How old are the 12 Apostles?

[Erich]

remember that the main text as we have it actually ends in a cliffhanger, with 16:8; verses 9-20 seems to be an addition made to the text at an early stage

Chapter XVIII of Authors of the Gospels addresses this:

When the evidence provided by the ancient historians is re-examined, in the light of the Clementine tradition, we find many problems faced by scripture scholars may be resolved. My suggestions are given below.

1. Two Editions of Mark
   Clement of Alexandria tells us: “The audience, which was numerous, begged Mark …to write down the things he [Peter] had said. And he did so …”. Mark, as Peter’s secretary, would have had a team of scribes. So he would have been able to quickly publish this short record of Peter’s words. We are told that Peter showed little interest but, from another book by Clement, we know that when Peter became aware of its favourable reception, he approved it for use in the churches.

This indicates that Mark’s short Gospel was published in two editions – an unauthorized informal one and a second endorsed by Peter for use in the churches. Clement informs us that Mark issued the words of Peter while Peter was still alive, yet Irenaeus says that Mark published after the death of Peter. This again points to there having been two editions.

Luke, a newcomer recently arrived in Rome, would have taken longer to gather together a team of scribes to copy his full scroll length gospel. So it would have been published after Mark’s first edition but before the second edition. Mark’s team would have been busy following the death of Peter so delaying publication of Mark’s second edition Librarians in the churches would have filed the Gospels side by side in pigeonholes. Some would have quickly received Mark’s first edition, others obtained the second edition after Luke’s gospel. This would explain how the Matthew-Mark-Luke tradition came into existence in some churches and the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John in others.

The existence of two traditions would have caused discussion and explain why Clement had to clarify which gospels were first: He stated that: “…the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies.” He didn’t mention the order of their publication.

When Jerome wrote his ‘Prologue to the Four Gospels’, he did not say they were written in the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence, but that they had been published [adidit] in this order. So the statements of Clement and Jerome do not conflict.

(cont’d next post)

 

[Erich]

(cont’d from prev post)

1. The Last Verses of Mark
   Mark`s Gospel breaks off abruptly at 16: 8, before continuing with twelve more verses. This break involves ending with an enclitic form of Greek grammar, and this is inappropriate for the ending of a paragraph, never mind a book. Many suggestions have been put forward in explanation of these additional verses. As mentioned in our Chapter VII, Orchard suggested that they might have been notes for a further talk which was not delivered.

My suggestion is as follows: The audience listening to Peter would have already known the information provided in Matthew’s Gospel. But for most of them the gospel of Luke contained new material.

As Orchard has pointed out, Peter stopped at the point his personal eyewitness of the earthly life of Christ ended ((RO 271-8)). Also, Peter had not commented on all the new interesting pieces of information provided by Luke. So I suggest that the audience would have asked questions, and these last verses record the answers supplied by Peter.

To illustrate: As the ‘he’ of verse 9 does not refer to the young man in verse 5, one would have expected to read ‘Jesus’. But if the name of the Lord had been contained in a question, the use of ‘he’ would be correct.

Matthew in 28: 1-10 says that Mary Magdalene was, with another woman, the first to see Jesus, and Luke 24: 10 confirms this. But earlier Luke had mentioned a woman of the same name, ‘a Mary who is called Magdalene’, who had been possessed by seven devils (Luke 8: 2). We should not be surprised if someone, noting her history, asked if this was the same person. Peter replies that it was (Mark 16: 9). He then confirms that Luke was also correct when he wrote that it was she who told the Apostles.

Matthew had not reported that Christ had appeared to two men walking, but Luke gives this incident much space (Luke 24: 13-31). Should the audience accept this story as true? As Peter was not one of the two, he was unable to confirm all the details, but he does confirm that Christ did appear to two disciples walking in the countryside (Mark 16: 12).

Luke then tells the story of Christ appearing to the eleven (24: 33-36). Yet Matthew has not mentioned this. Was it true? Peter, being there, is able to confirm that it was (Mark 16: 14).

Matthew says followers of Christ were to teach and baptise (28: 19), but Luke says they are to preach penance and forgiveness (Luke 24: 47). Was there a discrepancy here? Peter explains how baptism follows on from successful preaching (Mark 15: 15-16).

In his second volume, Luke says that Paul was able to cast out a devil (Acts 16: 18). There was no mention of this power in Matthew. So was it true? Peter, not being present at the incident, could not confirm it, but gives it credibility by saying Christ had foretold that such happenings would occur (Mark 16: 17).

In Acts 2: 4 and 10: 46, Luke reports Peter as having been present on two occasions when speaking in tongues had taken place. Matthew had not reported these events. Peter is able to confirm them in his response to the question about casting out the devils (Mark 16: 17).

The audience had read in Acts 28: 5, that Paul was impervious to the poison of a snake. Matthew had not recorded such an incident. Could it be true? Not being present at the incident, all Peter can do is again refer to the words of Christ. We then read of a similar question regarding the laying on of hands. He answers (Mark 16: 18) in the same way.

