Placement of the Gospels by the editor
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:37 am
I've been asking myself, why the Gospels were identified as they were by the editor of the NT and why they were arranged in the order that they were. I think I have an answer to this.
Firstly, why are two Gospels attributed to disciples of Jesus and two attributed to associates?
We start with the fact that Marcion's Gospel was unattributed but was linked to the Pauline letters. Luke is the direct counterpoint to Marcion's Gospel. But that Gospel and Acts of the Apostles couldn't be directly attribute to Paul, so it was instead attributed to a companion of Paul's. This is someone who could be seen as a more reliable conveyer of what "really happened according to Paul" than Marcion's unnamed Gospel. So attributing Luke to an associate of Paul was a key first step. But the goal of the NT project was to subordinate Paul, so other witnesses were needed who could precede Paul.
Direct eyewitnesses were needed. Thus two of the Gospels were attributed to disciples. Why the Gospels of Matthew and John? Matthew was in many ways the most important orthodox Gospel because it was the most coherent and fully developed response to Marcionism, and Gnosticism more generally. While Luke crudely appropriates Marcion's Gospel, Matthew is a total re-write of it that also provides commentary on how to interpret the Gospel of Mark, also included in the collection. Matthew essentially shows how to interpret Marcion's Gospel in the light of Mark. So Matthew prepares the reader for how to read Mark. Matthew is certainly the most orthodox of the Gospels.
Why was John identified as having been authored by a disciple? John is the least orthodox of the Gospels. John essentially sets the maximal boundary of Gnosticism to be allowed within the orthodoxy. John clearly contains Gnostic concepts, so by including it and attributing it to a disciple the editor was defining the outer limit of what was acceptable. And by including this semi-gnostic Gospel, the editor was enlarging the tent to accommodate the biggest possible audience.
Mark then was identified in relation to the others. Since Luke was attributed to an associate of Paul, there needed to be a Gospel similarly associated with Peter. At this point in the tradition Paul and Peter were being presented as mirror images of one another. This is seen throughout Acts and is reflected in the letters of 1 and 2 Peter, which appropriate Paulisms. The legends of Paul and Peter are developed along very similar paths, both being martyred in Rome, etc. So since we have a Gospel attributed to an associate of Paul we needed a Gospel attributed to an associate of Peter as well.
But why the arrangement? Why not put the Gospels attributed to Matthew and John first, followed by Mark and Luke? Because Mark and Luke are encompassed by Matthew and John, which was meant to indicate that though Mark and Luke were not written by disciples, they were nevertheless contemporary with the disciples. If they had been placed after John they could be considered later writings that were not valid.
We also have the fact that each pair of Gospels, the pair authored by disciples and the paid authored by associates, contain an account with a birth narrative and one without. The alteration of birth narratives helped to draw distinction away from their presence and to diminish their significance. That way the birth narratives were less likely to be seen as either legitimizing or delegitimizing attributes, ensuring that all four Gospels were given authority.
But certainly, I think attributing the last of the four Gospels to a disciple was meant to support the validity of Mark and Luke. We could be assured that Mark and Luke were early writings, produced by associates of the disciples and Paul, because they were written before John was written, as Eusebius states.
Firstly, why are two Gospels attributed to disciples of Jesus and two attributed to associates?
We start with the fact that Marcion's Gospel was unattributed but was linked to the Pauline letters. Luke is the direct counterpoint to Marcion's Gospel. But that Gospel and Acts of the Apostles couldn't be directly attribute to Paul, so it was instead attributed to a companion of Paul's. This is someone who could be seen as a more reliable conveyer of what "really happened according to Paul" than Marcion's unnamed Gospel. So attributing Luke to an associate of Paul was a key first step. But the goal of the NT project was to subordinate Paul, so other witnesses were needed who could precede Paul.
Direct eyewitnesses were needed. Thus two of the Gospels were attributed to disciples. Why the Gospels of Matthew and John? Matthew was in many ways the most important orthodox Gospel because it was the most coherent and fully developed response to Marcionism, and Gnosticism more generally. While Luke crudely appropriates Marcion's Gospel, Matthew is a total re-write of it that also provides commentary on how to interpret the Gospel of Mark, also included in the collection. Matthew essentially shows how to interpret Marcion's Gospel in the light of Mark. So Matthew prepares the reader for how to read Mark. Matthew is certainly the most orthodox of the Gospels.
Why was John identified as having been authored by a disciple? John is the least orthodox of the Gospels. John essentially sets the maximal boundary of Gnosticism to be allowed within the orthodoxy. John clearly contains Gnostic concepts, so by including it and attributing it to a disciple the editor was defining the outer limit of what was acceptable. And by including this semi-gnostic Gospel, the editor was enlarging the tent to accommodate the biggest possible audience.
Mark then was identified in relation to the others. Since Luke was attributed to an associate of Paul, there needed to be a Gospel similarly associated with Peter. At this point in the tradition Paul and Peter were being presented as mirror images of one another. This is seen throughout Acts and is reflected in the letters of 1 and 2 Peter, which appropriate Paulisms. The legends of Paul and Peter are developed along very similar paths, both being martyred in Rome, etc. So since we have a Gospel attributed to an associate of Paul we needed a Gospel attributed to an associate of Peter as well.
But why the arrangement? Why not put the Gospels attributed to Matthew and John first, followed by Mark and Luke? Because Mark and Luke are encompassed by Matthew and John, which was meant to indicate that though Mark and Luke were not written by disciples, they were nevertheless contemporary with the disciples. If they had been placed after John they could be considered later writings that were not valid.
We also have the fact that each pair of Gospels, the pair authored by disciples and the paid authored by associates, contain an account with a birth narrative and one without. The alteration of birth narratives helped to draw distinction away from their presence and to diminish their significance. That way the birth narratives were less likely to be seen as either legitimizing or delegitimizing attributes, ensuring that all four Gospels were given authority.
But certainly, I think attributing the last of the four Gospels to a disciple was meant to support the validity of Mark and Luke. We could be assured that Mark and Luke were early writings, produced by associates of the disciples and Paul, because they were written before John was written, as Eusebius states.