Only the gospel of John says John was ‘the disciple Jesus loved’–and refers to him in the third person.  No other early source mentions any special affection between Jesus and John the apostle. 

I don’t like the author of John very much (though I can acknowledge he was a powerful writer), but I don’t think he’d refer to himself that way, and the gospel would hardly have survived if he had, since that would make him seem unbearably smug.  The first readers of that gospel would know it wasn’t written by the disciple referred to in it.  Who really believes Moses wrote the Torah?  People who have a faith-based reason to do so.  But there’s absolutely no evidence to that effect.  Meaning that there was a tradition in Jewish religious writing to attribute important books whose authorship was unknown to famous names in that tradition. 

None of the gospels read like eyewitness accounts, and I don’t believe any of them are.  I don’t know how much is earlier written sources, how much is oral history taken from eyewitnesses (or people who knew people who said they were eyewitnesses), and how much is literary license on the part of the anonymous authors. 

We have no solid information to tell us any of these people had the necessary skills to compose an entire book–let alone something as powerful and enduring as any of the four surviving gospels.  They had a lot of other things to do.  A handful of early Christians did have the skills, and other than Paul (who only wrote letters, far as we know), we don’t know any of their names with certainty.   

Resolved: The ordering of the stories is arbitrary, based on the whims of the author, and has nothing to do with who wrote first.  Technically, none of them did.  There were written accounts before any of them that we no longer have.  The synoptic writers and John were all editing and rearranging earlier accounts, as well as (probably) making some original contributions of their own.

There was a general common knowledge among Christians of what had happened (which is why Paul is so unsatisfying a source–he just assumes the recipients of his missives know the story backwards and forwards).  Far from complete, and from from objective, but it was there.  So there’s no reason to think any of the gospels would have been accepted if they veered too far away from the general understanding of Jesus. 

But who the heck cared about chronology?  There’d be no clear general consensus about that.  Nobody had a timeline to refer to. 

I have seen nothing approaching argument that makes me believe the ordering of stories has anything much to do with which gospel was written first.  I think some people choose to believe that because they think it helps them prove somebody other than Mark wrote first.  It doesn’t.  The scholarly consensus stands, and will continue standing, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, short of finding the original copies, with copyright dates on them.  😉

Steefen said
Notes on the video above

Matthean Priority rests on Papias of Hieropolis who thought the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic and was later translated into Greek.

Peter supposedly told Mark biographical elements of Jesus Christ with no detailed attention to chronology.

Peter was the ultimate source of Mark’s Gospel.

St. Augustine of Hippo, in Harmony of the Gospels, 1.3, puts the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. In Harmony, 1.4, Augustine says Mark did not write his gospel independently but Mark follows Matthew. Mark was an abbreviated gospel of Matthew.  

This kind of assertion generally falls to pieces when subjected to serious scholarly attention. Early Christians had a lot of false ideas about the origins of their faith, which makes perfect sense, when you consider how scattered and poorly organized they were, and so few of them even able to write their recollections down. 

What Augustine wrote in the 5th century is neither here nor there.  He doesn’t even properly count as an early Christian writer. 

Does this forum have a no-spamming rule? 

No, but it was fun.  Which posting endless videos from dubious sources, instead of your own opinions, isn’t.  Now and again, fine.  But links to articles from reputable scholars would be a lot more helpful.  

In my experience, videos of this type are usually not very reliable.  They are meant to convince people who haven’t seriously studied the subject at hand.  And I don’t just mean the subject of Ancient Christianity.  

All they really prove is that somebody figured out how YouTube works.  (Which I never have, so put it down to jealousy, if you like.)

At the very least, summarize what the video says, and why you agree with its conclusions.  Otherwise you’re not contributing anything either.  We all have Google.  We can find videos ourselves if we want to.  

Steefen said
brencmg and all, Why Would the Writing of the Gospels Not Start with Paul’s friend, Luke?
Scholars say the gospel of Mark came first.

brencmg says the gospel of Matthew came first.

While Paul is writing up a storm of letters, why wouldn’t his friend Luke be the first to write a gospel?

brencmg, why couldn’t Mark work from Luke as easily as he supposedly worked from matthew, according to you?

Egocentrically, Paul thinks his extrapolations on Jesus are more important than Jesus himself, since he puts his thoughts first and before Jesus’ biography.

Yea, Peter was Jesus’ rock, so his friend Mark should have found out Paul was writing letters and so Peter and Mark could have said between the two of them, before the Gentile interpretation gets too far out of hand, let’s get the facts down first before Paul CORRUPTS the whole kernel.  

A few of Luke’s pericope re-orderings make sense if we assume he’s copying Matthew. None of Matthew’s re-ordering would make sense if we assume he’s copying Luke. Eg Luke move’s the introduction of the 12 disciples, and especially Matthew, to before the sermon on the plain.

Luke choice of sermon on the “plain” seems like a response to Matthew’s sermon on the mount. In Matthew’s account Jesus moves up the mountain side and his disciples join him. There is some ambiguity here about whether Jesus gives the sermon to th disciples or the crowd. Luke clear’s this up by having Jesus name the 12 on the mountain before moving down to the plain to give the sermon to the crowd.

Luke moves the story of Jesus healing Simon’s mother in law to before their first meeting on the shore of Galilee, as per Matthew/Mark, but without any introductory phrasing for the character of Simon. Virtually by itself establishing Luke is editing either Mark or Matthew.

In Matthew the temptations of Christ increase in value each time. Offered Bread – Offered protection from harm – Offered dominion of the whole world; clearly the original form. Luke edits the order; Bread – Dominion of whole world – protection from harm.

Matthew is more Jewish centred, Luke more Gentile. Luke removes the line “go only to the lost sheep of Israel”. Unthinkable if the order Matthew/Luke is reversed.

The role of Jesus’s earthly father Joseph clearly diminishes through the synoptics. In Matthew Joseph is the protector of the infant Jesus and his mother and it is the Joseph that God communicates with through an angel. Luke has the angel talk only to Mary and Joseph role is as a mere fiance of Mary. Mark removes Joseph entirely from the story. The pattern here is Matthew -> Luke -> Mark.

In Matthew 22 / Mark 12 it is essential that “Who’s son is the Messiah?” where psalm 110 is quoted is preceded by an identification of the Lord and God. This is achieved by the fact that both are preceded by “The greatest commandment”. (the Lord you God).

Luke however has moved “The greatest commandment” to a different chapter, meaning “Who’s son is the Messiah?” is now preceded by “Marriage at the resurrection” and the connection of Lord and God has been lost. Luke therefor adds in “Lord” to 20:37 to reestablish the connection. A word not occurring in Matthew/Mark and demonstrating Luke is editing one of them.

Matthew 26:64 “But I say to all of you: From

now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” is a prediction that doesnt come true. Luke and Mark amend this line to cover up the incorrect prediction.

Luke 22:69 “But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God”

Mark 14:62 “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven”

Luke’s editing of Matthew often weaken the text or display a lack of understanding

eg compare Matthew 24:27-28 against Luke’s 17:24 and 17:27