When was first Gospel written and what was it?
Comments
-
Note that he says "many", not simply apostles.
Luke says that what he recieved was handed to him by eyewitnesses. That means Apostles. Luke also tells us that all the believers dwelt in "one accord" at that time. This rules out your "different communities, different myths" theory. Later, Paul took Lukes gospel and submitted it to Peter. (Gal 2:2)
These are Biblical facts, whether your view can reconcile them or not. The gospels we have are the product of eyewitnesses. I'm sorry if you lack the faith to believe that. You have placed more faith in mans theories than you have in inspired testimony.
I'm afraid, my friend, that you are irredemably ignorant.
Ad Hominem eh George? I guess if thats all you have left, we are finished here.
0 -
Luke says that what he recieved was handed to him by eyewitnesses. That means Apostles.
There was an apostle witnessing the Annunciation and the birth of Christ?
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Note that he says "many", not simply apostles.
Luke says that what he recieved was handed to him by eyewitnesses. That means Apostles. Luke also tells us that all the believers dwelt in "one accord" at that time. This rules out your "different communities, different myths" theory. Later, Paul took Lukes gospel and submitted it to Peter. (Gal 2:2)
These are Biblical facts, whether your view can reconcile them or not. The gospels we have are the product of eyewitnesses. I'm sorry if you lack the faith to believe that. You have placed more faith in mans theories than you have in inspired testimony.
I'm afraid, my friend, that you are irredemably ignorant.
Ad Hominem eh George? I guess if thats all you have left, we are finished here.
The problem is not my identifying you as being ignorant. The problem is that you have shown yourself to be ignorant by simply dismissing Markan priority and Q theory with no argument other than to call it "garbage" or "false." Your only argument is your tradition.
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat." 3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?Mt 15.1-3
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Well, unless we find a copy of Q, it will always remain a theory – just as the Griesbach theory remains a theory and will continue to do so.
What amazes me is that the only fragments of Q to survive happen to be sections that Mark copied.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
What amazes me is that the only fragments of Q to survive happen to be sections that Mark copied.
Who says that Mark has anything to do with Q?
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Amazingly difficult as it might be for certain unbelieving "SCHOLARS" to believe, Matthew really was written by Matthew.
That may well be true, and I think it is. But I'd be a little more humble about it since the manuscript we call Matthew is anonymous. So I wouldn't say that it was without doubt written by Matthew since it does not claim to be so.
I would not say so, that is, unless George says so. [:O]
Frankly, in my old age, I have never be more certain of what the Scripture says and less certain of what scholars say. And I am older than George.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
The problem is not my identifying you as being ignorant. The problem is that you have shown yourself to be ignorant by simply dismissing Markan priority and Q theory with no argument other than to call it "garbage" or "false." Your only argument is your tradition.
Even if I gave no argument at all, the burden of proof lies with those advancing a theory which contradicts scripture and the unanimous testimony of the early church. Can't you see that? Don't let your ego get in the way. If you can "prove" "Q" theory, you will be the first to be able to do so.
And George you and I both know that you would also very quickly cite "tradition" if it favored your manmade theory. But in this case it does not, so you attack tradition. Stop being a hypocrite. I have cited the scriptures themselves as the first and primary proof. If you want to reduce that to nothing while elevating your unbelieving "scholarship", go ahead.
If I am ignorant because I believe what the Bible says George, then please call me ignorant.
I will no longer respond to your posts unless your attitude changes. You may have the last word.
0 -
What amazes me is that the only fragments of Q to survive happen to be sections that Mark copied.
I don't keep up with stuff like this, but I didn't know that we had found fragments of Q.0 -
Somewhere near Eden (but probably not near the cherubim) is a cave with a pristine copy of 'Q' and the YHWH-ist writing (with 2 versions by the way).
Just from the mathematics, I think Mark 1-9/10 was used by Matthew and Luke. But the early 'churchmen' do have an interesting affinity for the same phrasing found in 'our' Matthew.
