Bible Question: Is there an intent behind the order of the gospels? More specifically, since it is most probable that Luke also wrote Acts, why is Luke not the last book in the gospels? |
Bible Answer: I think the order of them regardless of tradition set by Clement is more or less man made. We cannot trust this tradition to be 100 percent accurate. Even the most conservative of scholars would agree. *Note that the dates of the Gospel are a debated subject among many Scholars both believing and non-believing. Many books have been writen on the subject of the Gospels. The standard dating scholars use, even the liberal ones date Mark in the 70's, Matthew and Luke in the 80's and John in the 90's. There is a problem with this though when you look at the book of Acts. Paul is the central figure and the book of Acts, Lukes second part, ends seemingly unfinished, with Paul under house arrest in Rome. It leaves you with the question: What happened to Paul? We can speculate that Acts was written before Paul was put to death around 62 A.D. Or else it would have mentioned Paul being put to death. The gospel of Luke then had to have been written sometime before 62 A.D. Now Mark is very "frank" about Peter pointing out his failures as an early follower. So many scholars don't think that it was written until sometime after Peter's death in A.D. 64. They seem to think that Mark's "frankness" would have been diminishing of Peter's character having achieved a leading place in the affection of the early church. I.E. Mk 8:27-33; Mk 9:2-7; Mk 14:27-31,33-34,37, 66-72 It could not have been written later than A.D. 70 since it makes no mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Many think that it doesn't matter one iota that he mentioned the falures of Peter while he was alive. They lived in an oral culture so it is quite likely that most believers already knew of Peter's fallures as well as the falures of the other disciples, after all, they all deserted Jesus in the garden. If Mark would not had mentioned Peter's falures, many would have when he was telling the gospel account according to Peter, especialy because it would have been written well withing the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Plus the gospel writers were not trying to cover up anything embarising, they were merely trying to proclaim the truth. With this fact, it is not hard to date it at A.D. 60 even as early as A.D. 50 since it is quite possible that Mark had been a companion of Peter for quite some time. Matthew depending on if he used Mark as a source or not, could have been written as early as Mark could have been written [A.D. 50], and no later than A.D. 70 when the fall of Jerusalem took place. An early date can be possible because the book is very Jewish in nature and quotes many of the OT prophecies of the Messiah that the Jews would have understood. Since the early church was mostly Jewish, it would make sense to place its writing so early. It couldn't have been written later than A.D. 70 because he recorded many of the warnings that Jesus gave to the Sadducees. These were the preistly families who controled the temple at the time of its destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70. John in gerneral has 2 veiws of dating it: 1. Tradition placing it toward the end of the 1st century, 85 A.D. or later. 2. More recently, some scholars say as early as 50's and no later than 70. The first veiw holds that John wrote his gospel to account for things that were not mentioned by the other Gospel writers. Again this is based on the Clemnent tradition. The second veiw holds that John wrote independently of the other Gospel writers, so he could have written it as early as A.D. 50. This also does not nescessarily contradict Clement's Statement. Just because his theology seems to be more developed does not mean anything. The theology of Romans, which was written A.D. 52[date not argued by almost all scholars] has a theology just as developed as John's. All the gospel writers wrote from a personal theological perspective. This gives evidence that neither Mathew or Luke had to have used the gospel of Mark as a source. The fact that the stories agree is mearly a coinsedence. Furthermore, the statement is made in John 5:2 that there "is" a pool "neer the Sheep Gate". He would have said there "was" a pool "neer the Sheep Gate" if he had written it after 70 A.D. since the pool would have been destroyed by the Romans. That is preety much it as far as dating goes. Scholar opinions vary and all we layman can do is let them debate and don't make a big deal over little things. Just enjoy the gospels and trust in God that they are historicaly acurate and show us what Jesus did for us dying on the cross, and lived an example for us to follow. Augustine said it best: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all thing charity[love]." Your brother in Christ, dulos |