Might John and Matthew Have Switched Places in Order?

[Secret Alias]

I guess that might be the next question. How do we know Matthew 28 describes Pentecost?

[Secret Alias]

Maybe it's just enough to say Ascension day (presumably 40 days) naturally leads to what happens ten days later (Acts 1).

[Peter Kirby]

Previously I was aware of:

(1) "Eastern" order (Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn)--found in several Greek mss.
(2) "Western" order (Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk)--found in Codex Bezae (e.g.) and Latin mss.
(3) "Curetonian" Syriac order (Mt-Jn-Mk-Lk).

Now I am also aware of:

(4) "Egyptian" (Coptic) versions (Jn-Mt-Mk-Lk)
(5) Old Latin Bobbiensis "k" (Jn-Lk-Mk-Mt)

The last mentioned being quite relevant to Huller's interests here...

https://books.google.com/books?id=U6QAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA599


Also, the Arabic Diatessaron does privilege the [shortened] prologue of John (as a fitting opening to a harmony):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... saron.html

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and without him not even one existing thing was made. In him was life, and the life is the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.

It ends with the "Longer Ending of Mark" and a snippet of John 21:25.

And from thence they went forth, and preached in every place; and our Lord helped
them, and confirmed their sayings by the signs which they did.
And here are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every
one of them, not even the world, according to my opinion, would contain the books which should
be written.

[Bernard Muller]

I do not see why the gospel of Matthew ending at Pentecost has to do with it written later. Further, there is nothing saying at the end of the gospel, the apostles met Jesus on the mountain at Pentecost.
However, my research indicates the main part of the gospel of John (including the beginning) was written very likely before gMatthew & gLuke were written. However gJohn was begun with the full knowledge of gMark. Later on, insertions & addition at the end & reshuffling were made after gLuke was known. Again later, insertions & addition at the end were made when Acts became known. Finally the final addition at the end was made after presbyter John died.
Explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

Oh please not another link! Did you pretend to introduce the chronological dimension into the discussion in order to segue to the link? The question simply is - doesn't Acts make more sense being 'set up' by Matthew 28?

[Secret Alias]

That was very mountainman-ish to 'misunderstand' the discussion in order to introduce the link.

[Peter Kirby]

That was very mountainman-ish to 'misunderstand' the discussion in order to introduce the link.

Them's fightin' words.

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?

.... the chronological dimension ....

I'm still not sure whether you intend to discuss the "chronological" order of the gospels or the "manuscript"/"canonical" order of the gospels.

Yes, you do use the word "chronological." ... But that's all that you do (that I've seen, in this thread), in respect of "chronological" considerations.

The point that Matthew 28 might set up Acts 1 would seem to fall more under the subject of the "manuscript"/"canonical" orders.

I ask again, then... what is the actual topic of discussion here? What is your proposed thesis?

[MrMacSon]

.. How do we know Matthew 28 describes Pentecost?

Maybe it's just enough to say Ascension day (presumably 40 days) naturally leads to what happens ten days later (Acts 1).

Interestingly, a couple of non-Biblical documents allude to an Ascension of 155 days or 18 moths later -

1. Irenaeus in Against Heresies purportedly gives a time span of eighteen months ...

2. The Apocryphon of James (aka the Secret Book of James) describes 'the secret teachings of Jesus to Peter and James', given after the Resurrection but before the Ascension -

Now the twelve disciples were sitting all together at the same time, and, remembering what the Savior had said to each one of them, whether secretly or openly, they were setting it down in books. And I was writing what was in my book - lo, the Savior appeared, after he had departed from us while we gazed at him. And five hundred and fifty days after he arose from the dead, we said to him: "Have you gone and departed from us?"

And Jesus said: "No, but I shall go to the place from which I have come. If you desire to come with me, come."

They all answered and said: "If you bid us, we'll come."

He said: "Truly I say to you, no one ever will enter the Kingdom of Heaven if I bid him, but rather because you yourselves are full. Let me have James and Peter, in order that I may fill them."

And when he called these two, he took them aside, and commanded the rest to busy themselves with that with which they had been busy.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/jam2.html

[Ben C. Smith]

I guess that might be the next question. How do we know Matthew 28 describes Pentecost?

I tend to think of the ending of Matthew as having one principal purpose: to remedy the lack of resurrection appearances (and thus the lack of apostolic commission) in the abrupt version of Mark. The passage itself is painfully brief and colorless; it is all about getting the words of the Great Commission down on parchment. There is even a throwaway back reference to a bit of conversation that the gospel nowhere narrates (the bit about the disciples going to the mountain that Jesus had designated). I tend to doubt that the author took any trouble at all to specifically (yet apparently covertly) locate the appearance at any given time or feast.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

Oh please not another link! Did you pretend to introduce the chronological dimension into the discussion in order to segue to the link?

I introduced the link just to say I did research on the topic (and took the trouble to explain it, free of charge, to anyone having access to the web). Another way to say what I wrote on my previous posting is not my opinion of the month.
I have no expectation than you or others on this forum will read it. Anyway, even if I post this link to a webpage of mine, I do not, and cannot force you to read that webpage.

The question simply is - doesn't Acts make more sense being 'set up' by Matthew 28?

GMatthew has Jesus saying (several times) (and then the same by an angel at the tomb) he would meet his apostles in Galilee and that's where the alleged meeting took place, some time after the alleged resurrection.
However in Acts, there is no meeting of Jesus specified to be in Galilee. More, in the prequel (gLuke), Jesus never says he will meet his disciples in Galilee. Actually, the first meeting is in Jerusalem.
So on this matter, it does not make sense Acts was 'set up' by gMatthew 28.
What makes more sense is that "Matthew" was not aware of gLuke & Acts. And "Luke" was not aware of gMatthew. All of that because of the huge differences between the resurrection reappearances in gMatthew and gLuke/Acts, among other things.

Cordially, Bernard