When it comes to the four canonical Gospels we of course know their names, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All of the orthodox claims about where these Gospels came from and who wrote them are extremely consistent, to the degree that it appears really one person came up with an explanation and everyone else is just copying what that person said.
My theory on this is that these Gospels were given names by the editor of the earliest orthodox New Testament collection, or at the very least the editor of the Four Gospel collection. This is a collection that came into the possession of Irenaeus, who is the first person to identify these four Gospels and to call them by name. It appears that all orthodox Christians worked exclusively from this four Gospel collection.
Now, it would appear that what came into the possession of Irenaeus was a collection of these four Gospels, with names already given to them, "The Gospel according to Matthew", etc.
But who were these people. The collection didn't specify who exactly these people were, it just gave their names. So how did Irenaeus identify who these figures were exactly? How did Irenaeus come up with the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John Zebedee, that Mark was a companion of Peter, that Luke was a companion of Paul, that Matthew was the tax collecting disciple?
What I think to be the case is that whoever assigned the names to these Gospels was working from names that were indeed already associated with at least most of these writings. In other words these Gospels were individually associated with the names that they were given in the collection. But, they weren't necessarily who Irenaeus claimed them to be.
The most obvious case is the Gospel of John. Orthodox Christians tell us that the Gospel of John was written by John Zebedee, a disciple of Jesus. But I seriously doubt that was the original association of the name.
The "Gospel of John" talks about John the Baptist more than any other Gospel. In fact, John is sort of the co-star of the Gospel, right behind Jesus. John 1 tells us:
We are told at the very opening of the writing that "John was sent by God to testify so that all might believe through him", but this isn't John Zebedee, this is John the Baptist. And in this Gospel, John is never arrested and he repeatedly shows up to offer testimony and narration.
At the same time, "John Zebedee" doesn't even appear in the Gospel AT ALL! That is until John 21, which everyone knows was added by the editor of the four Gospel collection.
So here we have this Gospel that gives John the Baptist the biggest starring role of any Gospel, and we are told that this Gospel is the "testimony of John so that others may believe," yet we're supposed to believe that this Gospel was called "the Gospel of John" because it was associated with some other John who isn't even mentioned in the whole damned thing? Nonsense.
No, this was the "Gospel of John the Baptist", not the Gospel of "John Zebedee". Irenaeus and orthodox Christians just invented the association of this Gospel to John Zebedee in order to fulfill their desire to have Gospels associated with apostles, of which John the Baptist was not.
So that's one. Now what about the Gospel of Mark? The names Luke and Mark both appear in the Pauline writings:
Acts makes the following statement about Mark:
Here is my theory regarding Mark, yes this is a bit elaborate, but there are good reasons for it.
It is now increasingly recognized that the writer of the "Gospel of Mark" knew and made use of the Pauline letter collection. In the Gospel of Mark references to all of the letters in Marcion's collection can be found, except Philemon. So it must be that the Gospel of Mark was originally produced in association with the Pauline letter collection and was at some point part of a collection that included the Pauline letters, much like Marcion's collection. It also "happens" to be the case that there are number of very distinct parallels between the first person passages in Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Mark. My contention is that at one point much of what we call the Gospel of Mark was part of a larger story that included material now found in Acts.
The reason that the first verse of Mark says, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" is because someone identified this writing as "the beginning" of a longer story when they extracted the part we know as Mark from the longer account, which included the revelation of Jesus to Paul and an account of Paul's ministry. So the ending of Mark very likely would have been followed by an account of Paul "persecuting" the "assembly of God" and then being sent to Damascus, where along the way in Galilee Jesus was revealed to him.
The first person parts now found in Acts of the Apostles very likely come from this original account of Paul's ministry, which was originally attributed to Mark. In the original story Mark was a traveling companion of Paul, but when the orthodox writer appropriated the material, they manufactured the split between Mark and Paul that is now found in Acts 15. Originally, the account of Paul's ministry was supposed to have been narrated by Mark. And it was this Mark to which the "Gospel of Mark" was attributed.
In the original story, the account of the disciples is a polemic against Peter and the other disciples, which sets the stage for the revelation of Jesus to Paul. The account of Jesus's ministry is attributed to Mark, the traveling companion of Paul, who gives a "first hand" account of Paul's ministry and thus is taken to relay Paul's "knowledge"/"gnosis" of the ministry of Jesus.
Now, obviously such a story would never be an account from an associate of Peter's. The whole story was meant to throw Peter under the bus and demonstrate that Paul was the only valid apostle!
But Irenaeus, who is the first person to tell us about this collection of Four Gospels, don't know any of this back story. What Irenaeus knows is that he saw something in the writings of Justin Martyr that seems to indicate the Gospel of Mark was written by a companion of Peter's:
This is a confusing statement, that can be taken to mean that the changing of the names to "Boanerges" was recorded in the "memoirs of Peter". And Irenaeus, trying to figure out who "Mark" is, pounces on this statement and concludes that what he has in his hands are the "memoirs of Peter", but they are attributed to someone called "Mark", not Peter, so he concludes that Mark must have been the scribe of Peter, who recorded "the memoirs of him". However, I don't think Justin meant the "memoirs of Peter". I think what Justin intended to say was, "He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Jesus..."
