Time when the Gospels are written

[Abu]

Christ is Risen #40
I will keep up on the scholarship and keep learning

Such Protestant-style scholarship will only set back “learning”.

**No. 94 Roman Theological Forum July 2001
REDISCOVERING THE DECREES OF THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION
by Sean Kopczynski **
“Sadly, however, the scholars went modern and embraced the rationalistic Protestant scholarship. Consider the following from the Jerome Biblical Commentary under the title Emergence of Catholic Critical Scholarship:
“Over-all, modern Catholic NT scholarship has consisted in a judicious selecting and combining of acceptable elements in Protestant scholarship; it is not yet following its own new paths. It has succeeded in convincing more intelligent Catholics that the ultraconservative biblical positions of the past are no longer tenable.”

“By adhering faithfully to the teaching of the Church, I now had enough information to complete my paper on the Synoptic Question. In my paper on ‘who wrote first?’ I employed the PBC decrees and other authoritative external evidence from the Fathers and Tradition. Happily, I was able to argue for Matthew first followed by Mark and then Luke. This approach and solution soothed my conscience, strengthened my faith, and made me smile at the narrowness of using only internal arguments.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html

In his address of October 14, 2008, to the constituents of the Fourteenth General Congregation of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI commented on the need for critical analysis of the biblical text to be thoroughly informed by the hermeneutics of faith, as called for in *Dei Verbum *of the Second Vatican Council. Catholic form-critics do not deny their faith; they simply do not use their faith when they are doing their form-critical thinking. Often they strive to put their form-criticism aside when they are saying their prayers, but they also often preach and think about the results of this method which tend to call into question the theology that they have learned. And that is a big reason why this dualism of exegesis and theology must be overcome, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, “for the life and the mission of the Church, for the future of faith.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt143.html
[My emphases].

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

NT Apocrypha? Ah… you must be referring to Q

From A Question of Priority:

The last paragraph expresses my view (and others’ views) as well.

I don’t think we speak the same language on this topic.

Q at its most basic is merely Luke/Matthew content not found in Mark. As as far as this goes, Q does exist since this content exists, although you can call it anything you wish. Past that we can only hypothesize as to what Q is.

I have done my best to show the problems with Orchard’s theory, especially its dependence on an irrational pseudo-history and the unintended questions it raises. These questions remain and haven’t been addressed. I have done my best to specifically show how all of the alleged strong points of Orchard’s theory are more easily explained by Markan priority.

I think this is my last post on this topic. I appreciate the dialog. Take care.

 

[Abu]

The fact:
The authors of the book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, Bivin and Blizzard, quote from Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, giving evidence that it was known in his day that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Eusebius himself had quoted other writers, Papias (Book III, Chapter 39, page 127), Irenæus (Book V, Chapter 8, page 187), Origen (Book VI, Chapter 25, page 245), and Eusebius himself (Book III, Chapter 24, page 108).
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/NEWBOOK.TXT

That Mathew wrote prior to A.D. 40 is supported by these facts:
There is no mention of the capture and destruction of the Jewish Temple or of Jerusalem; nor of the massacres of Christians by Nero in A.D. 64 or 65; nor of the killing of James, bishop of Jerusalem in A.D. 62; nor of the good news being preached to the uncircumcised pagans.
The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, p 77-78].

 

[Erich]

Q at its most basic is merely Luke/Matthew content not found in Mark. As as far as this goes, Q does exist since this content exists, although you can call it anything you wish. Past that we can only hypothesize as to what Q is.

Even Wikipedia notes that Q is a hypothetical written collection of sayings of Jesus defined as the “common” material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in their other written source, the Gospel of Mark.

As Karl Keating (and others) have noted, no such document ever has been found, nor has any ancient reference to it ever been uncovered. No one seemed to have known about it until modern scholars deduced its existence as being necessary for the theory of Markan priority to work at all.

I have done my best to show the problems with Orchard’s theory, especially its dependence on an irrational pseudo-history and the unintended questions it raises. These questions remain and haven’t been addressed. I have done my best to specifically show how all of the alleged strong points of Orchard’s theory are more easily explained by Markan priority.

That’s the crux of the problem, right there. You presume Orchard’s theory to be “an irrational pseudo-history” precisely because it can’t possibly be correct if Markan priority is correct.

Yet, Orchard explains more satisfactorily than Markan priority why Mark’s Gospel – inspired by the Holy Spirit – contains serious misquotations of information from the Old Testament. Orchard explains more satisfactorily than Markan priority why – as early historians note – Peter was so indifferent regarding the promotion of Mark’s Gospel. And Orchard’s explanation is more satisfactorily than Markan priority vis a vis the testimony of all the early historians and Church fathers. I’ve asked you to address these issues in at least two previous posts, but you have been unable to do so.

No, it is the Markan priority theory that is dependent on the “irrational pseudo-history” of a Q document; had such a document ever existed, it would have been preserved, copied, and commented upon in antiquity just as the canonical books of the New Testament were, yet antiquity is entirely silent on Q.

 

[Dave_P]

Not sure if anyone will read this as I have posted so late!

I fully understand why people want to hold onto a Matthean priority, as going against this is to go against early Church sources and tradition.
For people to imply that both Matthew and Luke were written in the mid 80’s or later I can only see as dangerous to not only the church, but to ones personal faith. If Matthew did not write the Greek Gospel we have, then who did? Was this person(s) inspired, and how do we know this? Suppose this is a matter of faith, but it is not easy to accept!

Since Vatican II gave Catholics the go ahead to accept alternative views, this is exactly what has happened. Currently Seminarians in the UK are taught the Markan Priority along with the idea of a ‘Q’ gospel.

However is not the easiest explanation for everything to follow what Papias said, in that Matthew wrote the ‘logia’ in a Semitic language, which consisted of a variety of sayings of the Lord. These saying were then translated into Greek after the Gospel of Mark had been published in the mid 60’s… As these sayings were probably not in any order, they were ‘translated as best as they could’ (as Papias says), and the only way to associate them with a Gospel was to use Mark as the ‘spine’ of the Gospel and insert them accordingly into the now Greek Matthew.

As a result, ‘Q’ is nothing more than Matthew’s logia and oral history. The Gospel is now associated to Matthew, as his inspired sayings are inside.

So technically Matthew wrote the ‘logia’ first, followed by Mark Greek Gospel.

Who translated Matthew’s logia from Semitic to Greek is unknown, however with faith from the Church and Vatican II we know that this is nonetheless inspired.

Just an idea, and I would love to know what you all think???.. evenn if I am a little late for this thread!!

 

[Barzillai]

Even Wikipedia notes that Q is a hypothetical written collection of sayings of Jesus defined as the “common” material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in their other written source, the Gospel of Mark.

As Karl Keating (and others) have noted, no such document ever has been found, nor has any ancient reference to it ever been uncovered. No one seemed to have known about it until modern scholars deduced its existence as being necessary for the theory of Markan priority to work at all.

Erich:

Thank you for your well-written posts on this subject. They are first rate and helped me greatly.