Help! Words/Miracles of Jesus - literally true?

[vern_humphrey]

Simlarly I was taught that the original gospel was Mark, that Luke and Matthew relied heavily on Mark.

I was also told that St Clement was St Peters scribe, that he scribed for Peter in 1 Peter but that he actually wrote 2 Peter based on what the apostle taught him.

Writing in those days was a profession and even people who could write often used scribes – read the epistles of Paul and note that he did not personally write them – his scribe or amaneusis introduces himself on occasion, and on occasion Paul remarks that he has written part of an epistle in his own hand.

Mark was certainly closely associated with Peter, and many feel the Gospel of Mark might as well be called the Gospel of Peter.

It was not uncommon for a follower to write what his master taught, and attribute it to the master – much in the line of modern “as told to” books.

I was also told that some Acts were written by Luke

I have no idea if that is right.

All of Acts was written by Luke. Note verse 1,1, “In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all Jesus did and taught.” Compare that with Luke, 1,3, “I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus.”

 

[John_Hiner]

I had a good catholic education and I was taught that not everything in the gospels is true or attributable to the Lord.

I was told what texts were considered by the Church as untrue but I cannot remember them now. I know for certain that ‘Jesus walking on water’ was taught as a metaphor, that it did not in reality happen.

Dear Sixtus:

I am relatively new to these boards and we have not met before. I do not wish to be confrontational, if that is offensive to you. However, if you are willing to respond to a few questions, I would appreciate learning how you think about this.

I have just reviewed several versions of the accounts of Jesus walking on the sea, Matthew 14:23-34, and Mark 6:45-53, in several translations. It occurs to me that, if this is a mere metaphor, then it is an extremely jaded one. The story is about men seeing something that they assume to be an apparition, because it contradicts their understanding of how things work. They are reassured by testing that it is the real Jesus. In the story the measure of faith is depicted as the disciples’ willingness to believe the miraculous.

For this to be fictional and inserted with no indication that it is a parable seems to me to be very cynical on the author’s part. It seems a high form of irony to criticize disciples for not believing the unbelievable, in a context which dupes intended disciples into believing an miraculous thing which is not true.

Does this not seem so to you? If it does, then what line of thought leads you to accept the notion that it is not an accurate and historical account of what “Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did”? (Cf., Dei Verbum, 19.)

The Gospels contain many passages where parables are used to describe important aspects of the Kingdom and of the Faith. These are introduced, however, in ways that make it clear that they are parables rather than historical events. Why is it credible that the author of this “parable of Jesus walking on the sea” would treat it differently?

I am interested in what evidence or line of reasoning makes disbelieving the story more reasonable or acceptable than rejecting your “teacher’s” claim that it is fictional.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If you believe that the infinite God became man in the person of Jesus and rose from the dead–why is believing in Him doing miracles so hard to understand?

 

[Church_Militant]

Apologetics 101-07

Q: A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn’t…is that true?

A: Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending

to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation.

 

[Freebird]

dublingirl:

Have you read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel?
I’m currently reading it, and the first 3 chapters or so explore the reliability/accuracy, ect., of the Gospels. It might be helpful.

 

[drafdog]

Re literal vs. literalist
The truth of sacred scripture is not in the details of the stories that are told but in the lessons that the stories teach us.
Re the authorship question
The gospels were probably not written by the authors attributed to them but they are most probably documents based on the actual teaching of the persons in question. One scripture scholar put it that the gospels were written for specific communities founded by the evangelists and addressed problems and issues facing those particular communities.
Written (or dictated) by but edited (cleaned up for syntax, grammar, etc.) by others? Take your pick. In the end it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the teaching about the Christ.

Matthew

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you believe that the infinite God became man in the person of Jesus and rose from the dead–why is believing in Him doing miracles so hard to understand?

But if you don’t believe the infinite God became man, then naturally you seek to explain the miracles never happened.

I think we’ve solved this mystery.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Here’s the problem with the “Q” document theory:

The Theory:

1. The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have virtually identical passages, which indicates some of the writers copied from the others.
2. The Gospel of Mark is shorter than Matthew and Luke, and its Greek is cruder. This leads to a suspicion it was earlier than Matthew and Luke.