I guess I'm not married to a need for the 12 disciples to be 'authoritative' since (1) they were frequently wrong before Jesus' death (2) Matthew notes some were disbelieving at Jesus' exit, and (3) the Holy Spirit stepped in after that.
So it probably works out to whatever the Holy Spirit thought appropriate.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Luke says that what he recieved was handed to him by eyewitnesses. That means Apostles.
eyewitnesses include multiple Mary's, James the brother of Jesus, the man who left his loin-cloth behind ... but this thread appears to be an argument that will not die - despite good intentions I'm unable to resist this one.
I may be wrong but it seems to me that what is important in what is in the Gospels not how they came together. The first is vital the second is interesting.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I forgot all about Mary and the baby Jesus ... Christmas!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Well, unless we find a copy of Q, it will always remain a theory – just as the Griesbach theory remains a theory and will continue to do so.
What amazes me is that the only fragments of Q to survive happen to be sections that Mark copied.
Mark is not Q. Q is used by Matthew and Luke to supplement what they took from Mark (in addition to their special traditions).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I would not say so, that is, unless George says so.
"So." Now, don't think I am advocating anything here – I'm just being silly.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
If I am ignorant because I believe what the Bible says George, then please call me ignorant.
But the bible does say "George."
33 Ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἀκούσατε. ἄνθρωπος ἦν οἰκοδεσπότης ὅστις ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα καὶ φραγμὸν αὐτῷ περιέθηκεν καὶ ὤρυξεν ἐν αὐτῷ ληνὸν καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν πύργον καὶ ἐξέδετο αὐτὸν γεωργοῖς καὶ ἀπεδήμησεν.Listen to another parable. A man was a property owner who planted a vineyard and enclosed it with a fence and dug a winepress and built a tower and then he leased it to the Georges and moved out.
So there you have it.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70. In "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Richard Bauckham speaks of Papius and the gospels as eyewitness accounts. It's not always an easy read, but worth the effort.
0 -
in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson
That's John A T Robinson of Honest to God infamy.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I may be wrong but it seems to me that what is important in what is in the Gospels not how they came together. The first is vital the second is interesting.
Amen! And we'll said!
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
eyewitnesses include multiple Mary's, James the brother of Jesus, the man who left his loin-cloth behind ...
Yes they did. But did the eyewitnesses immediately depart from the apostles, go out and begin their own "communities" and "traditions", and then write their own customized gospels? I think not. A half dozen or so scriptures come to mind that state otherwise.
During the lifetimes of the Apostles, the Apostles were the heads of the church. Peter, James, and for a time John were headquartered at Jerusalem. The church at Antioch gained in influence but deferred to the elders at Jerusalem as long as those elders were alive.
The eyewitnesses formed a community with the Apostles in which they had all things common. They didnt have time to start their own little custom gospel clubs because they were being urged by the Apostles to prepare for the coming flight out of Jerusalem. A dozen or more scriptures come to mind, but I trust you already know them.
If Luke was seeking eyewitnesses, where would he go? Randomly around the countryside? Or would he go to where the believers were gathered? I think it would be obvious that most credible eyewitnesses would be following those who Christ himself had ordained ... the twelve Apostles and thousands of disciples who stayed with them.
While Christ was still with them (the Apostles), he promised that the coming Holy Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance, everything that he had told them (John 14:26). Was he doing this just for fun, or was it so that they could accurately preach and record the gospels for all humanity to hear them? This promise was not made to the dozen or so fictituous communities that have been fabricated by "Q" theory. It was made to the original eyewitnesses, the Apostles.
If anyone wants to see where "Q" theory leads spiritually speaking ... read some of Burton Macks material (Who wrote the New Testament). You will see that he is so far gone that he flat out denies any of the claims of the New Testament. There was no virgin birth, there were no miracles. There was no resurrection, it is all just fiction invented by various communities that generated the gospels, all using "Q" as their basepoint. Jesus really wasn't that special of a guy after all. His mother gave birth out of wedlock, but his followers idolized him and wrote all those things after he died. He was even married and had several affairs with prostitutes. Not recommended for new Christians for sure. "Q" theory is the seed that produced that rotten tree.