Luke in 24: 51 and Acts 1: 9 describes how Christ ascended to heaven. As Matthew had not described this, the audience would have found it of great interest. Peter, having been an eyewitness, was able to confirm and slightly embellish the account of Luke. (Mark 16: 19).

A person’s style of speaking will be different when answering questions from when he is giving a talk. The different style of these final verses has often been noted.

We often see a copy of a talk circulated without the answers to questions. Then, after a time, an edition including the answers is published. Sometimes it is the first issue which has the answers but they are omitted in the second

1. Two Editions
   I suggest that the second edition of Mark’s Gospel was published with/without the answers. Some early copies of Mark’s Gospel have been found with the twelve verses missing. Peter approved both editions and the one including the answers became part of the bible we use today.

If the above suggestions are accepted it points to Acts, as well as Luke’s gospel, having been seen by some of the audience prior to or during the period of the talks. In addition to Mark, the audience is likely to have included Paul, his guard, Luke, Linus, Cletus, Clement of Rome, Alexander, Rufus and Hermas.

I suggest that as Peter authorized both editions, both were circulated but the one with the answers became the most popular.

 

[Erich]

BTW, is there an answer for the argument about editorial fatigue?

There’s no need for one, as the “problem” doesn’t even exist for Matthean prioritists (i.e. the editorial fatigue argument presumes that Matthew and Luke made characteristic changes to Mark which they failed to sustain).

This is just another example of what I referred to two posts ago, namely, when the evidence provided by the ancient historians is re-examined, in the light of the Clementine tradition, we find many problems faced by scripture scholars may be resolved.

 

[patrick457]

Chapter XVIII of Authors of the Gospels addresses this:

When the evidence provided by the ancient historians is re-examined, in the light of the Clementine tradition, we find many problems faced by scripture scholars may be resolved. My suggestions are given below.

1. Two Editions of Mark
   Clement of Alexandria tells us: “The audience, which was numerous, begged Mark …to write down the things he [Peter] had said. And he did so …”. Mark, as Peter’s secretary, would have had a team of scribes. So he would have been able to quickly publish this short record of Peter’s words. We are told that Peter showed little interest but, from another book by Clement, we know that when Peter became aware of its favourable reception, he approved it for use in the churches.

This indicates that Mark’s short Gospel was published in two editions – an unauthorized informal one and a second endorsed by Peter for use in the churches. Clement informs us that Mark issued the words of Peter while Peter was still alive, yet Irenaeus says that Mark published after the death of Peter. This again points to there having been two editions.

Again, this kinda reminds me of the controversial Secret Gospel of Mark, fragments of which are found in a purported letter by Clement of Alexandria to a certain Theodoros.

• From the letters of the most holy Clement, of the Stromata.

To Theodoros.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians, for these are the “wandering stars” (Jude 1:13) that had been prophesied, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into an endless abyss, deceived by the fleshly and bodily sins. For having been puffed up of their knowledge - as they say - “of the depths of Satan,” (Revelation 2:24) they do not know that they are throwing themselves down into “the blackness of darkness” (Jude 1:13) of lies. And having boasted that they are free, they have become bondservants of base desires. Such are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. Because even if they say something true, still the lover of the truth should not agree with them, for not all true things are truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now, concerning their babblings about the “God-breathed” (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16) Gospel according to Mark, some are wholly lies, while others, even if partly true, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things being mixed with inventions are debased so that, as the saying goes, “even the salt has become tasteless” (cf. Matthew 5:13).

As for Mark, then, during Peter’s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the acts of the Lord, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the mystical ones, but picking the things he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being catechized. Then when Peter was martyred, Mark came to Alexandria, bringing both his own knowledge and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his first book the things suitable about knowledge for those who are making progress. Thus he arranged a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.

Nevertheless, he did not reveal the things which are not to be uttered. He did not write out the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others, and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the adyton of the truth which is veiled seven times. Thus he prepared them - in my opinion - not ungrudgingly or unguardedly. And dying, he left his writing to the church in Alexandria, where even now it is still extremely carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

However, since the polluted demons are always devising destruction for the race of man, Carpocrates, taught by them and using their deceptive arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the mystical gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and fleshly authority and, moreover, defiled, mixing with the most spotless and holy words the most shameless lies. From this mixture is derived the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore - as I said above - one must never give way. Also, when they put forward their falsifications, one should not concede that the mystical gospel is by Mark, but should deny it even on oath, for not all truth are to be said to everyone. For this reason, the wisdom of God through Solomon gives a message, “Answer a fool from his folly” (cf. Proverbs 26:5), teaching that from those whose minds are blinded the light of the truth should be concealed. Again it says, “From him who has not, it will be taken away,” and, “Let the fool go in darkness.”

But we are the “sons of light” (John 12:36) who have been illuminated by “the dawn from on high” (Luke 1:78) of the Spirit of the Lord. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is,” it says, “there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17), for “to the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15). Therefore to you I will not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the gospel. For example, after “They were in the road, going up to Jerusalem,” and what follows, until “After three days He will arise,” (Mark 10:32-34) it takes up according to the text:

 

[patrick457]

And they come to Bethany, and a woman, whose brother had died, was there (cf. John 11:1). And coming, she fell down before Jesus and says to Him, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” but the disciples rebuked her. And becoming angry (orgistheis; cf. Mark 1:41 in some MSS, John 11:33), Jesus went with her to the garden where the tomb was. And immediately from the tomb was heard a great voice, and going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb.

