In what Order were the Gospels were written?

[FishyPete]

As far as language being the key, that can’t necessarily be relied on, because the copies that became canonical may have not have been the original texts. Matthew may have written in Aramaic, but his target audience were Jewish Christians. Mark and Luke, on the other hand were targeting pagan converts, which would have made sense to write in Greek, because Greek was a universal language at the time.

I agree with this, and that’s why a Mathean priority remains a real possibility would you agree?

 

[Neofight]

You say that “at one time”, St. Augustine… did he change his view later?

I don’t think he ever did…I think what evolved was the Church’s contention that all the Gospels have merit took the sting out of his contentions, and were thus invalidated over time.

 

[FishyPete]

I don’t think he ever did…I think what evolved was the Church’s contention that all the Gospels have merit took the sting out of his contentions, and were thus invalidated over time.

I see.

I like your point about the text (internal) not being a reliable dating tool. I think it points to a possible Mathew writing first scenario (I said possible )

 

[Neofight]

I agree with this, and that’s why a Mathean priority remains a real possibility would you agree?

I’m not sure. in my mind there is no priority, and such priority serves no real purpose…the Church as spoken that all the gospels have equal standing…on a personal level, I see no striking difference in the presentation of Low Christology of the synoptic gospels, and am myself more a fan of the High Christology of the fourth gospel.

But, that’s just my opinion, so take it for what its worth!

 

[FishyPete]

I’m not sure. in my mind there is no priority, and such priority serves no real purpose…the Church as spoken that all the gospels have equal standing…on a personal level, I see no striking difference in the presentation of Low Christology of the synoptic gospels, and am myself more a fan of the High Christology of the fourth gospel.

But, that’s just my opinion, so take it for what its worth!

What do you mean low and high?

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think it matters as far as weight goes. Some believe St. Luke’s accounts, whatever language or dialect they were written in, were most accurate but I’d say the more accounts the more credible the event.

By the way, I thought dialect was more of a difference in speaking thing, not so much writing. Like you have today’s English spoken in many dialects and some of them less understood than others. I imagine during Christ’s time, when people didn’t have books, internet, jets, cars, etc, every town, would have its unique dialect; I don’t think it’s enough to say Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek or whatever. Doesn’t have much meaning if two people speaking Greek can’t understand each other.

 

[Neofight]

What do you mean low and high?

Low Christology focuses on the humanity of Christ, where High Christology focuses on the divinity.

You can see evidences, in Matthew and Luke for instance, where there is a rather lengthy account of the human genealogy of Jesus, and the genealogy in John is all in the first verse…In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

And the human birth of Jesus is chronicled in Matthew and Luke in the Infancy Narratives, where in John, it is in John 1:14, simply, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”

The synoptic gospels talk of Jesus the teacher, healer, preacher, where as John talks of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, and God.

 

[FishyPete]

Low Christology focuses on the humanity of Christ, where High Christology focuses on the divinity.

You can see evidences, in Matthew and Luke for instance, where there is a rather lengthy account of the human genealogy of Jesus, and the genealogy in John is all in the first verse…In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

And the human birth of Jesus is chronicled in Matthew and Luke in the Infancy Narratives, where in John, it is in John 1:14, simply, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”

The synoptic gospels talk of Jesus the teacher, healer, preacher, where as John talks of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, and God.

So when you say you don’t see much “difference”, what were you referring to?

 

[FishyPete]

The synoptic gospels talk of Jesus the teacher, healer, preacher, where as John talks of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, and God.

Mathew, Mark and Luke do refer to Jesus as the Christ, Messiah and God, in many places do they not!!!

 

[Neofight]

So when you say you don’t see much “difference”, what were you referring to?

By not much difference, I meant that, to me, between the synoptic Gospels, the message is consistent.

 

[Nan_S]

As far as accepting what Church Fathers say, it should be noted that they are not infallible, and its interesting that St. Augustine discounted Mark and Luke’s gospels, because they were not Apostles, and he was down right uncharitable in his characterization of Mark’s work as plagiarism of Matthew’s, because of the similarity (Matthew contains 90% of Marks accounts). Later scholars have pretty much concluded Mark wrote first, based on Q.

I read from the Early Church Fathers that Matthew recorded Jesus’ teachings in Aramaic before Mark’s Greek gospel was written.

I read from the modern linguistic scholars that Mark’s Greek gospel was written before Matthew’s Greek gospel, and that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all drew on written source material the scholars call “Quelle” (source) or Q, which no one has ever seen.

But although the scholars theorize that Q must have existed, and they can do documentary regression to speculate on the likely content of Q, the possible author of Q remains a complete mystery. We have copies of so very many other significant ancient documents. Curious that one as important as Q would completely disappear.

And I have always wondered… Is Q the Aramaic record written by Matthew? If so, the reason Q disappeared, with no independent copies surviving, could be that when Matthew’s Greek gospel was published it was significantly expanded from the original Aramaic, including some additional material from Mark, and fully supplanted his earlier Aramaic text.