Or maybe you have heard of the "Jesus Seminar"? A few years back they became famous for producing a New Testament that had colored highlighting so that you could know which parts were really spoken by Jesus and which were fiction. THis is where "Q" theory leads. It is a dead end and it doesn't arrive at the truth. It is just the old serpent, once again asking "Hath God said?".
So whose living room are we in now anyway?
0 -
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70.
I've read it. Excellent book.
0 -
While reading your lenghty post, I made notes of several incorrect statements and logical errors. I had intended to respond to it until I got to this portion, which caused to me question whether or not it is worth it.
I quoted a portion of the text and supplied an ellipsis for the sake of brevity. Now I am being accused of dishonesty or gross ignorance. Judging from the length of your post, I understand that brevity on a message board is not a concern which you share, but the ad hominem nature of your attack is uncalled for in any case.
No one here has rejected papias or any of the church fathers. At this point the majority of your post is straw-man argumentation, and I find it almost humorous that it was yourself who objected to the "tone" of others earlier in the thread.
Since I cannot see anything positive coming from continuing this discussion, I believe this is a good point to end it.
I highly suspect from some of your comments that you have not even read Black. Anyone else who might be following this thread and have an interest, I encourage you to read Black for yourself. He has been misrepresented here. My comments were factual but some were taken out of context or misconstrued.
To Summarize: The Bible is true. Matthew was written by Matthew along with the other apostles. It is first in the canon because it was the first to be written. Q-theory is a man-made theory which is false.
One last note on the "textual interdependence" comment. This is where Black is strongest. He completely reconstructs the gospel of Mark from readings in Matthew and Luke. Anyone who claims he is weak in this area simply did not read it or is not intellectually honest.
That's a very convenient why of extricating yourself from having to actually back up your statements.
No, you ended the quote at the very part that would have rendered the quotation an argument against your position. And I qualified my statement by stating that your use of ellipses 'seemed' dishonest or ignorant. I see that you have no problem reading all kinds of false motives and positions into others, but yet when you are called to account you are quick to take offense. The fact still remains that you used ellipses in such a way that it removed the part that would have contradicted your position. If that isn't either ignorance or deception, what is it? It's not I that should be trying to backtrack and account for myself--your use of ellipses created a dishonest argument--own your faults for once instead of trying to shift the blame.
Once again you haven't followed the logic of the argument presented to you--his textual reconstruction is done within the context--as pointed out numerous times--of an implausible scenario that rejects what Papias said--and an appeal to the earliest traditions of Papias is supposed to be the appeal of his argument over others. Now I wonder if you have read Black, or whether you really understood what he was trying to accomplish.
0 -
It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70. In "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Richard Bauckham speaks of Papius and the gospels as eyewitness accounts. It's not always an easy read, but worth the effort.
Robinson's work is almost indispensable in my opinion ... hint hint Logos.
0 -
If anyone wants to see where "Q" theory leads spiritually speaking
THis is where "Q" theory leads.
Yes, I am familiar with the Jesus Seminar - I know people who respect the participants and some who consider the whole seminar as humorous - voting via colored balls on the unknowable. I know people pretty much anywhere on the spectrum between. The forums are not the place to discuss these issues. Yes, I am culpable for my part in this - which Is why I've said nothing arguable here - I know who I know.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
That's a very convenient why of extricating yourself from having to actually back up your statements.
No, you ended the quote at the very part that would have rendered the quotation an argument against your position.
"... who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language"
There you go Dean, I posted the rest of the quote. Now which part of it do you claim is an argument against my position? I assume that you are referring to the statement about Hebrew? I never took a position one way or another on a Hebrew Matthew. That is your sacred cow, not mine. I never uttered a single word on the subject.