And going in immediately where the young man was, He stretched out a hand and raised him up, holding his hand. The young man looked at Him and loved (egapēsen) Him, and began to beseech Him that He might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the young man - for he was rich, and after six days Jesus instructed him. And in the evening the youth comes to Him, having a linen-cloth (sindōn; cf. Mark 14:51-52) thrown around his naked body; and he remained with Him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God (cf. Mark 4:11). And arising from there, He returned to the other side of the Jordan.

After these things, this follows, “And James and John come to Him,” (Mark 10:35) and all that section. But the “naked man with naked man” and the other things which you wrote about are not found. And after, “And He comes into Jericho,” it adds only:

And there was the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved, and His mother, and Salome, and Jesus would not receive them.

But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are lies. Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy …]​

 

[patrick457]

(cont’d from prev post)

1. The Last Verses of Mark
   Mark`s Gospel breaks off abruptly at 16: 8, before continuing with twelve more verses. This break involves ending with an enclitic form of Greek grammar, and this is inappropriate for the ending of a paragraph, never mind a book. Many suggestions have been put forward in explanation of these additional verses. As mentioned in our Chapter VII, Orchard suggested that they might have been notes for a further talk which was not delivered.

My suggestion is as follows: The audience listening to Peter would have already known the information provided in Matthew’s Gospel. But for most of them the gospel of Luke contained new material.

Indeed. In the Greek text Mark 16 finishes with the conjunction γάρ (gar ‘for’, ‘because’). Thus, this ending to verse 8 would be therefore not grammatically coherent (literally, it would read they were afraid because). However, we should also note that γάρ may end a sentence, and does so in various Greek compositions, including some sentences in the Septuagint. Protagoras, a contemporary of Socrates, apparently even ended a speech with γάρ. Although γάρ is never the first word of a sentence, there is no rule against it being the last word, even though it is not a common construction. However, if the Gospel of Mark intentionally concluded with this word, it would be the only narrative in antiquity to do so.

 

[Erich]

Again, this kinda reminds me of the controversial Secret Gospel of Mark, fragments of which are found in a purported letter by Clement of Alexandria to a certain Theodoros.

Eusebius quotes Clement in Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 14 – and there’s nothing controversial or purported about it:
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.
**(So: Matthew – Luke ****– ****Mark ****– **John)

**
**PAPIAS (60-139) is recorded as saying: “Mark, having become the recorder (hermeneutes) of Peter, indeed wrote accurately albeit not in order whatever he (Peter) remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord…(Mark) a follower of…Peter who used to deliver his teachings in the form of short stories…so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote down certain things just as he (Peter) recalled them.”

IRENAEUS (120-180) used his biblical quotes in this Matthew-Luke-Mark order.

ORIGEN (185–254) says, “Mark composed as Peter guided.”

**JEROME **(347-420) remarks, “just as blessed Peter had Mark, whose gospel consists of Peter’s narration and the latter’s writing.” In his: ‘Of Illustrious Men’, Jerome used the Matthew - Luke - Mark order. When Jerome adopted the order of Matthew - Mark - Luke - John for his translation into Latin, he had to tell the Pope why he had not followed the commonly used sequence: in his ‘Prologue to the Four Gospels’, he did not say they were written in the Matthew - Mark - Luke - John sequence, but that they had been published [adidit] in this order.
**
****AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO **(354-430) said that Mark developed the ideas of Matthew and Luke.

**ALL **the earliest historians recorded that it was Matthew who wrote first. Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history.

 

[patrick457]

Eusebius quotes Clement in Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 14 – and there’s nothing controversial or purported about it:

No, I’m saying that the Mar Saba Letter (which contains the two purported fragments of Secret Mark) is controversial because there’s been discussions as to whether it is a genuine letter of Clement or a forgery - either ancient or modern - based on what Eusebius wrote.

And yes, one strong argument against Markan Priority is the testimony of the Fathers, which I recognize full well.

Though, one thing has always struck me: some Church Fathers such as Papias, St. Irenaeus and St. Jerome for instance, note that he wrote for the Hebrews in their own language/dialect (History, 3.39.15; Against Heresies 3.1.1). But as it stands today, the gospel we know today as being that of Matthew is in Greek.

I’ve tried to formulate a personal theory - which is admittedly a little weak as I haven’t delved in-depth on it yet; feel free to disagree with me here - which tweaks the Farrer hypothesis slightly to agree with these earlier testimonies, in that perhaps, Matthew did write first, but what he wrote was not exactly the same gospel we know today as the ‘Gospel of Matthew’ (though there could be some overlaps); for instance, this ‘proto-Matthew’ - or as some of the Fathers would call it, the Gospel of the Hebrews - is in Hebrew/Aramaic.