But again, Irenaeus was desperate to come up with an explanation for who Mark was that complied with his concept of what the Four Gospel collection must be, so "companion of Peter" was a good enough explanation.
Now, this must be what happened, and everyone else took what Irenaeus said as the truth.
What's clear is this: The original ten Pauline letter collection was used by the writer of the Gospel of Mark. As such, this Gospel must have originally been part of a collection that included the Pauline letters. There is no reason why anyone would think that the Gospel would have originally been associated with Peter of all people, especially given that Mark was a known named companion of Paul's. The association of the Gospel of Mark with Peter has to have occurred only when the Gospel was included in the four Gospel collection and an association to the original apostles was desired. It couldn't have been associated with Peter independently.
The Gospel of Luke was of course associated with Paul as well, and this association was retained given the context. There was no reason to change this one.
The Gospel of Matthew is the most recent of them all. That Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is total nonsense. Instead, Matthew was likely translated into Hebrew, or there was a Gospel in Hebrew that merely resembled Matthew in some way, and from this was born the claim that Matthew was the oldest Gospel, written by an original disciple, and written in Hebrew. Of course Matthew was originally written in Greek. Perhaps there was a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel attributed to Matthew, and the naming of the Aramaic one led to the naming of the Greek one. I don't know why the Aramaic one was attributed to Matthew, but whatever the case, canonical Matthew is not a translation of an originally Aramaic Gospel, but the naming of it as such was an attempt to make this association, which Irenaeus gladly endorsed.
So in sum, the "Gospel of John" was originally given this name because it was the Gospel of the testimony of John the Baptist, not because it was associated with "John Zebedee". The Gospel of Mark was of course the first Gospel and would have been part of a collection that included the Pauline letters and an account of Paul's ministry. It would have been recognized by its earliest readers as a polemic against the other apostles, most specifically against Peter. The associations of these Gospels with "John Zebedee" and "Mark companion of Peter" must have only happened once they were included in the Four Gospel collection, in order to provide acceptable explanations of where they came from that could be considered credible from the perspective of "apostolic succession".
My theory on this is that these Gospels were given names by the editor of the earliest orthodox New Testament collection, or at the very least the editor of the Four Gospel collection. This is a collection that came into the possession of Irenaeus, who is the first person to identify these four Gospels and to call them by name. It appears that all orthodox Christians worked exclusively from this four Gospel collection.
Now, it would appear that what came into the possession of Irenaeus was a collection of these four Gospels, with names already given to them, "The Gospel according to Matthew", etc.
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (emphasis mine)
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book III Chapter 1 ~180 CE
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book III Chapter 1 ~180 CE
But who were these people. The collection didn't specify who exactly these people were, it just gave their names. So how did Irenaeus identify who these figures were exactly? How did Irenaeus come up with the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John Zebedee, that Mark was a companion of Peter, that Luke was a companion of Paul, that Matthew was the tax collecting disciple?
What I think to be the case is that whoever assigned the names to these Gospels was working from names that were indeed already associated with at least most of these writings. In other words these Gospels were individually associated with the names that they were given in the collection. But, they weren't necessarily who Irenaeus claimed them to be.
The most obvious case is the Gospel of John. Orthodox Christians tell us that the Gospel of John was written by John Zebedee, a disciple of Jesus. But I seriously doubt that was the original association of the name.
The "Gospel of John" talks about John the Baptist more than any other Gospel. In fact, John is sort of the co-star of the Gospel, right behind Jesus. John 1 tells us:
6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
...
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
...
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
We are told at the very opening of the writing that "John was sent by God to testify so that all might believe through him", but this isn't John Zebedee, this is John the Baptist. And in this Gospel, John is never arrested and he repeatedly shows up to offer testimony and narration.
At the same time, "John Zebedee" doesn't even appear in the Gospel AT ALL! That is until John 21, which everyone knows was added by the editor of the four Gospel collection.
So here we have this Gospel that gives John the Baptist the biggest starring role of any Gospel, and we are told that this Gospel is the "testimony of John so that others may believe," yet we're supposed to believe that this Gospel was called "the Gospel of John" because it was associated with some other John who isn't even mentioned in the whole damned thing? Nonsense.
No, this was the "Gospel of John the Baptist", not the Gospel of "John Zebedee". Irenaeus and orthodox Christians just invented the association of this Gospel to John Zebedee in order to fulfill their desire to have Gospels associated with apostles, of which John the Baptist was not.
So that's one. Now what about the Gospel of Mark? The names Luke and Mark both appear in the Pauline writings:
Colossians 4:10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him);
...