The Problem:

There are passages in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, that are indentical.

The Solution:

Matthew and Luke must have had some other document that they copied from. This document is called the “Source” (the German word “Quelle,” or “source” led to it being called the Q document.)

The Problem with the Solution:

There is no Q document. The original proponents of the theory were never able to identify such a document, and no ancient writer mentions any document that might fill the role of the Q document.

The Q document was invented to make the Mark-first theory work. It therefore violates Ockham’s Razor (“Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” or “Don’t invent things. Go with the simplest solution.”)

Dear Vern,
Please do not make straw men to burn.
I have already explained why there is no singular ‘Q’ document.
I have though posulated the existance of a plethora of notelets, such as would be made by a travelling scribe.
The aphorisms recorded in the imaginary ‘Q’ singular gospel, are all about 800 characters, (2 x 20 lines of 20 characters), of Roman text, or multiples of. This is in good accord with the capacity of a Roman tablet, the main tool kit of a tax adminitrator.
This makes the collection of notelets, which became seen as ‘Q’, most likely the work of Matthew, otherwise Levi.
That Luke treats ‘Q’ with more respect than does Matthew, reinforces the conjecture, as to Luke, the work was inspired, whereas to Matthew, they were just his rough notes, to be amplified and edited as he saw fit.
After Matthew had finished his Gospel, then the rough notes would have been discarded, only a few circulating pamphlets would remain, and after AD200, when the Gospel canon was finalised, thet would have been seen as of little interest, cleaned, and re-used.

The simplest solution is that Matthew wrote first. Mark (or Peter) had access to Matthew’s work, and Mark used that for his Gospel. And Luke, as we know, said he used earlier writings to compile his Gospel.

If you look at Mark’s work, it seems that the whole ministry is telescoped into a single year. This looks to me that Mark was not writing a history, but rather compiling a litugical calendar, wherein all the events are remembered at the appropriate time of year, in a cycle of a single year.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dear Vern,
Please do not make straw men to burn.
I have already explained why there is no singular ‘Q’ document.
I have though posulated the existance of a plethora of notelets, such as would be made by a travelling scribe.
The aphorisms recorded in the imaginary ‘Q’ singular gospel, are all about 800 characters, (2 x 20 lines of 20 characters), of Roman text, or multiples of. This is in good accord with the capacity of a Roman tablet, the main tool kit of a tax adminitrator.

And this is different from the “Q” document, how?

To be used as a source, the “notelets” would have to be collected into one place, and perhaps transcribed (if they were used by multiple authors.)

But we have never found even one of these “notelets” nor does any ancient writer mention a collection of “notelets.”

Like the original “Q” document, the notelets are invented,
This makes the collection of notelets, which became seen as ‘Q’, most likely the work of Matthew, otherwise Levi.
That Luke treats ‘Q’ with more respect than does Matthew, reinforces the conjecture,

Where does Luke even mention “Q” or “notelets?”

as to Luke, the work was inspired, whereas to Matthew, they were just his rough notes, to be amplified and edited as he saw fit.

And where are these notes? Which ancient writer saw them, heard of them, or knew of their existance?

After Matthew had finished his Gospel, then the rough notes would have been discarded, only a few circulating pamphlets would remain, and after AD200, when the Gospel canon was finalised, thet would have been seen as of little interest, cleaned, and re-used.

Where are these “circulating pamphlets?” Why does no ancient writer remark on them?

They are invented, just like the original “Q” document.

If you look at Mark’s work, it seems that the whole ministry is telescoped into a single year. This looks to me that Mark was not writing a history, but rather compiling a litugical calendar, wherein all the events are remembered at the appropriate time of year, in a cycle of a single year.

How does this prove the existance of a “Q” document, or notelets, or pamphlets – which are mentioned by no ancient writer?

 

[cpayne]

But if you don’t believe the infinite God became man, then naturally you seek to explain the miracles never happened.

I think we’ve solved this mystery.