In which case, Mark could be the first to write a Gospel in Greek, which the author of our canonical Greek Matthew (Matthew again?) would have drawn on as a base. I don’t personally think that Greek Matthew is a direct translation of proto-Matthew as some hold it; it could even be a sort of expanded, tidied-up version. I also kind of doubt whether Mark actually used proto-Matthew that much; he may have drawn a few bits, but for the rest, he was independent. Rather I think it probable that Greek Matthew imitated Mark.

The existence of some (probably not all) Special Matthean material (M), at least, may be then explained by the existence of proto-Matthew - the rest could be drawn from oral tradition. Something like, but not exactly the same, as the hypothetical (fictional?) Q. Luke could then have drawn on Mark and Greek Matthew as his main sources, as well as oral tradition - and perhaps a look at proto-Matthew as well? - for Special Lukan material (L).

Double tradition could still be explained by Luke knowing Greek Matthew, as in Farrer’s theory.

As it is now, my personal theory does not agree with Clement’s order espoused by Griesbachians - Matthew-Luke-Mark-John - but rather appears similar to the one expounded by St. Augustine - Matthew-Mark-Luke-John. Although, I disagree with St. Augustine in that in my idea, Mark is not a mere abbreviation of Matthew.

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6214/79823532.png

Slightly different from Q in that Q works under the premise that Luke is highly unlikely to have known Matthew and thus tries to account for double tradition, the material that Matthew and Luke share in common against Mark.

 

[patrick457]

Before all this gets buried under further discussions of the Synoptic problem:

We don’t exactly know how old they were. One theory has it that aside from Peter, all the other apostles were apparently young men, citing the fact that apparently, only Jesus and Peter paid the Temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27, which - it is said - only those 20 and older are obligated to pay. A little weak IMHO, but interesting nevertheless.

I must note that when they excavated the area beneath St. Peter’s Basilica in the early half of the last century - at the time of the early Christians, Vatican Hill was literally a necropolis! - and purportedly found what could be St. Peter’s tomb (actually very much a mere hole lined with stone slabs) underneath a sort of shrine, they found the bones of an elderly man. It was discovered not inside the earthen tomb as one would expect (there were bones found inside the trench which were initially reported by the press as being Peter’s, but they were actually of different individuals), but inside a niche in a wall covered with Christian graffiti. When they analyzed the bones, they found out that it was male, of robust constitution, around sixty and seventy years of age.

If this is indeed St. Peter’s bones, then we can at least p(name removed by moderator)oint how old he was at the time of Jesus: perhaps he was as old, if not slightly older, than Jesus (assuming that He was in His thirties at the time).

 

[patrick457]

Oh yes, while we’re at it, let’s do a little bit about John’s Gospel.

Now, while scholars do not agree on which Gospel came first, a good majority would agree that John would have been written last. Many reasons are usually given for this (for example, John’s more developed higher Christology compared to that of the Synoptics, it reflecting the increasing tension between Christians and Jews in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem, because it’s been agreed since the early days that John wrote last, etc.).

The writing of John is usually assigned a range of ca. AD 90-100. Since the writings of St. Justin Martyr (103-165) use language very similar to that found in the John, the Gospel is considered to have been in existence at least at that time. The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel (18:31-33, 37-38), is usually dated to the first half of the 2nd century; it is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text. Based on these data, we can assume that the gospel already existed early in the 2nd century.

There are, however, a few folks who propose(d) that John may have been written much earlier. They point out to what they perceive as internal evidence, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the Temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eyewitness, as sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as AD 50-70. In the 1970s, scholars Leon Morris and John A.T. Robinson independently suggested earlier dates for the gospel’s composition.

 

[Erich]

I’ve tried to formulate a personal theory … which tweaks the Farrer hypothesis slightly to agree with these earlier testimonies, in that perhaps, Matthew did write first, but what he wrote was not exactly the same gospel we know today as the ‘Gospel of Matthew’ (though there could be some overlaps); for instance, this ‘proto-Matthew’ - or as some of the Fathers would call it, the Gospel of the Hebrews - is in Hebrew/Aramaic.

In which case, Mark could be the first to write a Gospel in Greek

Guess you haven’t read Chapter IX of Authors of the Gospels… here’s an excerpt I find fascinating:…Markans reject the evidence of Eusebius as unreliable because it challenges their theory. Most Markans assert that it is not possible to back-translate Matthew`s Greek Gospel into Hebrew. Yet they have no evidence for this assertion. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1912 stated that this assertion did not undermine the words of Eusebius.

In recent years two Frenchmen have thrown more light on this question. Jean Carmignac, a specialist in Greek and Hebrew, spent eleven years from 1943 translating The Book of Chronicles. Then from 1954-63 he was engaged in translating manuscripts from the Qumran caves, otherwise known as The Dead Sea Scrolls. Although his work was mainly concerned with the Old Testament, he noticed several interesting connections with the New.

So in 1963 he attempted to translate a Greek Gospel back into the form of Hebrew used at Qumran. Carmignac was absolutely dumbfounded to find how easy it proved to be. Realising his translation would meet with ferocious criticism from Markan priorists, he searched in the old monastic libraries of Europe to see if the translation had been attempted previously. In this way he also hoped to correct and improve his own work. Although he lacked the time to make a thorough search, he soon found sixty translations of Gospels or portions of them. Some were by Rabbis who had become Christians and others by Rabbis wishing to dispute with Christians.