I suggest that you go back and carefully re-read the thread and see. Nothing I have stated in this thread hinged upon Matthew being written in a particular language. There is nothing in the quotation that contradicts my position, and hence, there was no evil intent on my part of using a partial citation.
Please, go back and quote me where I took a position on Matthew being in (or not being in) Hebrew. If you cannot do it, then you are off on another red herring of a goat trail.
And do I need to point out (again), that all of this fillibustering on your part does nothing to advance your theory? Even if you were able to prove me 100% wrong, it does not prove your own position to be correct!
The End.
0 -
I'm not aware that I'm fillibustering. On the contrary, I've sought to provide evidence, and to require from you that you back up your statements--which you have refused to do.
Okay, so it was ignorance on your part. For someone coming on here, throwing out accusations that people don't believe the Bible or accept the traditions relating to the Gospels, you should have a better idea of the arguments. As is commonly accepted, Matthew is not a translation of Aramaic. It was composed in its present form in Greek. Therefore if Matthew wrote the sayings of the Lord in Aramaic, it was not our present text of Matthew. What was it then? I think it was the sayings of Jesus found in Matthew's Gospel--the parts identified as Q--which form the core of it. That does no violence to any church father, nor to inspiration, nor to anything. For some reason you think it's the unpardonable sin.
And BTW, what do you mean you haven't a position? Black's position requires that he--contrary to the church fathers which he says everyone else rejects--deny that Matthew was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew--you can find that in his book, page 66 should you care to check. Why? Because, unlike you, he knows that it can't be a straight translation but at best a freely expanded work. That's why he has to argue that Origen misinterpreted Papias, and that the term dielektw (check how that word is used in the NT and elsewhere) here means Hebrew style, not dialect, contrary to all ancient readers and the opinion of virtually any scholar of Greek. Black at least knows that Origen is an argument against him. Again you confirm my suspicions that you didn't really understand Black when you were reading him.
No, 'proving' you wrong wouldn't 'prove' me right. One would hope, however, that it might persuade you to hear people out a bit better before jumping to uncharitable conclusions
0 -
And BTW, Black's position requires that he--contrary to the church fathers which he says everyone else rejects--deny that Matthew was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew--you can find that in his book, page 66 should you care to check.
Page 66 has no such argument. The copy I have is copyright 2001. I see there is a new edition dated 2010 on Amazon. Possibly your page 66 is my page 50. The amazon preview is not working for me for some reason.
If anyone would like to check this out for themselves, a preview of Blacks book is available online at Google Books. Page 50.
Blacks thesis is not totally dependent upon this one point which Dean here has chosen to focus on. He does on page 50 point out that it is likely that Matthew was written in a "Hebrew Style" and not "Hebrew Language". He also states his belief that many have followed this error. However, Deans assertion that his entire thesis stands or falls with this one point is a pretty large leap in logic in my opinion. Black sets forth a theory of his own as an alternative to Q theory and markan priority. But his alternative theory need not be 100% correct in order to prove the assertion that Q theory is false.
I believe Blacks theory has a lot going for it, and I am convinced it is essentially correct. If Dean here could come up with substantial evidence contrary to the essential thesis, I would love to have a look at it. So far all I see is a debatable contention over a very minor point. Nitpicking if you will.
Attacking Blacks thesis does absolutely nothing to advance "Q" theory. Each theory must stand or fall on its own merit.
The only way you will prove "Q" theory is to come up with evidence or proof. Everyone knows that there is no evidence or proof to support it. Your theory is just a theory. It has not been proven, and YOU CANNOT PROVE it.
I am just going to ignore all your Ad Hominem remarks against me. They mean nothing. As if arrogant words about teaching others "humility" could come from a heart posessing humility.
Matthew ... the inspired Word of God.
0 -
I may be wrong but it seems to me that what is important in what is in the Gospels not how they came together. The first is vital the second is interesting.
[Y]
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0
