Difference between revisions of "Ordering the Gospels"
(The "Augustinian order" is another name for the Matthew-Mark-Luke sequence, because Saint Augustine advocated for it, but based on his misperception about the origin and significance of the Gospel of Mark.) |
(Indeed, it is not known why the current Gospel ordering is used, and a reordering can be done without worries) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Ordering the Gospels''' is an issue worth revisiting, because the | + | '''Ordering the Gospels''' is an issue worth revisiting, because the order affects [[evangelism]], readability, and the significance placed on the [[Gospel of John]], which [[Jesus]] may have initially intended to be the primary eyewitness account by his closest [[Apostle]]. While the content of the [[Gospels]] and entire [[Bible]] is considered to have been inspired, the ordering of its books is not. '''''Indeed, it is not known why the current Gospel ordering is used, and a reordering can be done without worries'''''. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | The Church Fathers | + | The strongest ordering of the [[Gospels]] is: |
| + | #the [[Gospel of Mark]], as the first written and the easiest to read and understand | ||
| + | #the [[Gospel of John]], as the most powerful and yet concise, while beautifully written; preferably restored in its undiluted form | ||
| + | #the [[Gospel of Matthew]], as a comprehensive eyewitness account | ||
| + | #the [[Gospel of Luke]], a comprehensive, fabulously written historical account and the lead to the first book after the Gospels, the [[Acts of the Apostles]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | The current order is based on at least two historical misunderstandings:<ref>Saydon, P. P. [https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/scripture/04-7_190.pdf The Order of the Gospels], pp. 190b–96. ''Biblical Studies''. Retrieved September 21, 2023.</ref> | ||
| + | *that the [[Gospel of Mark]] relied on the [[Gospel of Matthew]], when basic analysis shows the opposite to have been true;<ref>Luke's ordering of events corresponds to that of Mark's, while Matthew's record differs greatly. If Matthew's Gospel was written first, then either Mark copied also from Luke or Luke from Mark, which relies on unsubstantiated theories. [[Occam's razor]] favors [[Markan priority]]—more likely, Mark wrote his Gospel first, and Matthew and Luke copied from his account separately.</ref> | ||
| + | *that the [[Gospel of Matthew]] was originally written in [[Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic]], which modern scholars reject while observing that its terminology is uniquely [[Greek]] (such as his emphasis on the Greek concept and term "hypocrite"<ref>See, e.g., Matt. 23:13-30; 6:2, 5, 16 [https://www.lagrangenews.com/2016/02/13/church-columnist-building-a-biblical-vocabulary-hypocrite/#:~:text=So%20the%20Greek%20word%20hupokrites,%2C%2016%3B%20et%20al Biblical vocabulary].</ref>) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Church Fathers incorrectly felt that the [[Gospel of Matthew]] was written first: "External evidence is absolutely demonstrative that St. Matthew the Apostle himself wrote the Gospel of Matthew, wrote first, and wrote well before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is attested to by Bishop Saint [[Papias]], who knew St. John the Apostle; [[Tertullian]] in [[Africa]]; Saint [[Irenaeus]], who was bishop of Lyons in [[Europe]] but well acquainted with the Tradition of the East, having spent a significant time in Asia; and several other witnesses. Thus we have the unanimous witness of three whole continents and virtually the entire early Christian world that Saint Matthew the Apostle is the first of the Evangelists and wrote his Gospel well before 70 A.D." <ref>https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/</ref> | ||
| + | == Augustinian hypothesis == | ||
| + | The "[[Augustinian hypothesis]]" or "Augustinian order" is another name for the Matthew-Mark-Luke sequence, because [[Saint Augustine]] advocated for it, but based on his misperception about the origin and significance of the [[Gospel of Mark]].<ref>https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-real-story-about-the-order-of-the-synoptic-gospels</ref> Many, perhaps most, scholars today, both [[Roman Catholic Church]] and [[Protestant]], support ordering the [[Gospel of Mark]] first.<ref>https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-real-story-about-the-order-of-the-synoptic-gospels</ref> Also, Augustine was not particularly strong in [[Bible]] scholarship, and lacked the computer tools available today for analyzing the Bible. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The flaw in Augustine's reasoning is that he assumed, based on extensive close similarities between the [[Gospel of Matthew]] and the [[Gospel of Mark]], that the latter must be based on the former. But "such similarity of language could be explained either by Mark using Matthew or by Matthew using Mark."<ref>https://jimmyakin.com/2014/09/was-st-augustine-wrong-about-matthew-and-mark-2.html</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In fact, there are details in the Gospel of Mark (such as the reference to [[Salome]] at the [[Tomb]]) which are not in the Gospel of Matthew, while the latter has details that [[Mark]] would not have left out, such as [[Peter]] walking on water. These and similar differences make it unlikely that Mark copied from Matthew. | ||
| − | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| Line 12: | Line 25: | ||
[[Category:Gospels]] | [[Category:Gospels]] | ||
[[Category:Linguistics]] | [[Category:Linguistics]] | ||
| + | [[Category:New Testament]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:37, October 13, 2025
Ordering the Gospels is an issue worth revisiting, because the order affects evangelism, readability, and the significance placed on the Gospel of John, which Jesus may have initially intended to be the primary eyewitness account by his closest Apostle. While the content of the Gospels and entire Bible is considered to have been inspired, the ordering of its books is not. Indeed, it is not known why the current Gospel ordering is used, and a reordering can be done without worries.
