Might John and Matthew Have Switched Places in Order?

[Secret Alias]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that John might have been the first gospel (because of the Prologue) and Matthew last (because the gospel ends on Pentecost)?

[Peter Kirby]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that John might have been the first gospel (because of the Prologue) and Matthew last (because the gospel ends on Pentecost)?

We talking chronologically, or... position in a fourfold gospel text, ... or?

Yes, though, I've wondered whether the Gospel of John might be the first gospel chronologically.

[Ben C. Smith]

I do not think there is a chronological order of the gospels that I have not thought about at some time or other.

[Ben C. Smith]

What do you mean about Matthew ending on Pentecost?

[MrMacSon]

I do not think there is a chronological order of the gospels that I have not thought about at some time or other.

Please unpack the double negatives ... you mean you consider various scenarios?

[Ben C. Smith]

Please unpack the double negatives ... you mean you consider various scenarios?

Yes, I mean that I have, at some time or other, probably considered every combination of chronological order amongst the four canonical gospels.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

I can virtually guarantee, however, that I have never considered their chronological order in the terms that Secret Alias is about to propose.

[Secret Alias]

Nothing terribly original. Just that a gospel ending at Pentecost naturally rolls over to Acts 1.

[Ben C. Smith]

Nothing terribly original. Just that a gospel ending at Pentecost naturally rolls over to Acts 1.

Whereas Luke does not... at least not without some retrofitting....

But does Matthew end on Pentecost? Is it that specific?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

No. I was looking for that. No it's not that specific.