Last year, I surveyed the opinions of various scholars who either “broadly discounted the Gospels as providing chronological accounts” or who specifically discounted Matthew’s chronological sequence of events, in favor of Mark’s ordering of events.1 In contrast, I suggested that “if we accept that Matthew was published first, coincident with the events of Acts 10 and 11, then would we be more inclined to accept Matthew as offering a truly chronological account?”2 My thought is that if Matthew was published within a decade of the resurrection, then wouldn’t the contemporary audiences have expected an account which aligned with their memory of the actual sequence of events? I continue to favor this approach; however, the making of a compelling case for preferencing Matthew’s chronology will be a task for another day.
In this article, what I want to accomplish is to survey the views of several Matthean prioritists who contend that Matthew was published within a decade of the resurrection and ascension, for what they have to say about Matthew’s chronological sequence.3 As will be elaborated below, the surveyed authors generally prefer the Markan chronology. Regardless of my opinions, it is helpful to hear their arguments.
Thomas Birks (1852) offers a number of arguments that preference the chronology of Luke (and Mark) over that of Matthew. First, there is Luke’s announced purpose of providing “an orderly account” (Luke 1:3), for which Birks cites Thucydides’ use of the term.4 Second is the regularity of the account in the book of Acts: “Hence there must be a strong presumption that the Gospel, of which it [Acts] is a continuation, is also written with a careful regard to historical succession.”5 Third is the obvious chronological succession of the major events and divisions of Luke’s Gospel—”our Lord’s baptism, his return to Galilee, his removal to Capernaum, the Ordination of the Twelve, their Mission, the Transfiguration,” etc.6 However, I would be quick to counter that all of the Synoptics offer a natural progression of the major events in the life of Christ. Fourth is the attention that Luke gives to time markers in the Gospel.7 But here also, I would counter that Matthew likewise makes generous use of time markers. Fifth is the “orderly and connected narrative” which is observed throughout Luke’s Gospel, which appears to substantiate the claim in Luke 1:3.8 Correspondingly, since Mark often aligns with Luke, where Luke differs from Matthew, Birks contends that Mark also offers a more accurate chronology than does Matthew.9
Francis Upham (1881) has a high regard for Matthew’s Gospel. Nevertheless, Upham preferences the chronology of Mark’s Gospel, which he characterizes as St. Peter’s Gospel. In contrasting the two Gospels, Upham opines that “The order of time had been disregarded in the earlier part of St. Matthew’s Gospel … St. Mark gave the sequence of events in the life of our Lord by placing the parts or sections of St. Peter’s Gospel in their time-order.”10 With regard to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, Upham avers that it was “made up of facts selected without regard to their time or place, for the purpose of portraying our Lord’s general manner of life.11 Thus, Upham.
Robert Cockburne (1755) observes that “in the relation of facts our evangelist [Matthew] does not always confine himself to a chronological method, by delivering them in the same order in which they happened; for though this is generally done, he sometimes relates matters as they occurred to his memory. Nor was a more critical exactness necessary in a narrative which was designed for common use.”12 Cockburne does not disclose his basis for this assertion, other than by means of a footnote referencing Mr. Le’nfant’s preface to St. Matthew’s Gospel, to which I have not gained access. However, in Cockburne’s survey of Luke, he contends that Luke wrote “more correctly than the other evangelists, and was one to judge of it [sic] merely by perspicuity and connection, arising from a better order and disposition of words.” Presumably, since Mark often follows Luke, Cockburne is likewise crediting Mark with offering “a better order and disposition of words.”13
John Chapman (1937, 1944), in contrast with Upham, defends the Sermon on the Mount as having been excerpted from a single coherent sermon.14 With regard to Mark’s overall chronology, Chapman cites the testimony of John the Presbyter, as reported by Papias, that “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, carefully wrote down as much as he related, but not in order, what was spoken or done by the Lord.”15 Accordingly, Chapman asserts that “it is obvious that the considerable variations from the order of St. Matthew in the first part of St. Mark are referred to by this ancient authority. St. Matthew very often insists upon the exact order of events, [with] this following that. St. Mark is usually more vague; and we thus find the judgment of John the Presbyter and Disciple confirmed by the Gospels themselves; and what is more important, it appears that John regarded Mark as having varied the order of Matthew.”16
John Wenham (1991) explains Mark’s repeated rearrangement of Matthean pericopes as being for the purpose of reestablishing the correct chronological order, according to Peter’s memory.17 With respect to the fig tree and temple clearing episodes, Wenham points to “Mark’s greater chronological precision.”18
- “Must we accept that none of the Gospels are chronological?,” posted November 25, 2024. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Chapman is also included as he argues for Matthean priority, although he does not argue for a specific date. ↩︎
- Thomas R. Birks, Horae Evangelicae: The Internal Evidence of the Gospel History (London: George Bell & Sons, 1852), 32. ↩︎
- Ibid., 32–33. ↩︎
- Ibid., 33. ↩︎
- Ibid., 33–34. ↩︎
- Ibid., 35–37. ↩︎
- “The order of St. Mark is entirely confirmed by that of St. Luke, and therefore is probably the actual order.” Ibid., 20, 34–36. ↩︎
- Francis W. Upham, Thoughts on the Holy Gospels: How They Came to Be in Manner and Form as They Are (New York, NY: Phillips & Hunt, 1881), 307. ↩︎
- Ibid., 305. ↩︎
- Robert Cockburne, An Historical Dissertation on the Books of the New Testament; or, An Enquiry into Their Authority and Particular Character, vol. 1, 1755, 210. ↩︎
- Ibid., 241. ↩︎
- 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), 215. ↩︎
- John Chapman, The Four Gospels (New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1944), 15. ↩︎
- Ibid., 24. ↩︎
- John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991), 102–103, 107. ↩︎
- Ibid., 104. ↩︎
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
