Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels. By John Chapman. Edited by John M. T. Barton. London: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1937, 312 pp.
Last month I was privileged to acquire a copy of John Chapman’s significant work on the order and relationships between the Synoptic Gospels, in which he defends the traditional publication order of these Gospels. The blue hardback now stands proudly amongst my limited collection of older works, on top of one of my book shelves. Showing it’s age, most pages have some amount of “foxing,” those rust colored spots which appear in older books. It is also quite musty—my office window must be kept open whenever the book is open.
Dom Chapman (1865–1933), English Catholic priest and 4th Abbot of Downside Abbey, asserts that Matthew first published in Aramaic and then in Greek, and that it was a Greek form of Matthew which served as “Mark’s chief source, in the sense that Peter, when preaching at Rome, had the Greek Matthew before him and adapted it in his own way to his hearers’ needs.”1 Though Chapman was previously dogmatic that Matthew used Mark, he began to change his view after realizing that “the arguments which are usually given to demonstrate the dependence of Matthew on Mark are perfectly compatible with the dependence of Mark on Matthew”—if Peter were to have leveraged “St. Matthew’s work as a basis” for retelling the story of Jesus, while “amplifying and enlivening” Matthew’s account.2
After an introduction provided by John Barton, who collected and posthumously published Chapman’s work, the book begins by examining the Gospel of Mark, with a particular interest in identifying subtle indications that Mark was intentionally dropping some of Matthew’s material. For example, Chapman finds that in Mark 4:33 (cf. Matt. 13:34), Mark alludes to additional material by adding, “with many such parables he spoke the word to them” (ESV).3 Likewise in Mark 12:38 (cf. Matt. 23:1), “and in [the course of] his teaching he said.”4 Elsewhere, Chapman argues that Mark 13 is combining and summarizing material which Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) elaborates, and that Mark 12:1 (cf. Matt. 21:33) also hints at parables which are not included.5 One chapter is also devoted to demonstrating that the parallel passages in Matthew are not a précis (abridgement) of Mark, as some claim. Subsequent chapters (1) defend Chapman’s contention that Mark’s Gospel reflects Peter’s teaching ministry; (2) assess Mark’s quotations from Matthew (e.g., the quote of Malachi 3:1 from Matthew 11:10, which Mark employs in Mark 1:2); and (3) consider how even the conversational style of Mark suggests Matthean priority.6
The second section of the book considers the Gospel of Luke, with a particular focus on challenging the existence of the hypothetical Q document, which is said by many Markan prioritists to have contained the material which is common to Matthew and Luke, whenever Mark lacks the corresponding accounts.7 An analysis of similar passages in Matthew and Mark is used to illustrate Chapman’s contention—the cure of the Centurion’s servant and the parable of the Talents (or Minas). Chapman shows that “there are serious differences … in the subject matter, while they show very close verbal agreements.” Such that, it is unlikely that there was a “common oral or written source.8 Other chapters address Chapman’s assessment of Luke’s omissions and additions, relative to his Matthean and Markan sources. Of particular interest is Chapman’s explanation for how Luke approached the task of writing his Gospel. Namely, that in order to include his unique material while limiting the size of the work, Luke is said to have dropped stories and parables in Matthew which were similar (e.g., Matthew’s two feedings of the multitudes), while preserving smaller doublets where Matthew and Mark had similar stories. Luke also removed passages of lesser interest or edification to Gentile converts.9 In general, Luke “does not condense, though he so often cuts out.”10
In the third major section, the book considers the Gospel of Matthew and begins with the assertion that Matthew must have been originally published in Aramaic, since an initial publication in Greek “would fail of its purpose” [sic], given that the presupposed insight into local customs, along with “Jewish beliefs and teachings,” demonstrate that it “was plainly written for Jews of Palestine.”11 Chapman goes on to survey the Aramaisms and word selections in our Greek Matthew to support his case. However, the editor (Barton) has also supplemented Chapman by including references to contemporary studies which contradicted Chapman, contending rather that the original language was Greek. In another chapter, Chapman argues that the Sermon on the Mount “is not a mosaic of many separate discourses” but was preached as “a whole,” with the discourse in Matthew providing a summary of what was actually a much longer sermon.12 A later chapter defends Matthew, the tax collector, as being the author of the Gospel, and offers that the Gospel could have been written from within five to thirty-five years after the death of Judas (ref. Matt. 27:7).13
Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels was a significant work, at a time when academia had already largely abandoned the belief that Matthew was the first Gospel to be published. It is unfortunate that Chapman’s book was published after his death, when he could no longer fight and advocate for his views, and respond to the many challenges which even John Barton articulated in his addendums. It would subsequently be several decades later before Butler, Farmer, Orchard, and Wenham would take up the battle for Matthean priority, with a similar level of methodological diligence.
Personally, I found most interesting the discussion of Mark’s markers, which indicate an omission of some of Matthew’s material (e.g., parables), and the related discussion on Mark’s inclusion of select portions from passages in Matthew, which Mark otherwise omits (e.g., the inclusion of the Malachi 3:1 quote from Matthew 11:10 into Mark 1:2). There are a number of passages identified in this latter group which warrant further investigation.14 However, with regard to the original language of Matthew, I contend that Chapman has misconstrued the implied audience, as early Jewish Christians, both those from the many lands who were present at Pentecost and those who had been scattered due to the persecution following Stephen’s martyrdom, would unquestionably benefit from a Greek Gospel. This is the same audience who would also receive the letter of James, written in Greek. Even if Matthew was originally written in Greek as I surmise, an Aramaic influence could still be present—if Jesus had preached in Aramaic or if Matthew frequently spoke in Aramaic, especially in religious contexts. Of course, I also affirm an early publication of Matthew and Mark, but dating the Gospels was not a pronounced concern in the book. Overall though, this is a great book, for those interested in the defense of Matthean priority.
- John M. T. Barton, “Introduction,” in Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels, ed. John M. T. Barton (London: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1937), xxi, xxv. ↩︎
- John Chapman, Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels, ed. John M. T. Barton (London: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1937), 1, 4. ↩︎
- Ibid., 6. ↩︎
- Ibid., 7. ↩︎
- Ibid., 14–15. ↩︎
- For the Malachi passage, ibid., 65–66. ↩︎
- Ibid., 95. ↩︎
- Ibid., 100–06. ↩︎
- Ibid., 174–75. ↩︎
- Ibid., 175. ↩︎
- Ibid., 182. ↩︎
- Chapman also contends that the Sermon on the Plain is describing the same sermon, while sometimes summarizing material that Matthew did not include. Ibid., 215. ↩︎
- Ibid., 255. ↩︎
- Chapter 7. ↩︎