Exactly. The entire problem with the teacher from the original post is philosophical presuppositions. If you are a “scholar” who begins with the a priori assumption that miracles cannot happen, then everything in the life of Jesus (from conception on!) has to be explained with the “scholarly” conclusions that these stories cannot be literally true. This includes prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament, since those prophecies are obviously also miraculous.

On the other hand, if you do not begin with the a priori assumption that miracles cannot happen, then Jesus begins to look a lot like God in the flesh.

If I were in the classroom, when these issues came up, I would simply ask the teacher, “Do you have a presupposition that miraculous events are impossible? Is that why you do not think these events could occur as written?” At least that would point out that these statements being made are not inspired by evidence, but by a pre-evidential commitment on the part of the teacher.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

And this is different from the “Q” document, how?

To be used as a source, the “notelets” would have to be collected into one place, and perhaps transcribed (if they were used by multiple authors.)

These notelets would have been circulated, much as the epistles were. The churches would have been littered with them, to the point that once they had been incorporated into major works, the originals would not have been seen as other than waste paper.

But we have never found even one of these “notelets” nor does any ancient writer mention a collection of “notelets.”

Tatian’s Diatessaron, the original version, was in existance to the degree of over 500 copies, and were valued as scripture. but now there exists not a single copy in the original Syriac, and the best witness to it is a commentary in Ephrem Syrus, which witnesses less than 5% of the work. The Arabic witness bears evidence of being a pious forgery.
The implication here is that if the original author did not value the work, having superceded it with a better, then the old work is easily lost.

Where does Luke even mention “Q” or “notelets?”

Read Luke 1: 1 - 4.

And where are these notes? Which ancient writer saw them, heard of them, or knew of their existance?

Scraps of papyrus surface from time to time, bearing Gospel phrases, and are assumed to be parts of a particular Gospel.
What you expect to see, is what you will see.

Where are these “circulating pamphlets?” Why does no ancient writer remark on them?

They were just too ordinary to mention.

They are invented, just like the original “Q” document.

How does this prove the existance of a “Q” document, or notelets, or pamphlets – which are mentioned by no ancient writer?

As I said, Luke mentions them, though not by name, but then Luke did not speak German, so would not have referred to them as ‘Q’.

Denial of the body of ‘Q’ sets a requirement that the evangelists copied from eachother, thus their witness is not independant.
Accepting a common source of ‘Q’, means that their witness is on the whole, independant, apart from that common source.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. The entire problem with the teacher from the original post is philosophical presuppositions. If you are a “scholar” who begins with the a priori assumption that miracles cannot happen, then everything in the life of Jesus (from conception on!) has to be explained with the “scholarly” conclusions that these stories cannot be literally true. This includes prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament, since those prophecies are obviously also miraculous.

On the other hand, if you do not begin with the a priori assumption that miracles cannot happen, then Jesus begins to look a lot like God in the flesh.

If I were in the classroom, when these issues came up, I would simply ask the teacher, “Do you have a presupposition that miraculous events are impossible? Is that why you do not think these events could occur as written?” At least that would point out that these statements being made are not inspired by evidence, but by a pre-evidential commitment on the part of the teacher.

I can understand not believing. And I can understand struggling to believe. What I do not understand is taking a position in the Parish as a teacher when you don’t believe.

 

[buffalo]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

[According to the Clementine Tradition]

The Gospels are Historical

…
The theory that Mark’s gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious **and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.
‘The Authors of the Gospels’ sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome.
This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.
**
**
more…
**

 

[vern_humphrey]

These notelets would have been circulated, much as the epistles were. The churches would have been littered with them, to the point that once they had been incorporated into major works, the originals would not have been seen as other than waste paper.

But not a single ancient writer mentions them. There is no evidence they even existed.

Tatian’s Diatessaron, the original version, was in existance to the degree of over 500 copies, and were valued as scripture. but now there exists not a single copy in the original Syriac, and the best witness to it is a commentary in Ephrem Syrus, which witnesses less than 5% of the work. The Arabic witness bears evidence of being a pious forgery.

But we do have ancient writers who mention the Diatessaron.

