Canonical Arrangement and Authorship

Introduction

When you open your New Testament, the very first books you encounter are the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—followed by the Acts of the Apostles. This arrangement is not accidental. The order in which these texts appear reflects centuries of theological reflection, liturgical usage, and church tradition. But beyond their placement in the canon, each of these texts has a complex story of authorship: Who wrote them? When were they written? To whom were they addressed? These questions have been debated since the earliest days of the church, and they continue to shape how we read the Gospels and Acts today.

In this opening lesson, we will explore two major areas:

1. Canonical arrangement: Why the Gospels and Acts appear where they do in the New Testament and what that means for interpretation.

2. Authorship: How early Christian tradition and modern scholarship have understood the writers of these texts, and why questions of authorship matter for theology and history.

This foundation will help you situate the Gospels and Acts within the broader narrative of the New Testament, and prepare you for deeper engagement with their theological themes in the coming weeks.

The Canonical Arrangement of the Gospels and Acts

1. The Order of the Gospels in the Canon

The New Testament canon opens with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. At first glance, this may seem straightforward: the four stories of Jesus, told from different perspectives. Yet the decision to place them in this order is the result of tradition rather than chronology.

• Matthew comes first: In early church tradition, Matthew was often thought to be the earliest Gospel, partly because of its strong connection to Jewish Scripture and its detailed teaching material. Church Fathers such as Papias (as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39) suggested that Matthew wrote in the “Hebrew dialect,” perhaps meaning Aramaic. Because of this traditional view, Matthew was given pride of place.

• Mark follows: Although most modern scholars believe Mark was the first Gospel written (around 65–70 CE), it appears second in the canon. Its brevity and lack of extensive teaching material may have contributed to its secondary placement.

• Luke appears third: Luke, with its companion volume Acts, offers a sweeping narrative that connects Jesus’ ministry to the expansion of the church. Luke’s placement after Mark follows the logical flow of narrative expansion.

• John concludes the Gospels: John is stylistically and theologically distinct from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Its placement at the end reflects its unique character and the church’s recognition of it as a theological capstone to the life of Christ.

Thus, the canonical arrangement is more theological and pedagogical than historical. It places the most “Jewish” Gospel first (Matthew), follows with the briefer and action-oriented Mark, continues with the expansive Luke–Acts narrative, and ends with the highly reflective Gospel of John.

2. The Placement of Acts

The Acts of the Apostles follows the four Gospels, and this placement is also deliberate. Acts serves as a bridge between the story of Jesus and the letters of Paul and other apostles.

• Acts begins with the ascension of Jesus, linking it directly to the Gospels.

• It then narrates the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), setting the stage for the Pauline epistles that follow.

In canonical terms, Acts is like a hinge: it connects the life of Christ with the life of the church. Without Acts, the jump from the Gospels to Paul’s letters would be jarring; we would have no narrative framework to explain how the Jesus movement expanded beyond a small group of disciples into a global faith.

3. Theological Implications of the Arrangement

The order of the Gospels and Acts shapes how readers experience the New Testament. Consider:

• By beginning with Matthew, readers encounter Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. This primes them to see continuity between the Old and New Covenants.

• By ending the Gospels with John, readers conclude their introduction to Jesus with a deeply theological reflection on his divinity and mission.

• By placing Acts immediately after, the canon presents the church as the natural continuation of Jesus’ work.

The canonical arrangement thus subtly communicates that the story of Jesus naturally flows into the story of the church—a theological claim in itself.

Authorship of the Gospels and Acts

1. The Traditional View of Authorship

From the earliest centuries, the church attached the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to the Gospels. Acts was attributed to Luke. These attributions served several purposes:

• They gave the texts authority by linking them to apostles or their close companions.

• They provided continuity with eyewitness testimony.

• They helped distinguish the canonical Gospels from other writings (such as the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Peter).

Matthew: Traditionally attributed to the apostle Matthew, a former tax collector. Early tradition (Papias, c. 120 CE) suggested Matthew compiled the “sayings” of Jesus in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Mark: Attributed to John Mark, a companion of Peter. Papias described Mark as Peter’s interpreter, recording what he remembered of Peter’s preaching.

Luke and Acts: Attributed to Luke, the “beloved physician” (Col 4:14) and companion of Paul. Tradition holds that Luke was a Gentile and the only non-Jewish writer of the New Testament.

John: Attributed to John the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve. Early tradition (Irenaeus, c. 180 CE) strongly defended Johannine authorship.

2. Modern Scholarly Perspectives

While the traditional attributions remain influential, modern scholarship often questions or nuances them. Scholars note that the Gospels are anonymous—the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not included in the original manuscripts.