Carmignac had not completed the writing of his scholarly findings but was aging. So his friends persuaded him to write a small book for the general public, which appeared in 1987. He not only wrote that Matthew`s Gospel was the first to be written, but that it was in Hebrew. He could also see a Hebrew substratum in the other two synoptic Gospels.

According to him, the order of composition was a Hebrew Matthew followed by a Greek Luke, and then by a Greek Mark. In order to conform to Markan priority, he presumed there must have been an earlier Hebrew version of Mark, which Mark later translated. If we ignore this presumption, his work dovetails with the Clementine tradition of Matthew-Luke-Mark. He dates Greek Mark as before 70 AD, so Matthew and Luke also before that date.

In 1953 Claude Tresmontant, a French Hebrew scholar, published a book dedicated to Hebrew thought. He then worked for many years to produce a Hebrew-Greek dictionary. While doing this he was overwhelmed by how easy it was to back-translate the Gospels into Hebrew. In his 1980 Le Christ Hebreu [English translation 1989], he explained in detail the Hebrew basis for the Gospels. He formed the opinion that Matthew in both Hebrew and Greek could be dated as having been written soon after the Resurrection, Luke between 40-60 AD, with Mark 50-60 AD. ((CTH 324)). While not confirming the Clementine order, it allowed its possibility.

Tresmontant detected a Hebrew substructure to Marks Gospel. At first sight this appears to conflict with the normally accepted view that Mark recorded Peter speaking in Greek. But, according to Orchard, over 90% of the talks by Peter consisted of him quoting from Matthew and Luke. So the Hebrew substructure of these quotations would automatically be carried into his talks. The additions made by Peter would also possess a strong Semitic tone because Peter was a native Aramaic speaker. J Kurzinger has shown that the word of Papias regarding Matthews Gospel would be best rendered as style. ((RO 128-9)). This would be a good description of a Greek document written with a Hebrew substructure.

When discussing Semitisms in the Gospels, Carmignac and Tresmontant accepted that many could be explained as a Greek author borrowing familiar Hebrew words. It would have been easy for the translator to carry over some Hebrew words. But the Hebrew sub-structure pointed out by Carmagnac and Tresmontant is of a different kind.
…
[too many examples to include here]
…
Tresmontant has pointed out that a Hebrew-Greek Lexicon had to be produced when the Old Testament was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). He holds the opinion that the Christians used the same lexicon in New Testament times. On both occasions the translators were worried about losing the full meaning, so tended to transcribe word for word, even though this could produce a Greek which did not flow well.

So the evidence produced by Carmagnac, Tresmontant, and at least sixty Rabbis, is that the Gospel according to Matthew was first written in Hebrew. The examples supplied here are just a few of the many provided by the two French authors. This is in full accord with the historical records of Papias and Irenaeus, which say a Hebrew version for the Jews of Palestine was composed first. A Greek version appeared when converts were gained amongst those who could speak Greek only.

 

[Erich]

Now, while scholars do not agree on which Gospel came first, a good majority would agree that John would have been written last. Many reasons are usually given for this (for example, John’s more developed higher Christology compared to that of the Synoptics, it reflecting the increasing tension between Christians and Jews in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem, because it’s been agreed since the early days that John wrote last, etc.).

I, too, agree that John was written last.
Today we often hear the Gospel of John called a spiritual Gospel. This is true, but the word spiritual should not be allowed to exclude its historical aspect. John repeatedly claimed to be a reliable eyewitness of events in the life of Christ. (John 19: 35; 20: 30-31; 21: 24).
…
It is worth recalling the two reasons for John writing his Gospel as explained in the Anti-Marcionite Prologues. John did not confine himself to refuting the Gnostic sects. He took the opportunity to clarify aspects of the life of Christ not to be found in the existing Gospels. John does not repeat details already given in the other Gospels. This is not evidence of him being unaware of them, nor that he wished to disparage them, as some critics have claimed. It is evidence of him being aware of the information Christians already possessed. It is interesting to note how John presumes many of his readers had a vivid knowledge of the environment of Christ`s preaching, which was radically altered in 70 AD.

The writing of John is usually assigned a range of ca. AD 90-100. Since the writings of St. Justin Martyr (103-165) use language very similar to that found in the John, the Gospel is considered to have been in existence at least at that time. The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel (18:31-33, 37-38), is usually dated to the first half of the 2nd century; it is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text. Based on these data, we can assume that the gospel already existed early in the 2nd century.

There are, however, a few folks who propose(d) that John may have been written much earlier. They point out to what they perceive as internal evidence, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the Temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eyewitness, as sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as AD 50-70. In the 1970s, scholars Leon Morris and John A.T. Robinson independently suggested earlier dates for the gospel’s composition.