The implication here is that if the original author did not value the work, having superceded it with a better, then the old work is easily lost.

But you have no evidence they ever existed.

Read Luke 1: 1 - 4.

Luke 1:1-4 doesn’t mention “notelets.” It does mention “narrative(s) of events.”

Scraps of papyrus surface from time to time, bearing Gospel phrases, and are assumed to be parts of a particular Gospel.

As opposed to being simple scraps?

What you expect to see, is what you will see.

I think you are expecting to see what you want to see.

They were just too ordinary to mention.

Then what’s your evidence for their existance?

As I said, Luke mentions them, though not by name, but then Luke did not speak German, so would not have referred to them as ‘Q’.

No, Luke doesn’t mention scraps or “notelets.” Luke mentions “narrative(s) of events.”

Denial of the body of ‘Q’ sets a requirement that the evangelists copied from eachother, thus their witness is not independant.

And acceptance of the body of “Q” sets a requirement that the evangelists copied from “Q,” thus their witness is not independant

Accepting a common source of ‘Q’, means that their witness is on the whole, independant, apart from that common source.

You’re kidding, right?

Luke saw Christ? Heard him preach? Mark was there at the Crucifixion?

Accepting Matthew as a common source is the same as accepting “Q” in terms of “independent witness.”

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

If you believe that the infinite God became man in the person of Jesus and rose from the dead–why is believing in Him doing miracles so hard to understand?

WOW…for a moment i thought i had finally gone nutz !!! I must be one of those really weird christians…never once have i ever disbelieved any of the miracles ; on the contrary the miracles of Jesus and the fact that his disciples [and others] were prepared to die terrible deaths/persecutions , form the reasoning behind why i am a christian. Walking on water…no problem for me…i just wish i could have been there myself…imagine…!!!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

But not a single ancient writer mentions them. There is no evidence they even existed.

Come on Vern,
There is absolutely no evidence that the set of four gospels was set to paper prior to AD180, and that was after Tatian had gathered his tale together. The only hard and fast witness to written Gospels is post AD200, with the African vetus Latina.
There is strong evidence that the Diatessaron actually influenced the Gospels!
Hard and fast evidence can be exraordinarily difficult to find, for if it seems to deny a beloved theory, it is often discarded as spurious.

But we do have ancient writers who mention the Diatessaron.

Actually, we have ancient writers who mention two diatessarons, one the work of Tatian, the other, the work of Ammonius.
The cognicenti assert that the diatessaron of Ammonius is no longer extant, whereas I believe it to be the very gospel found in the Victor Codex.

But you have no evidence they ever existed.

The format of the episodes, and their typical length give weight to the possibility that they are transcriptions from a Roman military tablet. Look again at your Bible, you will see it is divided into verses. Now this division is modern, but it is based on an ancient division into what are called ‘Ammonian sections’, many of which correspond to a pair of modern verses, and this indeed is about the capacity of a Roman tablet.

Luke 1:1-4 doesn’t mention “notelets.” It does mention “narrative(s) of events.”

Which is exactly how the notelets would be described. Waverley was not in business in those days.

As opposed to being simple scraps?

Yes, simple scraps of papyrus, which had never been part of anything other than a letter.

I think you are expecting to see what you want to see.

I see a collection of rectangular reddish stones, about 3" x 4.5" x 9", and some of these stones stuck together with a grey sandstone like material, and I conclude that I have found evidence of bricks and mortar.

Then what’s your evidence for their existance?

Repetition: see above.

No, Luke doesn’t mention scraps or “notelets.” Luke mentions “narrative(s) of events.”

Repetition: see above.

And acceptance of the body of “Q” sets a requirement that the evangelists copied from “Q,” thus their witness is not independant

By definition, that which is assumed to be dependant upon ‘Q’ is not independant.
However, what the theory allows is that the evangelists did not copy wholesale from eachother, and may not have seen any other works apart from ‘Q’. Thus they therefore retain a degree of independance, which they would not have, if they wrote, having the words of the entire Gospel of a previous author in front of them. That would thus be common plagiarism.
‘Q’ would have been regarded as common, or public domain property. Some written on papyrus or parchment, some written on mens’ hearts.

