In what Order were the Gospels were written?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FishyPete
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That and the other things you talk about are possible. They just don’t seem very probable. And in the absence of clear teaching by the Church, I’ll go with the most probable.

Yes, which is why I’m open to the idea that “Q” was in fact written by Matthew. That takes care of the external evidence for Matthaean priority and of the problem that “no one mentions Q.”

You ask in another post “why would they say Matthew was written first if it wasn’t true?” Perhaps because by the early second century Matthew had already become really important. On the one hand, it contained lots of polemic against Pharisaic Judaism. On the other, as a very Jewish Gospel, it was a good resource for refuting those who wanted to throw out the Old Testament and cut all ties with Judaism. Or maybe because, in fact, there was an earlier text by Matthew which was edited into the Gospel of Matthew as we know it.

I thought I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe that (of Matthew in its present form). Why do you find this so odd? Most scholars don’t believe that.

Edwin
I offer this evidence to counter your Mark Priority:

A. Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): “Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church.” By “Hebrews” Irenaeus probably meant Palestinian Jews. The language that Jews in Palestine would have spoken was Aramaic, although many Jews had a literary knowledge of Hebrew.

B. Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) asserts, “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 tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language.”

C. There is a tradition cited by Eusebius, alleged to have originated with a man named Pantaenos (died c. 190), who was associated with the church in Alexandria, that there once existed a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew letters (H.E. 5.10.1-4): “One of these was Pantaenos, and it is said that he went to the Indians, and the tradition is that he found there among some of those there who had known Christ the Gospel of Matthew had preceded his coming; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which was preserved until the time mentioned (see H.E. 3.24.5-6). According to Jerome, Pantaenos brought back a copy of this Hebrew version of Matthew to Alexandria (De vir. ill. 36).

D. Eusebius reports the view current in his time is that Matthew’s gospel was based on his preaching to Palestinian Jews, whose first language no doubt would have been Aramaic. Naturally, Matthew’s gospel would have been written in Aramaic. He writes, “For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence” (H.E. 3.24.6).

E. Jerome (342-420) more than once asserts that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. He even claims that the original Hebrew gospel can be found in the library at Caesarea (De vir. ill. 3; see Ad Damas. 20; Ad Hedib. 4). Jerome sometimes refers to this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in order to clarify the meaning of the Greek text.

F. In describing the Jewish Christian sect known as the Nazarenes, Epiphanius (315-403) writes, “They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters” (Panarion 29.9.4). It seems that he is referring to the same Hebrew version of Matthew known to Jerome.

If Papias means by logia “gospel,” then there exist seven relatively early testimonies to the fact that Matthew the tax collector wrote a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. What might you conclude about the composition of the Gospel of Matthew from this evidence?

It is possible to conclude that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, the evidence seems compelling that he did so. But whether Matthew composed a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic is unclear. It is not inconceivable that both existed.
 
I agree with this research. 🙂
Its interesting, its worth being further researched. What it won’t change for skeptics as with Mark 7Q5 , is the insinuation that much was added after the 60-65 date. Whats interesting though is independent evidence corroborates a 60s possible pre-60s date.

Admittedly I haven’t read up on this in some time.
 
Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Father Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, have analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord’s public ministry.

Jesuit Father Jose O’Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John’s being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FANSWERS%2FREALWROT.htm&ei=CsWtU7yQEoyPqgbP_IGoBg&usg=AFQjCNE5kA5DID6YIzrY3VTetITZh2MBJA
However strange, John is earliest, the samartarians understood Jesus first, he is the Savior of the world (John 4:42) the jewish christians didn’t like that.
 
However strange, John is earliest, the samartarians understood Jesus first, he is the Savior of the world (John 4:42) the jewish christians didn’t like that.
Well, there are many perspectives as the DSS indicate. Thats not really where I was going but to add the time factors, and historical significance of the ECF, and of course further the validity of each historically, which btw I don’t discount what Edwin is saying either. I don’t contend that John is first, whats stated is…

“Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John’s being possibly the earliest.”
 
THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION CONDEMNS THE PERFIDIOUS TWO-SOURCE HYPOTHESIS

[Dubitum] II. Whether they ought to be esteemed as observing those things stated above who, by no testimony of established tradition nor historical argument, foolishly embrace the hypothesis commonly known as the “Two-Source” Hypothesis, which contends to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke chiefly from their dependence on the Gospel of Mark and a so-called collection of the Lord’s sayings; and accordingly whether they are permitted to freely argue this hypothesis?

R. Negative to both parts.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19120626_questione-sinottica_lt.html
 
THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION CONDEMNS THE PERFIDIOUS TWO-SOURCE HYPOTHESIS

[Dubitum] II. Whether they ought to be esteemed as observing those things stated above who, by no testimony of established tradition nor historical argument, foolishly embrace the hypothesis commonly known as the “Two-Source” Hypothesis, which contends to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke chiefly from their dependence on the Gospel of Mark and a so-called collection of the Lord’s sayings; and accordingly whether they are permitted to freely argue this hypothesis?