 

[FishyPete]

I read from the Early Church Fathers that Matthew recorded Jesus’ teachings in Aramaic before Mark’s Greek gospel was written.

I read from the modern linguistic scholars that Mark’s Greek gospel was written before Matthew’s Greek gospel, and that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all drew on written source material the scholars call “Quelle” (source) or Q, which no one has ever seen.

But although the scholars theorize that Q must have existed, and they can do documentary regression to speculate on the likely content of Q, the possible author of Q remains a complete mystery. We have copies of so very many other significant ancient documents. Curious that one as important as Q would completely disappear.

And I have always wondered… Is Q the Aramaic record written by Matthew? If so, the reason Q disappeared, with no independent copies surviving, could be that when Matthew’s Greek gospel was published it fully supplanted his earlier Aramaic text.

I 100 % agree with you.

 

[FishyPete]

By not much difference, I meant that, to me, between the synoptic Gospels, the message is consistent.

But you must admit that Mark, Mathew and Luke present Jesus as the Messiah, Christ and God. They do. I checked…

 

[Neofight]

But you must admit that Mark, Mathew and Luke present Jesus as the Messiah, Christ and God. They do. I checked…

But the Messiah to the synoptics was human, and not necessarily divine…What they viewed as the Messiah was not so much the savior of the world, as the one who would come and forcefully restore the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea…a warrior rather than a God.

 

[FishyPete]

But the Messiah to the synoptics was human, and not necessarily divine…What they viewed as the Messiah was not so much the savior of the world, as the one who would come and forcefully restore the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea…a warrior rather than a God.

Well, here’s where we part company intellectually. Jesus’ portrayal throughout the gospels 1-3 not divine? I’m afraid you are mistaken friend. Jesus was presented as God in Mark, Mathew, Luke AND John.

 

[FishyPete]

But the Messiah to the synoptics was human, and not necessarily divine…What they viewed as the Messiah was not so much the savior of the world, as the one who would come and forcefully restore the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea…a warrior rather than a God.

Mathew 26:53: “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?”

How many humans can make that claim? Human Messiah he wasn’t - not to the writers nor the Holy Spirit which compelled those writers of the synoptics.

I’m afraid you are mistaken friend.

 

[FishyPete]

But the Messiah to the synoptics was human, and not necessarily divine…What they viewed as the Messiah was not so much the savior of the world, as the one who would come and forcefully restore the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea…a warrior rather than a God.

By the by, but you need a DIVINE Messiah to restore the Kingdoms of Israel. You need a DIVINE Messiah to save your soul (i’ll assume you are a gentile).

A pile of “human Messiahs”, neigh, an army of human Messiahs couldn’t make one dent in history.

Matthew speaks to us of Our Lord rising from the dead. Matthew knew Jesus was divine.

 

[FishyPete]

But the Messiah to the synoptics was human, and not necessarily divine…What they viewed as the Messiah was not so much the savior of the world, as the one who would come and forcefully restore the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea…a warrior rather than a God.

Oh, one more thing. Why would John rewrite the birth history of Jesus when it was available in Matthew and Luke? Because that wouldn’t make sense.

 

[Neofight]

Mathew 26:53: “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?”

How many humans can make that claim? Human Messiah he wasn’t - not to the writers nor the Holy Spirit which compelled those writers of the synoptics.

I’m afraid you are mistaken friend.

Don’t be too hasty…its plainly apparent to us, 20 centuries removed, and with the aid of the Holy Spirit and a completed canon and teachings of the church to see Christ is the living God, the Messiah who saves the world.

But put yourself in the first century, even before the written gospels were circulated. While the Gospels show that Jesus knew he was God, until the end, many Jews did not, but were still hoping he was the warrior king promised to release Israel from the shackles of oppression by foreign armies.

See Acts 1:6

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

Why did even the Apostles run for the hills after the crucifixion, and even Peter deny Christ 3 times? Because they still had doubts of his divinity, thinking all was lost with the death of the man, Jesus.

 

[FishyPete]

Don’t be too hasty…its plainly apparent to us, 20 centuries removed, and with the aid of the Holy Spirit and a completed canon and teachings of the church to see Christ is the living God, the Messiah who saves the world.

But put yourself in the first century, even before the written gospels were circulated. While the Gospels show that Jesus knew he was God, until the end, many Jews did not, but were still hoping he was the warrior king promised to release Israel from the shackles of oppression by foreign armies.

See Acts 1:6

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

Why did even the Apostles run for the hills after the crucifixion, and even Peter deny Christ 3 times? Because they still had doubts of his divinity, thinking all was lost with the death of the man, Jesus.

i agree for the most part. But we know how the 3 synoptics end. The risen Christ and the apostles knowing they must spread the message to the world. A message they gladly died for after. They understood at the end. I will admit that John is more spiritual of course and that goes without saying.