I would agree with the premise that parts of John’s Gospel were composed prior to 70 AD… but not all of it.
Although the Muratorian Canon is not as reliable as other early documents, there is no reason to deny what it says regarding the part played by the Apostle Andrew in the composition of John’s Gospel. It has been traditionally accepted that verse 23 of chapter 21, shows this last chapter having been written when John was very old, probably about 96 AD.
…
As stated in the 1953 edition of The Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture, it was presumed that the earlier chapters were written just a few years prior to this date. ((CCHS 781j)). But in more recent times scholars such as Tresmontant ((CTH 324)), Thied ((CTR xii)), Orchard ((BOO 18)) and Robinson ((JATR 311)) approaching this question from very different directions have concluded that this presumption was an error. They hold that at least the first twenty chapters were written prior to 70 AD.
…
In John 5: 2, we see John referring to Jerusalem in the present tense. Critics may try to explain this away, but they have no evidence that it should not be understood as it is written. This indicates that the first part of John`s Gospel was written prior to 70 AD.

Matthew recounts how an unnamed person cuts off an ear of the High Priest`s servant (Mt 26: 51-52). Luke 22: 50 and Mark 14: 47 also report this, but all three are careful not to disclose the name of the person wielding the sword. This would have laid him open to prosecution. But John in 18: 10 says it was Peter, and the victim was Malchus. We have here an indication that the Synoptics were written before 65 AD, during the lifetime of Peter, when he had to be protected. While John, writing after his execution, was free of this constraint.

As a side issue it is interesting that Matthew, an eyewitness, does not specify which ear was cut off. Peter, reading from this section of Matthew’s Gospel and as reported by Mark, does not add anything. But Luke specifies that it was the right ear. As Luke was not present at the incident this must have been second hand information and therefore may have been seen as unreliable. But now, John who had been present at the incident, confirms Luke’s information.

 

[Erich]

Before all this gets buried under further discussions of the Synoptic problem:

I must note that when they excavated the area beneath St. Peter’s Basilica in the early half of the last century - at the time of the early Christians, Vatican Hill was literally a necropolis! - and purportedly found what could be St. Peter’s tomb (actually very much a mere hole lined with stone slabs) underneath a sort of shrine, they found the bones of an elderly man. It was discovered not inside the earthen tomb as one would expect (there were bones found inside the trench which were initially reported by the press as being Peter’s, but they were actually of different individuals), but inside a niche in a wall covered with Christian graffiti. When they analyzed the bones, they found out that it was male, of robust constitution, around sixty and seventy years of age.

If this is indeed St. Peter’s bones, then we can at least p(name removed by moderator)oint how old he was at the time of Jesus: perhaps he was as old, if not slightly older, than Jesus (assuming that He was in His thirties at the time).

Interestingly enough, last night I attended an event at which the main speaker made the point that science deals with that which can be measured objectively (i.e. the physical world), whereas faith deals with the subjective (i.e. values, goals, purpose, etc). It’s always been taken as a matter of faith/tradition that St. Peter’s Basilica was built over the bones of St. Peter; I think it’s wonderful that science is now able to back this up!

Of course, for those with faith no proof is necessary and for those without faith no proof is possible, but still… this story was – and still is – a fascinating read!

 

[patrick457]

So the evidence produced by Carmagnac, Tresmontant, and at least sixty Rabbis, is that the Gospel according to Matthew was first written in Hebrew. The examples supplied here are just a few of the many provided by the two French authors. This is in full accord with the historical records of Papias and Irenaeus, which say a Hebrew version for the Jews of Palestine was composed first. A Greek version appeared when converts were gained amongst those who could speak Greek only.
[/INDENT]

I’d just like to note some interesting trivia I’ve noted. As I’ve mentioned, the Early Fathers had this tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel for the Hebrews “in their own dialect” (Hebrew? Aramaic?). But they never mention anything about the Greek version.

But concerning Matthew he (Papias) writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles (logia) in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord (John 7:53-8:11?), which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

• Eusebius (quoting Papias), History of the Church, 3.39.16

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.

• Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1

Pantænus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time.

• Eusebius, History of the Church 5.10.3

In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:

Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Mark, my son.’ (1 Peter 5:13) And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

• Eusebius (quoting Origen), History of the Church, 10.25.3-6

Admittedly many scholars today doubt whether this ‘Hebrew’ Matthew actually existed. I’m willing however to accept the testimony of the Fathers at this point and believe that yes, Matthew did write a Gospel (the Logia, as Papias calls it) in the common language among Jews in Judaea, before the others did so. Just how it is related to our Greek Matthew is something unclear - because we don’t have the text! - but as I’ve mentioned, I think that some, or even all, of Special Matthew (M Material) can trace themselves to Proto-Matthew.

 

[patrick457]

I’d just like to note some interesting trivia I’ve noted. As I’ve mentioned, the Early Fathers had this tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel for the Hebrews “in their own dialect” (Hebrew? Aramaic?). But they never mention anything about the Greek version.

But concerning Matthew he (Papias) writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles (logia) in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord (John 7:53-8:11?), which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

• Eusebius (quoting Papias), History of the Church, 3.39.16

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.

• Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1

Pantænus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time.

