Smoodock's Blog

Many modern Biblical scholars view the Synoptic Gospels as evolving over time with some copying done between them, before we get to the final versions we have today. That’s not true, of course, but are we able to know which Gospel narrative was the original, vis-à-vis “Which came first, Matthew or Mark?” Most New Testament scholars conclude that Mark came first, and Mark had to have been written near AD 70, give or take five or ten years.[1] Therefore, the other three Gospel narratives had to have come later than that. However, the problem for the critics comes in the fact that, according to Papias, the witness who wrote late in the first century or early in the second AD, tells us that Mark copied down in Greek what Peter preached in Rome.

Mark’s copy of Peter’s oral Gospel was done for the Roman church authorities there, who requested Mark to leave them a copy of Peter’s oral Gospel, meaning the Gospel Peter preached to them, while he was in Rome. Therefore, the question really becomes: when was Peter’s Gospel written or formulated? Moreover, in what context did Peter have a Gospel narrative prior to Mark’s Gospel?

If Acts 2 occurred in AD 31, Peter had been preaching his Gospel for over 30 years, if Mark wrote it down for the Roman church authorities. So, what can be said of these things? First of all, we can probably assume that Peter’s Gospel, although written down for Peter’s use, was for all intents and purposes an oral Gospel that wasn’t formally written down for church use until Mark took pen in hand to fulfill the request of the Roman church leadership to have a hard copy of Peter’s oral narrative. Moreover, we can also assume that both Matthew and Luke are **not** oral Gospel records. What evangelist would preach a genealogy to his listeners? That would be a (yawn) very boring experience! They were both written accounts from the very time of their conception. Nevertheless, if we can place Mark’s Gospel much earlier than the 50s or 60s, vis-à-vis in the mouth of Peter, what does this say about when Matthew and Luke wrote their own narratives?

The fact that Mark’s written Gospel existed orally in Peter’s ministry long before he went to Rome, allows Matthew and Luke to copy Mark/Peter much earlier than previously perceived possible by modern skeptics. Clement of Alexandria, one of the Church fathers who wrote in the late second and early third centuries AD, wrote that all of the writings of the New Covenant text were written between the reigns of the Roman Emperors, Tiberius and Nero.[2] Papias (AD 60 to AD 130) writes:

“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”[3]

Papias was probably referring to the Aramaic dialect, rather than the Hebrew. Aramaic was the commercial language of the East, as Greek was for the West. Thus, the Twelve interpreted from his journal and together they produced Matthew’s Gospel, which they arranged in a manner to accommodate memorization and act as a teaching vehicle. It makes sense for the Jerusalem church to equip believing Diaspora Jews, who came to Jerusalem for the annual holidays or on pilgrimages, and heard the Gospel from the Apostles (cp. Acts 8:1). How would they “equip” them? They would do so by giving them copies of Matthew’s Gospel, so the Diaspora Jews could spread the Gospel in their local communities throughout the empire, after they returned home. In fact, it was for the purpose of learning and memorization that folks wrote during the first century AD:

“Writing was usually seen as supplementary to the oral discourse. Orators should avoid note-books that were too detailed. One is reminded of Quintilian’s criticism of Laenas’ dependence on such notes and his clear-cut advice: “For my own part, however, I think we should not write anything, which we do not intend to commit to memory…” Writing was not avoided as such, but functioned mainly as a memorandum of what the person already should remember from oral communication” [Samuel Byrskog: “Story as History” page116].

If, indeed, Matthew kept a journal/outline of Jesus’ deeds and sayings during the 3 ½ years he spent with him, Matthew’s Gospel could have been produced from his Aramaic notes, as interpreted by the memories of all twelve Apostles,[4] very early and not long after Acts 2, certainly within a year. In fact, both Matthew’s written record and Peter’s oral Gospel could have been produced simultaneously, especially seeing that Peter would have been a major contributor to Matthew’s Gospel.

____________________________________________

[1] Most skeptics would say Mark was written after AD 70, because of Mark’s record of the fall of Jerusalem in his Olivet Prophesy, concluding that Jesus’ account is too detailed for him to have known it prior to it actually occurring.

[2] Clement of Alexandria: Stromata, book 7, chapter 17.

[3] See: Fragments of Papias; Book 6 (emphasis mine).

[4] The interpretation of the Twelves is implied in “each one” in Papias’ reference to Matthew’s Gospel.