T
twinc
Guest
Should the gospel priority be as it now is in our Bibles or should it be Matthew,Luke,Mark,John - before answering have a gander at www.churchinhistory.org - twinc
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
We don’t need to have a gander at anything.
The Matthew, Mark, Luke and John order is fine.
0
06convert
Guest
I trust the authority of the Church to have the order correct. I’m not going to accept some guys “hunch” on what the order should be.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The order of the Gospels in the Bible has nothing to do with the generally accepted dates of their writing nor which Gospels where used in assistance with what to write a given Gospel.
Today, many biblical scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was first and that Luke and Matthew used it also with a lost manuscript (that is generally called Q) two write theirs.
Non of this is anti-catholic in any way nor does it effect the “priority” at all as all the Gospels are just that, they are the Gospels.
Today, many biblical scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was first and that Luke and Matthew used it also with a lost manuscript (that is generally called Q) two write theirs.
Non of this is anti-catholic in any way nor does it effect the “priority” at all as all the Gospels are just that, they are the Gospels.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Amen to that!
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Its not just a hunch and I am not aware that the ordering of the Books of the Bible being a dogmatic or infallible statement anyways.
It hurts nothing.
P
patrick457
Guest
For one thing, the present order of the four gospels (Matthew-Mark-Luke-John) was originally the order tended to be used by Greek writers and churches in the eastern Mediterranean, first appearing in the Muratorian Canon (ca. AD 170 at the earliest). This is the order followed by nearly all Greek and Syriac manuscripts, as well as all 4th-century catalogues of the New Testament produced in the East, save one.
The order more often in use among western Mediterranean churches and writers (it appears frequently in pre-Vulgate old Latin translations) in the earliest centuries, meanwhile, gives priority over the two apostles, followed by the two associates in order of length: Matthew-John-Luke-Mark. St. Irenaeus is the notable exception in that while he lists all four gospels in various ways (once even using the eastern order), he never uses the traditional western order. He stands out because no western writer would use the eastern order for another 200 years.
Of course, there are also other minor variants. There are a few western sources which put John first, such as the order John-Luke-Mark-Matthew or John-Luke-Matthew-Mark (cf. Tertullian’s ordering: John-Matthew-Luke-Mark/John-Matthew-Mark-Luke; cf. Adv. Marc. 4.2; 4.5). The latter is also one of the orderings used by St. Irenaeus.
One eastern source, the Curetonian Old Syriac, is exceptional in that it switches the places of John and Luke: Matthew-Mark-John-Luke.
It was actually only around the time when St. Jerome produced the Vulgate in the 4th-5th century that the eastern order gradually became the standard for all the ‘holy churches of God’; St. Augustine and Rufinus already use this ordering.
But if you’ll ask me, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the ordering of the Gospels as they are today (the eastern order). It’s not like it was broken or anything…
The order more often in use among western Mediterranean churches and writers (it appears frequently in pre-Vulgate old Latin translations) in the earliest centuries, meanwhile, gives priority over the two apostles, followed by the two associates in order of length: Matthew-John-Luke-Mark. St. Irenaeus is the notable exception in that while he lists all four gospels in various ways (once even using the eastern order), he never uses the traditional western order. He stands out because no western writer would use the eastern order for another 200 years.
Of course, there are also other minor variants. There are a few western sources which put John first, such as the order John-Luke-Mark-Matthew or John-Luke-Matthew-Mark (cf. Tertullian’s ordering: John-Matthew-Luke-Mark/John-Matthew-Mark-Luke; cf. Adv. Marc. 4.2; 4.5). The latter is also one of the orderings used by St. Irenaeus.
One eastern source, the Curetonian Old Syriac, is exceptional in that it switches the places of John and Luke: Matthew-Mark-John-Luke.
It was actually only around the time when St. Jerome produced the Vulgate in the 4th-5th century that the eastern order gradually became the standard for all the ‘holy churches of God’; St. Augustine and Rufinus already use this ordering.
But if you’ll ask me, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the ordering of the Gospels as they are today (the eastern order). It’s not like it was broken or anything…
P
patrick457
Guest
For the sake of completion, let’s list all the possible major theories proposed by other scholars
:Augustinian Hypothesis: The traditional view, it proposes that Matthew wrote first, followed by Mark who abbreviated Matthew, followed by Luke who used the two gospels. This theory was named after St. Augustine, the first author to give a detailed scholarly textual analysis of the three texts’ interdependence, and to articulate a theory for the express purpose of explaining this fact.
Two-source Hypothesis: This is the theory you posted about. This hypothesis holds that Mark wrote first, and that the Matthew and the Luke were based on Mark and Q. This was first articulated in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse, but it did not gain wide acceptance among German critics until Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed it in 1863. The Two-Source Hypothesis crossed the channel into England in the 1880s primarily due to the efforts of William Sanday, culminating in Burnet Hillman Streeter’s definitive statement of the case. Streeter later proposed two more additional sources, which led to the development of the Four Document Hypothesis, summarized below.