• Eusebius, History of the Church 5.10.3

In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:

Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Mark, my son.’ (1 Peter 5:13) And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

• Eusebius (quoting Origen), History of the Church, 10.25.3-6

This is one thing I’d like to point out as well. While the Fathers are pretty much unanimous in claiming Matthew being first and John being last, there is more ambiguity between the respective positions of Luke and Mark. Clement of Alexandria, in a passage preserved in Eusebius (Church History, 6.14.5-7), places Luke before Mark, but here we can see folks like St. Irenaeus and Origen (we can also add the author of the Anti-Marcionite Prologues and St. Augustine into this mix) propose that the Gospels were written in the common order we see in our Bibles today: Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, so if we’re going by the numbers, Clement’s testimony seems to stand alone.

 

[patrick457]

Admittedly many scholars today doubt whether this ‘Hebrew’ Matthew actually existed. I’m willing however to accept the testimony of the Fathers at this point and believe that yes, Matthew did write a Gospel (the Logia, as Papias calls it) in the common language among Jews in Judaea, before the others did so. Just how it is related to our Greek Matthew is something unclear - because we don’t have the text! - but as I’ve mentioned, I think that some, or even all, of Special Matthew (M Material) can trace themselves to Proto-Matthew.

Now about Matthew’s Hebrew Logia. As I’ve mentioned, the exact contents are unclear, though Greek Matthew may preserve some vestiges of it. As for whether the Logia is identical to the document(s) in use among certain Jewish Christian groups that some later Fathers such as St. Jerome call the Gospel of the Hebrews (and which he took to be the Hebrew Matthew), I don’t know, though I tend to doubt it. It is also likely that (some of) these are later versions (retranslations?) or even expansions of canonical Greek Matthew.
I still stand by the fact that Mark was the first to write a Greek Gospel, based on Peter’s preaching, which is probably independent of Matthew’s Logia (though there would obviously be some overlaps).

Then, at some unspecified period, someone thought about doing a Greek ‘version’ (I use ‘version’ in the broadest sense here) of Matthew’s Logia. In doing so, he made extensive use of Mark’s preexisting Gospel and infused it with material originally found in proto-Matthew. The result is our canonical Matthew, which may have superseded the Logia. I’m also willing to theorize here that the Logia is an earlier draft of Matthew, while material in canonical Matthew represents a later draft (or a translation) thereof.

After Matthew and Mark comes Luke, who uses both Mark and Greek Matthew. This explains the agreements between Greek Matthew and Luke against Mark.

 

[Erich]

This is one thing I’d like to point out as well. While the Fathers are pretty much unanimous in claiming Matthew being first and John being last, there is more ambiguity between the respective positions of Luke and Mark. Clement of Alexandria, in a passage preserved in Eusebius (Church History, 6.14.5-7), places Luke before Mark, but here we can see folks like St. Irenaeus and Origen (we can also add the author of the Anti-Marcionite Prologues and St. Augustine into this mix) propose that the Gospels were written in the common order we see in our Bibles today: Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, so if we’re going by the numbers, Clement’s testimony seems to stand alone.

Regarding Irenaeus… Here’s what he wrote about the order in which the gospels were published, i.e. not the order in which they were written. (This quotation comes from the Latin translation of his work. But we also possess the same passage in the original Greek as quoted by Eusebius. This confirms the Latin translation is accurate.)Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia. ((RO 128-9: IAH 3. 1,1; and EH 5: 8, 2)).
When, in his third and fourth books, Ireneaus builds his case against three heresies, he uses quotations from the Gospels in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. In 3:9,1-3 he quotes mainly from Matthew, in 3:10,1-4 from Luke, in 3:10, 5 from Mark and in 3:11,1-6 from John. In the second controversy he says the Ebionites only use Matthew; Marcion mutilates Luke; the Docetists adapt Mark and Valentinus misuses John (3:11,7). In the third instance he quotes Scripture to show God was the father of Jesus, then writes: `…Matthew hath set down, and Luke also, and Mark…’ (4: 6, 1). ((IJK 220, 234, 320)). So the order most familiar to Irenaeus was that of Luke being prior to Mark.

Origen was the successor of Clement of Alexandria as the principal teacher in Alexandria. Eusebius quotes Origen as asserting that by tradition:“The first **written **was that according to the one time tax collector but later apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who **published **it for the believers from Judaism, composed in Hebrew characters. And second, that according to Mark, composed as Peter guided, …And third, that according to Luke, the gospel praised by Paul, composed for those from the Gentiles. Finally, that according to John”. ((EH 6: 25, and RO 169)). [Emphasis not in the original]
It is very unlikely Origen intended to dispute the clear statement regarding the order of **writing **provided by his teacher, Clement of Alexandria. Origen is explaining how and why the gospels were composed, not the order of their writing. He could have been thinking in the order of their publication. If this is correct, his listing in the order of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, is not a problem for those holding the Clementine tradition.

 

[Erich]

Regarding Eusebius… he had a great advantage over the researchers of today in that he had a great number of books in front of him which have since been lost. Fortunately he normally quoted what earlier historians, such as Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others had written, rather than provide paraphrases.

