A frequent refrain from scholars is that either none of the Gospels offer a fully chronologically-oriented account of the life of Christ or that it is Mark which is most likely to be chronological. In some cases, the determination appears to be tied to a favored theory of Gospel origins—that the Gospel traditions developed over decades based on the sharing of oral traditions, which led up to the production of proto-Gospels and canonical Mark, which were then followed by the publication of the other Gospels. Plus, generalizing references are made to ancient biographies which did not always employ a chronological sequencing of events.1 Must we accept these opinions and generalizations?
If we instead 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?
Here are a few examples, where scholars have broadly discounted the Gospels as providing chronological accounts:
Again, the Gospels are unchronological in order. We are at once cautioned against regarding them as mere history, and encouraged to look for some new law of arrangement in their contents, which, as I shall endeavor to prove, must result from a higher power than an unaided instinct or an enlightened
consciousness. …The examination of a few chapters of the Synoptic Gospels will leave little doubt that temporal sequence was not the standard of their arrangement. Their whole structure, as well as their contents, serves to prove that they are memoirs and not histories. Definite marks of time and place are extremely rare; and general indications of temporal or local connection are scarcely more frequent.) The ordinary words of transition are either indefinite or are disjunctive. Outwardly, at first sight, the Synoptic Gospels are more like collections of anecdotes than histories.
Brooke Foss Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1862), 47, 344–345.
It may be observed that the style of St. Matthew produces the greatest appearance of continuity, though probably he offers the most numerous divergences from chronological order.
Brooke Foss Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1862), 345n8.
Third, form critics have contributed greatly to our understanding of the role of the Evangelists in composing the Gospels. … The results of form criticism strengthen the observations made on the basis of genre that the Gospels are not chronological biographies of Jesus but interpretative proclamations of the meaning and significance of Jesus, his work and his message.
David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 156–157.
In terms of chronology it is generally agreed that John 12:1–8 has correctly placed this [the anointing of Jesus] before the triumphal entry, and that Mark and Matthew have placed it here thematically in order to provide a contrast with Judas. This is only a problem if we demand chronological exactness of the gospel writers, but that is not the case since the gospels often arranged material topically. John 12 has more similarities than differences with this story and is likely the same event (see Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 127– 30). Finally, all four gospels have an anointing, but Luke 7:36–50 is quite different and certainly a separate episode.
Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 948n1.
Granted, there are many instances where the sequence of events in the Gospels vary, but does this then suggest that none of the Gospels have preserved an accurate chronology, from which the others then deviate for thematic reasons?
Here are some examples which betray a scholar’s bias towards Markan priority (and chronology), as they discount Matthew’s chronology:
Almost all the incidents in this section of the Gospel [of Matthew] have parallels in Mark or Luke, but not necessarily in the same order. It is clear that Matthew’s arrangement here is topical, not chronological.
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 186–187.
By making a change of word order from Mark, Matthew adds to the artistry of his text … ‘Matthew’s order, unlike Mark’s, is logical, not chronological.’
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 1249. Nolland’s citation is from William D. Davies and Dale Allison, Matthew, vol. 3, Matthew 19-28 (London: T & T Clark, 1997), 667.
It is best to follow Mark’s order, as Luke does, for Matthew is not chronological in this part of his Gospel. [With reference to the account of the healing of Jarius’s daughter.]
Archibald T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ (New York, NY: George H. Doran, 1922), 74. Elsewhere, Robertson more broadly asserts that “inasmuch as Matthew’s arrangement in ch. 8–13 is not chronological, but topical, it is entirely possible, even likely, that the same [topical] arrangement should prevail in ch. 5–7. Robertson, 273.
Matthew, who has less interest in strict chronology, telescopes the time and simply tells us what Jesus did to protect God’s house.
Daniel M. Doriani, Matthew, vol. 2, 2 vols., Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2008), 256.
We have seen that Mark often uses one episode to frame another. He had Jesus curse the unfruitful fig tree on the morning of the second day (Mark 11:12–14). On the third morning, Peter called attention to the fact that the tree was withered (11:21). This frame served as a striking comment on the fate of the Temple. Matthew’s revised chronology has no place for this literary pattern. Instead the fig tree withers as soon as Jesus curses it, much to the disciples’ amazement (Matt 21:18–20). By reshaping Mark’s chronology Matthew drives his narrative forward to a much more vigorous encounter between Jesus and the religious authorities. Jesus’ words of judgment against them and the Temple will have the same effectiveness as the curse on the fig tree.
Pheme Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 166–167.
To be clear, we ought not discount the scholarly observation that many of the Gospel episodes are connected together with conjunctives (e.g., “and” and “but”) or connecting phrases (e.g., “at that time”) which do not necessarily imply chronological sequence. Accordingly, Craig Blomberg wisely cautions that it is often impossible to make judgments based on the texts alone, as to which Gospel narrative is most likely to offer the actual chronological sequence.2 At the same time, I contend that it is also presumptuous for scholars to confidently extrapolate from this difficulty (and the generalizing observation that ancient biographies were sometimes organized thematically, rather than chronologically) to make the claim that none of the Gospels are fully chronological.3
On the other hand, some Markan prioritists defer to Mark, the supposed earliest of the canonical Gospels, as being the most likely to offer the accounts in chronological order. By the same rationale, I contend that Matthean prioritists have grounds for deferring to Matthew as being the most likely to offer the accounts in chronological order, especially if Matthew was published within a decade of the resurrection, when the witnesses would be well-aware of the actual sequence of events. More work is required in order to justify any claim that Matthew is altogether chronologically arranged; however, at this juncture it is sufficient to simply push back against categorical claims that its chronology should not be preferenced.
- Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 30–31. ↩︎
- Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 194. ↩︎
- By “fully chronological,” I am not excluded the employment of back- and forward-looking statements as part of a chronologically-oriented narrative. ↩︎
