[Supplement to Gospel Doctrine New Testament lesson 7]

Mark wrote the earliest of the gospel accounts, as evidenced by the fact that both Matthew and Luke borrowed from his account. The earliest known copies of the gospel of Mark are written in Greek, though some scholars have noted that the Greek of this gospel is readily translatable into Biblical Hebrew and that many of its idioms are Hebraic rather than Greek in nature. This is evidence that the original was written in Hebrew and that the Greek versions we now possess (and from which our modern English Bibles have been translated) are but translations from that original Hebrew text. ⁱ

According to Papias (ca. 140 A.D.), as preserved by the fourth-century A.D. Christian historian Eusebius, Mark accompanied Peter during his travels and recorded from the apostle's discourses the sayings of Jesus. These he later compiled from his recollection, “but not in order.” ⁱⁱ If this be true, then we would have grounds on which to reject some of Mark's geographical and historical remarks, particularly when they conflict with those of authors such as Matthew and John, who were physically present during the events of Jesus' ministry. Mark's account is a secondary, not a primary source for the gospel story, since he recounts what he recalled from Peter's sermons but did not himself witness.

Whereas Mark was not present at the time of the gospel stories he tells, Matthew was an apostle of Jesus Christ and an eyewitness to most of the events he described. Consequently, when Matthew began to write his account, basing it on the gospel already written by Mark, he was able to discern some factual errors in Mark's account and corrected them. Here are some examples of Matthew's modification of Mark's account by the addition of further details:

Matthew was also able to correct the chronological order found in Mark whenever he disagreed with it. Most notably, we find that Matthew 10-12 is in a completely different order than that given in the parallel passages in Mark and copied from him by Luke. In such cases, we cannot simply say that Matthew is “outvoted two-to-one.” Rather, we must remember that he was present on the occasions mentioned, while Mark and Luke, being later converts to Christianity, were not.

Moreover, because Luke clearly copied from Mark in these cases, we really have only Mark in contradiction with Matthew. As in court trials, we should consider the eyewitness testimony of Matthew superior to the hearsay of Mark, though Mark remains a valuable source of information on Jesus' life.

The following list illustrates instances where Matthew corrected the chronological order given in Mark. In some cases, Luke followed Mark's order, while in others, he apparently had other information that caused him to differ.

None of these stories were included in the account of John (whose gospel was intended to be a testimony of Christ's divinity), and though Luke obviously followed Mark's version, he was selective and did not make use of all of the accounts. Interestingly, Matthew not only organized the chronological order of these events, but he also corrected Mark on other details.

For example, Mark recorded how Jesus healed a man possessed by evil spirits at Gadara (“the country of the Gadarenes”), with which Luke concurs. But Matthew changed the venue to Gergesa (“the country of the Gergasenes”), which was north of Gadara, and said there were two such men, not one. From the geographical conditions it is apparent that Matthew must be correct, for on the Galilee shore near Gadara there are no “steep places” where the herd of swine could have run off into the water (Matthew 8:32; Mark 5:13; Luke 8:33), while on the shore near Gergesa there are cliffs (where the Golan Heights drop off). On this basis, as well as on the basis that Matthew lived in the region and was called by Jesus the very next day, we should accept the Matthew version against those of Mark and Luke.

Those who believe the Bible to be inerrant and to contain all the things God revealed to mankind may be disappointed by the fact that variants exist among the gospels. For my part, it is the variants in detail that demonstrate the essential historical nature of the Bible.

For additional material relating to this lesson, see:

• John A. Tvedtnes, “Background on the Gospels,” Insights 19/1 (January 1999), posted on the FARMS web site at http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=57
• John A. Tvedtnes, “Who Wrote the Gospels?” posted on the Meridian Magazine web site at http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/021231gospels.html