Eusebius knew Clement had travelled widely and listened to truly notable men [note plural] from all over the Roman Empire. Eusebius saw Clement as a very reliable witness, and treats the witness of Papias as being a separate confirmatory source.

Read again what Eusebius quotes from Clement:“So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peter`s hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches.

Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: The Outlines [Hypotyposes], and **Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it **and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark ((EH 2. 15, 1-2 and RO 166)).

`And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the very earliest presbyters about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. He used to say that the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. While Peter was publicly preaching the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, the audience, which was numerous, begged Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write down the things he had said.

And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)). Regarding the Anti-Marcionite prologues... these second, third and fourth century Gospel introductions come down to us in both Latin and Greek. Concerning Mark we read: …Mark who was also called Stubfinger, because he had shorter fingers with regard to the other dimensions of his body. He had been the disciple and recorder of Peter, whom he followed, just as he had heard him relating. Having been asked by the brethren in Rome he wrote this short Gospel in the regions of Italy; when Peter heard about it, he approved and authorized it to be read to the church with [his own] authority`. ((AMM and RO 148)).
Concerning John we read: “John the Apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved exceedingly, last of all wrote this Gospel at the request of the bishops of Asia against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially the teachings of the Ebionites then arising, …”

“But they also say that there was another reason for this Gospel being written, because after reading the volumes of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the gospel, he of course approved the text of their accounts and confirmed the truth of what they had said, but [perceived] that they had provided the account of one year only in which he suffered after the imprisonment of John. Omitting therefore the year whose happenings were recorded by the three, he related the events that had occurred at an earlier period before John was shut up in prison, as will be able to be clear to those who have carefully read the books of the four Gospels.

The Gospel therefore written after the Apocalypse, was also given to the churches in Asia by John while still living in the flesh, as the bishop of Hieropolis, Papias by name, a dear disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in [his] last, five books, who wrote out this Gospel, John dictating it to him”. ((AMJ and RO 151)).
Regarding St. Augustine… During Jerome’s lifetime, Augustine wrote his: De Consensu Evangelistarum in four volumes. In the first volume he wrote that the received order was Matthew-Mark-Luke and John, but the order of dignity was Matthew-John-Mark and Luke ((AH 1 Book 1: 1-3)).

Because he mentioned Matthew-Mark-Luke in his first volume, this order has often been referred to as: The Augustinian Tradition. But this is a misnomer because in his fourth volume he explains that Mark’s Gospel developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke.((AH 4 Book 4:10, 11 and RO 211-214)).

David Peabody has examined Augustine’s thinking regarding this in some detail. ((WRFN 37-64)). He shows how Augustine eventually adopted the Clementine tradition.

 

[Erich]

The Greek and Russian Orthodox liturgies have not changed as much as those in the Latin West. Apart for a few feast days, Matthew is read on Sundays from Pentecost. Luke follows later in the year and Mark begins during Lent. John is read in the Easter period. The Melkite Church, which traces herself back to Antioch, has a similar order, as do the Byzantine Churches. This points to the early Christians being familiar with Luke being used prior to Mark.

 

[Erich]

I’m willing however to accept the testimony of the Fathers at this point and believe that yes, Matthew did write a Gospel (the Logia, as Papias calls it) in the common language among Jews in Judaea, before the others did so. Just how it is related to our Greek Matthew is something unclear - because we don’t have the text! - but as I’ve mentioned, I think that some, or even all, of Special Matthew (M Material) can trace themselves to Proto-Matthew.

To quote Isaac Newton, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.”%between%

There is no need for a “Special Matthew” or a “Proto Matthew” when one considers that Matthew himself is likely to have been the one to have at least overseen the translation of his Gospel into Greek.

Palestine at the time of Christ was a peculiar and very complicated society. The Romans shared administration with the Council of Jewish judges, known as the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was often in conflict with the civil officials, taxes were paid in Greek money, Roman money was used in commerce and Temple dues paid in Jewish money.

While the first followers of Jesus continued to attend the Temple, they also held meetings of their own. These consisted of prayer, the singing of psalms, listening to teaching from a disciple, meditating on the meaning of the life of Jesus, and breaking bread together.

Matthew, a former tax collector, would have been educationally equipped to provide a structure for the meetings, and this appears to have been the origin of the first Gospel [in Chapter VIII of http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels.pdf”]Authors of the Gospels it is even shown that major theological concepts in Matthew`s Gospel presume an audience possessing a good understanding of the Old Testament. Matthew uses concepts foreign to Greek thought such as: Nuptial Tent (9: 14-15), Bridegroom (17: 10-13), and Marriage Feast (22: 7)].

The Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic although Hebrew was still a living language [Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2]. We do not know whether Matthew used Aramaic or Hebrew but versions in both languages would have soon have been put into circulation. Modern analysis has concluded that our Greek Gospel was translated from a Hebrew version [refer to the dozens of examples in Chapter IX of http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels.pdf”]Authors of the Gospels]. As Matthew would have checked all versions [remember, he was a former tax collector, so he certainly knew Greek; he could even have undertaken the translation himself], they would be of equal authority; and since the apostles were still living together, we may presume that several or all of them would have read Matthew’s versions before publication.