Four Document Hypothesis: Posits that there were at least four sources to the Matthew and Luke: Mark, Q, as well as two other sources dubbed M and L. In addition to Mark and the Antiochian Q, the author of the canonical Matthew made use of M, which has a Judaistic character (explaining the rather Jewish tone of Matthew).
The gospel of Luke, meanwhile, developed in two phases. Proto-Luke was originally derived from Q and L (L is here connected with Caesarea). In addition to proto-Luke, canonical Luke made use of material from Mark. The 4DH was first proposed in 1924 by Streeter in an attempt to refine the Two Document Hypothesis based on the possibility of a Jewish M source (sometimes identified as the elusive Gospel of the Hebrews).
Griesbach-Farmer Hypothesis: Theorizes that Matthew wrote first, followed by Luke who made use of Matthew’s material, with Mark at the last, producing a abdriged version of Matthew and Luke. By the 18th century the problems with the Augustinian Hypothesis led textual critic Johann Jakob Griesbach to put forward this theory. This hypothesis first caught on among German Protestant Biblical scholars before the advent of the 2HS (Catholic scholars of that period tended to favor the Augustinian Hypothesis). Griesbach’s theory was revived and revised in 1965 by an American scholar, William R. Farmer. Twinc’s proposed ordering of the Gospels follows the Griesbach-Farmer scenario.
Farrer Hypothesis: Thinks that Mark wrote first, followed by Matthew who expanded Mark, followed by Luke who made use of Mark and Matthew. This theory was developed in 1955 by a British scholar, A. M. Farrer, who thought that one could dispense with the lost, hypothetical document/collection called Q.Q by arguing that Luke revised both Mark and Matthew. Just as the Griesbach-Farmer scenario is the chief rival of the Two-source Hypothesis among American scholars who do not hold the Two-source Hypothesis, this theory is currently more popular among British opponents of the 2HS.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yes, thank you for this.For the sake of completion, let’s list all the possible major theories proposed by other scholars
Augustinian Hypothesis: The traditional view, it proposes that Matthew wrote first, followed by Mark who abbreviated Matthew, followed by Luke who used the two gospels. This theory was named after St. Augustine, the first author to give a detailed scholarly textual analysis of the three texts’ interdependence, and to articulate a theory for the express purpose of explaining this fact.
Two-source Hypothesis: This is the theory you posted about. This hypothesis holds that Mark wrote first, and that the Matthew and the Luke were based on Mark and Q. This was first articulated in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse, but it did not gain wide acceptance among German critics until Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed it in 1863. The Two-Source Hypothesis crossed the channel into England in the 1880s primarily due to the efforts of William Sanday, culminating in Burnet Hillman Streeter’s definitive statement of the case. Streeter later proposed two more additional sources, which led to the development of the Four Document Hypothesis, summarized below.
Four Document Hypothesis: Posits that there were at least four sources to the Matthew and Luke: Mark, Q, as well as two other sources dubbed M and L. In addition to Mark and the Antiochian Q, the author of the canonical Matthew made use of M, which has a Judaistic character (explaining the rather Jewish tone of Matthew).
The gospel of Luke, meanwhile, developed in two phases. Proto-Luke was originally derived from Q and L (L is here connected with Caesarea). In addition to proto-Luke, canonical Luke made use of material from Mark. The 4DH was first proposed in 1924 by Streeter in an attempt to refine the Two Document Hypothesis based on the possibility of a Jewish M source (sometimes identified as the elusive Gospel of the Hebrews).
Griesbach-Farmer Hypothesis: Theorizes that Matthew wrote first, followed by Luke who made use of Matthew’s material, with Mark at the last, producing a abdriged version of Matthew and Luke. By the 18th century the problems with the Augustinian Hypothesis led textual critic Johann Jakob Griesbach to put forward this theory. This hypothesis first caught on among German Protestant Biblical scholars before the advent of the 2HS (Catholic scholars of that period tended to favor the Augustinian Hypothesis). Griesbach’s theory was revived and revised in 1965 by an American scholar, William R. Farmer. Twinc’s proposed ordering of the Gospels follows the Griesbach-Farmer scenario.
Farrer Hypothesis: Thinks that Mark wrote first, followed by Matthew who expanded Mark, followed by Luke who made use of Mark and Matthew. This theory was developed in 1955 by a British scholar, A. M. Farrer, who thought that one could dispense with the lost, hypothetical document/collection called Q.Q by arguing that Luke revised both Mark and Matthew. Just as the Griesbach-Farmer scenario is the chief rival of the Two-source Hypothesis among American scholars who do not hold the Two-source Hypothesis, this theory is currently more popular among British opponents of the 2HS.
The point that the order the Gospels appear in the Bible really says nothing about when they were written. This can be seen when one looks to the other New Testament books. The Epistles of St Paul are not place in strict Chronological order and I believe the same goes with the Prophets in the Old Testament.
P
patrick457
Guest
You’re correct about that. Heck, most of the books of the Bible are not in historical order (i.e. the order the events occured + the order in which the books were written)!
- Status