Order of Gospels

[wiggbuggie]

modern scholars also say that matthew copied from mark (mark who wrote first) or maybe can it be the other way around? Matthew wrote a first hand account and Mark wrote his gospel not being one of the 12 used matthews gospel to fill in some gaps?

 

[patrick457]

The bible never speaks directly to Jesus’ age. Pius tradition sets his age as 33 when he was crucified. I personally place his death at closer to 40 years old.

33 and a half, to be precise. The tradition that Jesus preached for three and a half years is based on a patristic Christological interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks: “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.”

 

[patrick457]

modern scholars also say that matthew copied from mark (mark who wrote first) or maybe can it be the other way around? Matthew wrote a first hand account and Mark wrote his gospel not being one of the 12 used matthews gospel to fill in some gaps?

Well, there’s very little original material in Mark unique to his Gospel. Most of it is what we would call triple tradition - material that is shared by Matthew, Mark and Luke.

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **wiggbuggie** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9006063#post9006063) 				
  		*modern scholars also say that matthew  copied from mark (mark who wrote first) or maybe can it be the other  way around? Matthew wrote a first hand account and Mark wrote his gospel  not being one of the 12 used matthews gospel to fill in some gaps?*

Well, there’s very little original material in Mark unique to his Gospel. Most of it is what we would call triple tradition - material that is shared by Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Exactly. Mark didn’t fill in too many gaps, if that’s the case.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Only Satan pushes the idea that the gospel writers were COPYISTS and not true authors!

Tell me something: why is it that 1900 years of tradition doesn’t trump 100 years of “MODERNIST scripture scholars”?

Were ALL the Early church Fathers and doctors of the church idiots?

I don’t think so!

Was the Pontifical biblical commission in the early 1900s idiots?

I don’t think so!

“Modern biblical scholarship” is as wrong as Lutheran scholarship or Arian scholarship were.

Tell me" is the order of the gospels TRADITION or not?

Should that TRADITION be thrown away?

 

[patrick457]

Only Satan pushes the idea that the gospel writers were COPYISTS and not true authors!

Tell me something: why is it that 1900 years of tradition doesn’t trump 100 years of “MODERNIST scripture scholars”?

Were ALL the Early church Fathers and doctors of the church idiots?

I don’t think so!

Was the Pontifical biblical commission in the early 1900s idiots?

I don’t think so!

“Modern biblical scholarship” is as wrong as Lutheran scholarship or Arian scholarship were.

Tell me" is the order of the gospels TRADITION or not?

Should that TRADITION be thrown away?

Make that 300 years.

But all rhetoric aside:
Today we have a sort of allergy against the act of copying: it isn’t allowed to copy somebody else’s answers during a test, and plagiarism and breach of copyright is a crime in most places.

However, in a world where copyright laws did not exist outright copying did not have the stigma attached to it today - it was actually a fairly common part of writing. You make copies of texts by hand; you might draw upon earlier works, allude, quote (even if you did not always properly attribute it) or lift chunks of text even.

And anyways the Synoptic Evangelists may have drawn from one another, but each attempted to make the story his own - different word choices, addition or reduction of narrative detail. So they aren’t just mere copyists, yes; it would be a huge underestimation of their literary abilities and more besides.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong here, but the order in which the gospels are written is perhaps more in the domain of small-t tradition. We do know that there is a Patristic tradition starting from Papias that Matthew wrote a ‘Hebrew’ gospel before the other gospels were penned (when the Fathers speak of Matthew writing first, it is usually in the context of this Logia as Papias dubs it). Some Griesbachians might claim their proposed order of the gospels is already attested among certain Fathers, but in general the common order of the gospels is just as we find it in our copies of the New Testament today: [Hebrew] Matthew-Mark-Luke-John.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

My point is that the Holy spirit did not INSPIRE copying. the Holy Spirit didn’t INSPIRE cut and PASTE.

“Modern Biblical scholars” die at that thought.

They think the gospels were cut and pasted together by MANY people because they think the disicples were mentally challenged.

And alot of them don’t really believe that the Holy Spirit INSPIRES the writers of Holy scripture–they won’t come out and actually admit that but in their hearts that’s what they really believe!

Don’t get me wrong–there is true scholarship in the world today–just like there was true scholarship in St. Thomas Aquinas’ day–but that scholarship is certainly not “MODERN”!