The Four Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter nicholasG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nicholasG

Guest
Is there a consensus as to the chronological order of the gospels?
 
Last edited:
Good question. Do Catholics accept scholarship that places it as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John…with Matthew and Luke being pretty close together?

Do Catholics accept Mark as early 70’s, Matthew in the 80’s, Luke about 90 and John about 100AD? Thanks…
 
You can get a thousand different answers from a thousand different people , personally I believe that the gospels were not only written early, but Matthew was the first one written. I personally believe, based on some internal evidence, that they were written in the order they’re put in the NT.
 
I find some compelling reasons to agree with scholarship that it was Mark, Matt/Luke, John.

I think most traditional teachings is that it’s Matt Mark Luke John, but I don’t think there is “official” church teaching. I know the intro to Mark in the New American Bible, Revised Edition, the Bible used by the USCCB, indicate Mark was the first to be written
 
Last edited:
This Catholic Encyclopedia article (scroll down to “Order of the gospels”) says that in early Christian writings the gospels were in 8 different orders not counting the one in the Bible. It states that the order used in the Bible is the most ancient and thus the reason why traditionally it’s the one they use today.
 
No consensus but I believe the chronological order Matthew-Mark-Luke-John agrees with the opinion of St Augustine.
 
Pattylt said:
Do Catholics accept Mark as early 70’s, Matthew in the 80’s, Luke about 90 and John about 100AD? Thanks…
Click to expand...
Much earlier than that … Definitely before the destruction of the Temple 70 AD.
 
EndTimes said:
Much earlier than that … Definitely before the destruction of the Temple 70 AD.
Click to expand...
All of them…or just Mark…or Matthew? In scholarship it’s pretty settled but I realize many don’t accept the scholarship. Most haven’t even read it!
 
Pattylt said:
All of them…or just Mark…or Matthew? In scholarship it’s pretty settled
Click to expand...
I’d think all… John died circa 100 AD

For reasons… and in general … Biblical “scholarship” is a very tacky ‘thing’

By the Catholic Church …
Matthew is recognized as coming before Mark… and accepted as written in Aramaic / maybe Hebrew

Some… try hard to place a much later date upon the Gospels. for a negatory purpose…
 
No, there is not a singular opinion, nor an official teaching.

At one time the Letter to the Hebrews was ascribed to Paul, but this view is no longer held. Scripture study is continuously advancing, and, over time, new theories and suppositions arise.
Markan priority is more common now among scripture scholars (Catholic and Protestant alike). I personally agree that Mark came first.
Click to expand...
He who is ignorant of Scripture is ignorant of Christ,
Deacon Christopher
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
40.png
adamhovey1988:
You can get a thousand different answers from a thousand different people ,
Click to expand...
Technically you can only get 24 answers 😃
Click to expand...
Is “simultaneously” one of the 24?

The consensus is that the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke have profound similarities, while the fourth gospel was written independently of the others.

Although there are some who disagree, the majority of scripture scholars think Mark was first and influenced Matthew and Luke but not John. This idea influences the timelines of when each was written.

One problem is the dating of Acts. It is a sequel to Luke, but scholars often wonder if it should be dated before 70. Nobody thinks that makes sense, not even the people who propose it.
 
In this book, first published in 1976, John A. T. Robinson argues that all four Gospels were written before the destruction of the Temple in 70. John’s Gospel was completed in the form we know today by 65 at the latest, according to Robinson. However, Robinson is considered a controversial writer because of his unorthodox views. He was a leading light in the school known as “secular theology.” His ideas have gained greater acceptance in some churches than in others.

https://www.amazon.com/Redating-Tes...son,p_28:redating&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1
 
other than scholarly questioning, does it matter to the lay Catholic and faithful? Not losing any sleep over it.
 
EndTimes said:
By the Catholic Church …
Matthew is recognized as coming before Mark… and accepted as written in Aramaic / maybe Hebrew
Click to expand...
Yes, but the fact that Matthew was a tax collector means he was also fluent in Greek. Just saying 🙂
 
Dan_Defender said:
Yes, but the fact that Matthew was a tax collector means he was also fluent in Greek. Just saying 🙂
Click to expand...
Or Maybe Koine… eh?

Maybe… And he most likely knew maybe a smattering of more of Vulgar Latin

However - there exists ancient historical evidences that Matthew employed Hebrew//Aramaic

And Recall …
As with Jesus - Most Apostles - including yes Saul/Paul - primarily spread the Gospel - First to Jews
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top