus’ power or knowledge, the disciples’ obtuseness), which Matthew and Luke appear to smooth, the direction of change running more naturally from Mark to the others. (4) Verbal agreement — where all three run together, Matthew and Luke seldom agree against Mark, as expected if Mark is their common source. The chief difficulty pressed against the theory is the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (see The Synoptic Problem), and the chief vulnerability is Q itself, a document never quoted, listed, or found, whose existence is an inference. Some who accept Markan priority dispense with Q by the Farrer hypothesis (A. M. Farrer, 1955; developed by Michael Goulder and Mark Goodacre), on which Luke knew and used both Mark and Matthew, so that the double tradition is Luke’s borrowing from Matthew and no lost source is needed.

The State of the Question

[Disputed: the relative order of the Synoptic Gospels. (a) Traditional/patristic Matthean priority — Matthew first, Mark dependent on Matthew (Augustine, *De consensu* 1.2.4; the patristic order in Eusebius, *HE* 6.25); in its modern Griesbach / Two-Gospel form, Mark written last using Matthew and Luke (J. J. Griesbach, 1789–90; revived by W. R. Farmer, *The Synoptic Problem*, 1964). (b) The dominant modern Two-Source theory — Markan priority plus the lost sayings-source Q (Lachmann 1835, Weisse 1838, Holtzmann 1863, Streeter 1924). (c) The Farrer hypothesis — Markan priority without Q, Luke using Mark and Matthew (Farrer 1955; Goulder; Goodacre, *The Case Against Q*, 2002). The Two-Source theory is the majority view; the alternatives retain able defenders, and the minor agreements and the status of Q keep the question genuinely open. No ecumenical council has defined the matter.]

An Orthodox Perspective

For the Orthodox tradition the question of synoptic priority is a legitimate object of historical study on which the Church has defined nothing and grants liberty. The Fathers’ assumption of Matthean priority is part of the tradition and is treated with respect, but it was a historical judgment about the order of composition, not a dogmatic definition, and it is not binding as the latter would be. What the Church confesses is that all four Gospels are inspired, apostolic, and true — the fourfold witness Irenaeus defended as the “four pillars” of the Church (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.8; ANF 1). Whether Mark or Matthew reached written form first, and whether a sayings-source stands behind them, bears on the literary history of that witness, not on its authority or its truth. The Orthodox reader can therefore weigh the arguments freely, holding the literary question open while holding the Gospels’ inspiration firm — distinguishing, as the tradition always does, the dogma that is defined from the historical reconstruction that is not.

References

Augustine of Hippo. The Harmony of the Gospels 1.2.4. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. 6.
Griesbach, J. J. Commentatio qua Marci evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse… demonstratur (1789–1790).
Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964.
Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924.
Goodacre, Mark. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002.
Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies 3.11.8. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1.