You’re kidding, right?

Wrong!

Luke saw Christ? Heard him preach? Mark was there at the Crucifixion?

Luke was a tent maker’s scribe. Did the tent maker actually see Christ, or did he imagine so during one of his frequent fits.
As for Mark, who was the young man/boy who fled naked from Gethsemene?

Accepting Matthew as a common source is the same as accepting “Q” in terms of “independent witness.”

Though I suggest that Matthew was probably ‘Q’, I do not say that the entire Gospel of Matthew was the common source, only Matthew’s rough notes, which had already been circulated among the infant churches prior to the Gospel proper being composed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Come on Vern,
There is absolutely no evidence that the set of four gospels was set to paper prior to AD180, and that was after Tatian had gathered his tale together. The only hard and fast witness to written Gospels is post AD200, with the African vetus Latina.
There is strong evidence that the Diatessaron actually influenced the Gospels!
Hard and fast evidence can be exraordinarily difficult to find, for if it seems to deny a beloved theory, it is often discarded as spurious.

Without evidence, all you have is your own invention.

Actually, we have ancient writers who mention two diatessarons, one the work of Tatian, the other, the work of Ammonius.
The cognicenti assert that the diatessaron of Ammonius is no longer extant, whereas I believe it to be the very gospel found in the Victor Codex.

How is this relevant to your theory that there were “notelets” circulating?

The format of the episodes, and their typical length give weight to the possibility that they are transcriptions from a Roman military tablet. Look again at your Bible, you will see it is divided into verses.

No, actually you won’t. You will see that the division into verses occurred more than a thousand years after the documents in question were written.

Now this division is modern, but it is based on an ancient division into what are called ‘Ammonian sections’, many of which correspond to a pair of modern verses, and this indeed is about the capacity of a Roman tablet.

So? How does this prove “notelets” or “pamphlets” were circulating, and later vanished with no notice from any ancient writer.

Which is exactly how the notelets would be described. Waverley was not in business in those days.

Since the scraps are scraps, and not whole pages, clearly this is a misinterpretation.

Yes, simple scraps of papyrus, which had never been part of anything other than a letter.

Proof? Evidence?

I see a collection of rectangular reddish stones, about 3" x 4.5" x 9", and some of these stones stuck together with a grey sandstone like material, and I conclude that I have found evidence of bricks and mortar.

Where and when did you see this?

.
By definition, that which is assumed to be dependant upon ‘Q’ is not independant.

By definition, that which is assumed to be dependant upon notelets or pamphlets is not independant.

.However, what the theory allows is that the evangelists did not copy wholesale from eachother, and may not have seen any other works apart from ‘Q’. Thus they therefore retain a degree of independance, which they would not have, if they wrote, having the words of the entire Gospel of a previous author in front of them. That would thus be common plagiarism.

Since we don’t know what “Q” was, and since we don’t know what was in your notelets or pamphlets, that is an unwarranted conclusion.

.‘Q’ would have been regarded as common, or public domain property. Some written on papyrus or parchment, some written on mens’ hearts. Wrong!

So which ancient writer says, “‘Q’” is public domain, but this stuff over here is not?"

.Luke was a tent maker’s scribe. Did the tent maker actually see Christ, or did he imagine so during one of his frequent fits.

Ah, the old denigration of Saint Paul strategy!!

.As for Mark, who was the young man/boy who fled naked from Gethsemene?

Beats me – I went to the post office and looked at the wanted posters and he’s not there.

.Though I suggest that Matthew was probably ‘Q’, I do not say that the entire Gospel of Matthew was the common source, only Matthew’s rough notes, which had already been circulated among the infant churches prior to the Gospel proper being composed.

Now all you have to do is produce evidence.

Until then, your theory is about as valid as the belief that alien lunch-eaters from the Planet Zolgarsh wrote “Q.”

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Without evidence, all you have is your own invention.

Of course we have no evidence that would stand up in a court of law, but neither have you, that the Gospels were set to paper prior tp AD 200.