The strongest ordering of the Gospels is:
- the Gospel of Mark, as the first written and the easiest to read and understand
- the Gospel of John, as the most powerful and yet concise, while beautifully written; preferably restored in its undiluted form
- the Gospel of Matthew, as a comprehensive eyewitness account
- the Gospel of Luke, a comprehensive, fabulously written historical account and the lead to the first book after the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles
The current order is based on at least two historical misunderstandings:[1]
- that the Gospel of Mark relied on the Gospel of Matthew, when basic analysis shows the opposite to have been true;[2]
- that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, which modern scholars reject while observing that its terminology is uniquely Greek (such as his emphasis on the Greek concept and term "hypocrite"[3])
The Church Fathers incorrectly felt that the Gospel of Matthew was written first: "External evidence is absolutely demonstrative that St. Matthew the Apostle himself wrote the Gospel of Matthew, wrote first, and wrote well before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is attested to by Bishop Saint Papias, who knew St. John the Apostle; Tertullian in Africa; Saint Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons in Europe but well acquainted with the Tradition of the East, having spent a significant time in Asia; and several other witnesses. Thus we have the unanimous witness of three whole continents and virtually the entire early Christian world that Saint Matthew the Apostle is the first of the Evangelists and wrote his Gospel well before 70 A.D." [4]
Augustinian hypothesis
The "Augustinian hypothesis" or "Augustinian order" is another name for the Matthew-Mark-Luke sequence, because Saint Augustine advocated for it, but based on his misperception about the origin and significance of the Gospel of Mark.[5] Many, perhaps most, scholars today, both Roman Catholic Church and Protestant, support ordering the Gospel of Mark first.[6] Also, Augustine was not particularly strong in Bible scholarship, and lacked the computer tools available today for analyzing the Bible.
The flaw in Augustine's reasoning is that he assumed, based on extensive close similarities between the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, that the latter must be based on the former. But "such similarity of language could be explained either by Mark using Matthew or by Matthew using Mark."[7]
In fact, there are details in the Gospel of Mark (such as the reference to Salome at the Tomb) which are not in the Gospel of Matthew, while the latter has details that Mark would not have left out, such as Peter walking on water. These and similar differences make it unlikely that Mark copied from Matthew.
References
- ↑ Saydon, P. P. The Order of the Gospels, pp. 190b–96. Biblical Studies. Retrieved September 21, 2023.
- ↑ Luke's ordering of events corresponds to that of Mark's, while Matthew's record differs greatly. If Matthew's Gospel was written first, then either Mark copied also from Luke or Luke from Mark, which relies on unsubstantiated theories. Occam's razor favors Markan priority—more likely, Mark wrote his Gospel first, and Matthew and Luke copied from his account separately.
- ↑ See, e.g., Matt. 23:13-30; 6:2, 5, 16 Biblical vocabulary.
- ↑ https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/
- ↑ https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-real-story-about-the-order-of-the-synoptic-gospels
- ↑ https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-real-story-about-the-order-of-the-synoptic-gospels
- ↑ https://jimmyakin.com/2014/09/was-st-augustine-wrong-about-matthew-and-mark-2.html