Philemon 23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, 24 as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers.
...
Philemon 23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, 24 as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers.
Acts makes the following statement about Mark:
Acts 15:37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. 38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
Here is my theory regarding Mark, yes this is a bit elaborate, but there are good reasons for it.
It is now increasingly recognized that the writer of the "Gospel of Mark" knew and made use of the Pauline letter collection. In the Gospel of Mark references to all of the letters in Marcion's collection can be found, except Philemon. So it must be that the Gospel of Mark was originally produced in association with the Pauline letter collection and was at some point part of a collection that included the Pauline letters, much like Marcion's collection. It also "happens" to be the case that there are number of very distinct parallels between the first person passages in Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Mark. My contention is that at one point much of what we call the Gospel of Mark was part of a larger story that included material now found in Acts.
The reason that the first verse of Mark says, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" is because someone identified this writing as "the beginning" of a longer story when they extracted the part we know as Mark from the longer account, which included the revelation of Jesus to Paul and an account of Paul's ministry. So the ending of Mark very likely would have been followed by an account of Paul "persecuting" the "assembly of God" and then being sent to Damascus, where along the way in Galilee Jesus was revealed to him.
The first person parts now found in Acts of the Apostles very likely come from this original account of Paul's ministry, which was originally attributed to Mark. In the original story Mark was a traveling companion of Paul, but when the orthodox writer appropriated the material, they manufactured the split between Mark and Paul that is now found in Acts 15. Originally, the account of Paul's ministry was supposed to have been narrated by Mark. And it was this Mark to which the "Gospel of Mark" was attributed.
In the original story, the account of the disciples is a polemic against Peter and the other disciples, which sets the stage for the revelation of Jesus to Paul. The account of Jesus's ministry is attributed to Mark, the traveling companion of Paul, who gives a "first hand" account of Paul's ministry and thus is taken to relay Paul's "knowledge"/"gnosis" of the ministry of Jesus.
Now, obviously such a story would never be an account from an associate of Peter's. The whole story was meant to throw Peter under the bus and demonstrate that Paul was the only valid apostle!
But Irenaeus, who is the first person to tell us about this collection of Four Gospels, don't know any of this back story. What Irenaeus knows is that he saw something in the writings of Justin Martyr that seems to indicate the Gospel of Mark was written by a companion of Peter's:
And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder
This is a confusing statement, that can be taken to mean that the changing of the names to "Boanerges" was recorded in the "memoirs of Peter". And Irenaeus, trying to figure out who "Mark" is, pounces on this statement and concludes that what he has in his hands are the "memoirs of Peter", but they are attributed to someone called "Mark", not Peter, so he concludes that Mark must have been the scribe of Peter, who recorded "the memoirs of him". However, I don't think Justin meant the "memoirs of Peter". I think what Justin intended to say was, "He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Jesus..."
But again, Irenaeus was desperate to come up with an explanation for who Mark was that complied with his concept of what the Four Gospel collection must be, so "companion of Peter" was a good enough explanation.
Now, this must be what happened, and everyone else took what Irenaeus said as the truth.
What's clear is this: The original ten Pauline letter collection was used by the writer of the Gospel of Mark. As such, this Gospel must have originally been part of a collection that included the Pauline letters. There is no reason why anyone would think that the Gospel would have originally been associated with Peter of all people, especially given that Mark was a known named companion of Paul's. The association of the Gospel of Mark with Peter has to have occurred only when the Gospel was included in the four Gospel collection and an association to the original apostles was desired. It couldn't have been associated with Peter independently.
The Gospel of Luke was of course associated with Paul as well, and this association was retained given the context. There was no reason to change this one.
The Gospel of Matthew is the most recent of them all. That Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is total nonsense. Instead, Matthew was likely translated into Hebrew, or there was a Gospel in Hebrew that merely resembled Matthew in some way, and from this was born the claim that Matthew was the oldest Gospel, written by an original disciple, and written in Hebrew. Of course Matthew was originally written in Greek. Perhaps there was a Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel attributed to Matthew, and the naming of the Aramaic one led to the naming of the Greek one. I don't know why the Aramaic one was attributed to Matthew, but whatever the case, canonical Matthew is not a translation of an originally Aramaic Gospel, but the naming of it as such was an attempt to make this association, which Irenaeus gladly endorsed.
So in sum, the "Gospel of John" was originally given this name because it was the Gospel of the testimony of John the Baptist, not because it was associated with "John Zebedee". The Gospel of Mark was of course the first Gospel and would have been part of a collection that included the Pauline letters and an account of Paul's ministry. It would have been recognized by its earliest readers as a polemic against the other apostles, most specifically against Peter. The associations of these Gospels with "John Zebedee" and "Mark companion of Peter" must have only happened once they were included in the Four Gospel collection, in order to provide acceptable explanations of where they came from that could be considered credible from the perspective of "apostolic succession".
Statistics: Posted by rgprice — Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:03 pm