• Matthew: Many scholars argue that the Gospel was written after 70 CE, too late for Matthew himself. The author appears deeply knowledgeable of Jewish Scripture but also comfortable in a Greek-speaking context.

• Mark: Generally considered the earliest Gospel (c. 65–70 CE). While linked to Peter’s testimony, direct authorship by John Mark is debated.

• Luke–Acts: Most scholars see a highly educated Greek-speaking Christian author, well-versed in rhetoric and historiography. The connection to Luke the physician is plausible but not provable.

• John: Scholars often distinguish between the “Johannine community” and the historical John. Some argue the Gospel reflects the theology of a community shaped by John’s teaching rather than his direct hand.

In short, modern scholars affirm the historical plausibility of the traditional attributions but emphasize that the evidence is indirect.

3. Why Authorship Matters

Authorship debates are not just academic puzzles—they affect how we interpret the texts.

• Authority: If a Gospel is directly linked to an apostle, it may be seen as carrying special eyewitness weight.

• Historical context: Knowing the author’s identity can help us understand their intended audience and theological emphases. For example, Luke’s Gentile perspective (if correct) helps explain his emphasis on salvation for all.

• Theological interpretation: The anonymity of the Gospels may remind us that their authority lies not in the personality of the author but in the witness they bear to Jesus Christ.

4. A Balanced Approach

As students of Scripture, you do not need to resolve every scholarly debate about authorship. What matters is that you become aware of both the traditional claims and the modern critical discussions, and learn to weigh them responsibly.

• The church has historically received these texts as the inspired witness to Jesus.

• Scholars help us understand the historical circumstances in which they were written.

• Together, these perspectives enrich our reading.

Suggested Assignments

To reinforce your learning from this module, consider completing one or more of the following assignments. These are designed to help you engage actively with the material and prepare for the final competency exam.

1. Comparative Canon Exercise

• Task: Create a chart comparing the canonical order of the Gospels in the New Testament with alternative orders suggested by scholars (for example, putting Mark first as the earliest Gospel).

• Purpose: This exercise will help you see how different arrangements can subtly change the way we read the story of Jesus and the church.

• Deliverable: A one-page chart with a 250-word reflection explaining how the canonical order influences interpretation.

2. Authorship Debate Paper

• Task: Write a short paper (750–1000 words) arguing either for or against the traditional authorship of one Gospel of your choice.

• Guidelines:

  • Draw on at least three scholarly sources (from the reference list in this lesson or others you find).

  • Present the traditional view fairly, then engage with modern critical perspectives.

  • Conclude with your own reasoned stance.

• Purpose: This assignment strengthens your ability to interact with scholarly debates while maintaining respect for church tradition.

3. Patristic Source Analysis

• Task: Read the excerpts from Papias or Irenaeus on Gospel authorship (these can be found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History). Summarize their arguments and evaluate them in light of what you have learned about modern critical views.

• Deliverable: A 500-word summary and evaluation.

• Purpose: This assignment helps you understand how early Christian testimony has shaped the reception of the Gospels.

4. Reflective Journal Entry

• Task: Write a journal entry (500 words) reflecting on how questions of authorship affect your personal reading of the Gospels.

• Prompt: Do you find that knowing the possible authors or their communities changes how you hear the words of Jesus? Why or why not?

• Purpose: This assignment integrates academic study with personal theological reflection.

5. Group Discussion (if available)

• Task: In a group setting, discuss the question: “Does authorship matter more for history or for theology?”

• Guidelines: Each participant should prepare one argument for history and one for theology.

• Purpose: This collaborative exercise encourages you to practice critical dialogue and listen to multiple perspectives.

Conclusion

In this lesson, we have explored the canonical arrangement and authorship of the Gospels and Acts. You have seen how the placement of these books in the New Testament reflects both theological intention and historical tradition, and how questions of authorship continue to shape interpretation today.

As we move forward in the course, remember: the order and authorship of the Gospels are not incidental—they guide how generations of Christians have encountered Jesus in Scripture. Your task is to approach these texts with both reverence for their canonical role and curiosity about the historical debates that surround them.

Next, we will turn to the Synoptic Problem and Johannine distinctiveness, exploring how the similarities and differences among the Gospels reveal their unique contributions.

References

Allison, D. C. (2010). Constructing Jesus: Memory, imagination, and history. Baker Academic.

Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Eerdmans.

Brown, R. E. (1997). An introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday.

Ehrman, B. D. (2000). The New Testament: A historical introduction to the early Christian writings (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Keener, C. S. (2012). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (2nd ed.). IVP Academic.

Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A commentary on the Greek text. Eerdmans.

Stanton, G. N. (2002). The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Wright, N. T. (2012). How God became king: The forgotten story of the Gospels. HarperOne.