How is this relevant to your theory that there were “notelets” circulating?

It is not.

No, actually you won’t. You will see that the division into verses occurred more than a thousand years after the documents in question were written.

I see you are shooting from the hip, prior to reading the entire paragraph. I actually made that point. But I made the point that, at least in the Gospels, the verse boundaries reflect a more ancient system of division.

So? How does this prove “notelets” or “pamphlets” were circulating, and later vanished with no notice from any ancient writer.

It ‘proves’ nothing. No proof of anything in this matter is possible. However, it does show that there is a construct in the text, indicating that a number of sections of text could have been transcribed from Roman tablets.

Since the scraps are scraps, and not whole pages, clearly this is a misinterpretation.

You obviously mean possible misinterpretation

Proof? Evidence?

It is a scrap. Usually papyrus. This indicates letters or pamphlets, rather than sacred scripture, which would have been parchment.

Where and when did you see this?

Clearly you have no imagination.

By definition, that which is assumed to be dependant upon notelets or pamphlets is not independant.

‘Pieces of eight, pieces of eight!’

Since we don’t know what “Q” was, and since we don’t know what was in your notelets or pamphlets, that is an unwarranted conclusion.

So which ancient writer says, “‘Q’” is public domain, but this stuff over here is not?"

Ah, the old denigration of Saint Paul strategy!!

Actually, his own description, of, as he himself says, the worst of sinners.

Beats me – I went to the post office and looked at the wanted posters and he’s not there.

As I said, no imagination.

Now all you have to do is produce evidence.

By the same token, you prove to me that, other than Tatian’s witness of AD 180, which, due to the brevity of account, is probably verbal witness. that the Gospels were set to paper prior to AD 200.
You will, if you are honest, find this extraordinarily difficult.
It is easy to accept the voice of authority, and I understand the temptation. But you have no proof. Only faith.

Until then, your theory is about as valid as the belief that alien lunch-eaters from the Planet Zolgarsh wrote “Q.”

Your attempted use of ridicule only make you seem rtdiculous.

 

[John_Hiner]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

[According to the Clementine Tradition]

The Gospels are Historical

…
The theory that Mark’s gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.
‘The Authors of the Gospels’ sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome.
This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.

**
more…**

Dear Buffalo:

Thank you for this reference. I cannot remember when I last enjoyed a reading so much. If it holds up to scrutiny, it might be one of the single most helpful readings I have done in the last ten years.

Thanks again.

By the way, do you know anything about the author, Dennis Barton?

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

[According to the Clementine Tradition]

The Gospels are Historical

…
The theory that Mark’s gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.
‘The Authors of the Gospels’ sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis,the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome.
This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.

**
more…**

Hi Buffalo,
Nice article.
Strange though, all your links seem to point to the same place.
Although I invoke ‘Q’, I am in agreement with Clementine prioprity.
My personal theory is
1/ Q is the work of Matthew, and comprises his contemporaneous notes, gathered on the mission, and circulated in ‘real time’. It never was assembled into a sayings Gospel like ‘Thomas’ but remained in the form of an assortment of letters and pamphlets.
2/ Luke made extensive use of these notes, treatinjg them with greater respect than did Matthew, when the latter assembled his notes into a historical account.
3/ Matthews finished Gospel was remembered in the oral format by story-tellers fo some years after his demise, and only set to 'paper some time later, with some of his abbreviations made good from his earlier notes, possibly as late as AD 190. I assert again that the Gospel was fully crystalised during the lifetime of Matthew, but was recorded in the hearts of men in the Aramaic. St Justine and Tatian were responsible for the first western translations.
4/ Mark, though, writing the recollections of Peter, was not composing a history, but assembling the tales were assembled according to the season they represented, thus a liturgical calendar was created. Also, we are talking of an illiterate fisherman dictating to a semi-skilled scribe, who was familiar with street Latin, but had poor knowledge of Classical. Mark was not composed in Greek as some suppose, but in Latin. It was composed for slaves and servants, who spoke Latin, not for scholars, who affected to speak Greek.
5/ Yes, Luke and John were composed in Greek.