R. Negative to both parts.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19120626_questione-sinottica_lt.html
A voice of reason, thank you.
 
A voice of reason, thank you.
How was it a voice of reason? It was mere authority. it just happens to say something you like. But that doesn’t make it a voice of reason. There’s no actual reason given. And this judgment is clearly not binding today.
 
How was it a voice of reason? It was mere authority. it just happens to say something you like. But that doesn’t make it a voice of reason. There’s no actual reason given. And this judgment is clearly not binding today.
You are always upset with me. 🙂

Meanwhile I like you.
 
A voice of reason, thank you.
I was speaking a little tongue-in cheek (my addition of the word “perfidious”), but I wanted to show what the Church has said about the question, and by papal authority. There is some dispute as to what authority these decrees retain today. The author of this article that these statements of the PBC are still as forceful as they were when they were issued.

rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html
 
I was speaking a little tongue-in cheek (my addition of the word “perfidious”), but I wanted to show what the Church has said about the question, and by papal authority. There is some dispute as to what authority these decrees retain today. The author of this article that these statements of the PBC are still as forceful as they were when they were issued.

rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html
Right. and as a result he “smiles at using only internal arguments.” I.e., he has contempt for a close, respectful attention to what the texts actually say. Rather, he wants some external authority to tell him what to think. And to get that he has to go back a century and argue that, during a period in which Catholic Biblical scholarship has (by his own admission) over and over again proposed conclusions contradicting the 1911 decree, the complete lack of any condemnation of such conclusions by the Magisterium is simply negligence. . . .

The Magisterium has diligently condemned ideas put forward by Catholic scholars and theologians that contradict the Faith. And yet somehow, on this very important point, the Magisterium has just dropped the ball?

Yes, the Magisterium has issued general warnings about scholars who interpret Scripture without reference to the Faith. But on the points at issue in this thread no censure, to my knowledge, has been issued since 1911.

Edwin
 
Right. and as a result he “smiles at using only internal arguments.” I.e., he has contempt for a close, respectful attention to what the texts actually say. Rather, he wants some external authority to tell him what to think. And to get that he has to go back a century and argue that, during a period in which Catholic Biblical scholarship has (by his own admission) over and over again proposed conclusions contradicting the 1911 decree, the complete lack of any condemnation of such conclusions by the Magisterium is simply negligence. . . .

The Magisterium has diligently condemned ideas put forward by Catholic scholars and theologians that contradict the Faith. And yet somehow, on this very important point, the Magisterium has just dropped the ball?

Yes, the Magisterium has issued general warnings about scholars who interpret Scripture without reference to the Faith. But on the points at issue in this thread no censure, to my knowledge, has been issued since 1911.

Edwin
I still think you gave the best answer in this thread, with a great summation in your second paragraph. Please allow me to quote you:

I tend to agree with this theory, but I’m not an expert in this field. I would further add that this patristic claim could potentially address the “Q problem.” That is to say, Matthew may have been the author of what we now call “Q”–a collection of Jesus’ sayings such as the Sermon on the Mount–and both Mark and the author of the Greek text we now call “Matthew” may have drawn on it.

But the bottom line here is that the Church doesn’t dogmatize on the matter. The only point here that is a matter of faith is that all four Gospels are, in their essentials, historically accurate–they tell us faithfully (though no doubt with a good deal of editorial arrangement, commentary, rewriting, etc.) what Jesus said and did.

Edwin
 
This is what you call a late reply to a thread…

Does anyone here have any issues with the theory of Markan Priority, or is it just me??

An unanimous early Church father verdict testify that Matthew wrote first.

Church tradition testifies that Matthew wrote first.

Modern liberal scholarship testify that Mark wrote first.

If Mark wrote first then how on earth are we supposed to trust or believe in the writings of Matthew or Luke?

Markan priority = later dating of the gospels = unknown authors of Matthew or Luke.

Surely a later dating of the gospels opens up the doors of heavy criticism. I can only view that Matthew and Luke got hold of the text of Mark, added their exaggerated oral traditions and removed the ‘errors’ within Mark (ie Abiathar or Ahimelech being high priest) and composed their own gospels, to their own unique audiences, without any inspiration, just merely an exaggeration of a story to a bunch of second or third generation Christians.

Does it not say in the Bible that the 12, and only the 12, were to receive divine revelation?With Matthew now not being Matthew one of the 12, he did not receive divine revelation, whoever he was and whenever he wrote and however he obtained his info…

How is this inspired? How is this the word of God? It doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

Markan priority is heading towards the destruction of my faith…

If anyone does read this late repy to this post, any help to getting my faith back would be appreciated 😦
 
Matthew, (original and directed at the Jewish Christians)
Luke. (directed more at gentile Christians as Christianity spread beyond Israel)
Mark. (made from shorthand notes of Peter’s speeches quoting both Matthew and Mark)

Dave, why do you think Mark wrote first?

What evidence do you have?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top