Which Gospel Came First?

[Rise]

By what definition do you determine what is probable and what isn't?
There are assumptions that underly your determination of what is probable.

For instance, the belief that Isaiah was written in multiple parts, one before and one after the fall of Jerusalem, is based on entering the study of the text with a certain presumption in mind: The presumption that prophecy doesn't exist, therefore one has to conclude that half of Isaiah could not have been written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. To the skeptic who approaches the text having already determined in their mind that prophecy can't exist, the proposition that maybe Isaiah really was prophesying becomes at worst "impossible" and at best "highly improbable".

However, I've witnessed the biblical gift of prophesy in action. I've seen miracle healings first hand. Things that defy natural explanation and violate every naturalistic understanding of how the world is suppose to work.
So my definition of what is probable about biblical accounts with regards to supernatural events is obviously going to be different than an athiest when I've witnessed first hand similar supernatural things. An athiest doesn't have the same frame of reference for what is possible or probable.
When you start to see the things talked about in the gospels and the book of acts come to life, you don't need to approach the bible as a skeptic making assumptions about the impossibility of the supernatural.

 

[outhouse]

You need to take a class on the NT because its obvious your lost academically speaking here. You have no clue what is actually known and not known.

The content of the Gospel of Matthew clearly shows it was intended for a Jewish audience whereas the other gospels do not share this trait.

Wrong. It was not written in Aramaic or Hebrew. It was written in Koine Greek.


It was intended for Hellenistic Proselytes and gentiles in the Diaspora, the difference is it held on to more traditional Jewish morals and values.



If you had actually read the book of Matthew, you would see it is ripe with anti Semitic rhetoric as the unknown authors far removed from Judaism and Israel were already trying to distance themselves from Judaism.


Please learn before posting apologetic rhetoric.

We know from the New Testament and Church history that the Church started in Jerusalem and was originally almost entirely Jewish with a focus on evangelizing the Jewish people

False.

We know nothing of this group. We also know it was not a church. It was a house, an assembly of Hellenist who found value in this new movement.

WE KNOW real Jews did not want anything to do with this new movement as jesus was not the messiah in Judaism.


The movement FACTUALLY did not start in Jerusalem. There was no center to this movement as it started all over the Diaspora equally as people who were at Passover and took interest in the theology generated by the martyrdom left Passover and returned home all over the Empire where the mythology and theology built up rapidly and new information was shared and added every year at Passover when like minded Hellenist gathered together.

So it makes perfect sense historically for a Gospel whose audience is primarily the Jewish people to have emerged in that beginning era of the church

No.

You need to learn what Hellenistic Judaism consisted of.

These were people who never embraced Judaism fully, and never followed all its laws. That is why it was easy for them to pervert the messiah prophecy in the OT . Cultural or Israelite Aramaic Jews would never follow a failed messiah who died.. Most were Proselytes top Judaism who had worshipped Judaism for centuries and were well versed but would never fully convert.

At this time These Hellenistic Proselytes were growing in rapid numbers and were well known.

You also need to understand the term Jewish was also perverted in this time with some Proselytes calling each other Jews for simply swearing off pagan deities, and embracing the one god concept.

It is perfectly possible that they are independent writings that share their commonalities by being derived from two apostlic sources that were eyewitness to the same life of Jesus Christ.

No there not.

You would have to study this to see your severe critical errors in your statement.

I can point you to Yale course on the NT if you like.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The idea that Matthew came after Mark is based on speculation - and this speculation is built on a foundational premise

It's based on evidence that can't be boiled down to a single speculation. To see why, consider the theory that Mathew and Luke used Mark as well as a source we call Q. This has been the consensus position for ~100 years or so, although it has been and continues to be subjected to criticisms and challenges. For example:,
Abakuks, A. (2015). The Synoptic Problem and Statistics. CRC Press.

Abakuks challenges the 2-source hypothesis with statistical analyses, but doesn't challenge and indeed supports Markan priority. Abakuks also refers to various alternatives, all of which support Markan priority:
"The assumption of Markan priority is implicit in the two-source hypothesis, but does not imply it. As alternatives to the two-source hypothesis, we may consider the two cases of the triple-link model that assume Markan priority but dispense with the need for the Q source. Firstly, there is the case A-B-C = Mk-Mt-Lk that corresponds to the Farrer hypothesis, according to which Matthew used Mark, but Luke used both Mark and Matthew as sources. Secondly there is the case Mk-Lk-Mt, according to which Luke used Mark, but Matthew used both Mark and Luke as sources...There are other models too that assume Markan priority, for example, the three-source hypothesis"

More generally: "Despite the emergence and dominance of the Two Source Theory (2ST), originating with Weissel and Holtzmann, there has existed for a considerable time a group of scholars who, while maintaining Markan priority vigorously, question the existence of Q in any form."
Foster, P. (2003). Is it possible to dispense with Q?. Novum Testamentum, 45(4), 313-337.

Goodacre's The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze is luckily for many online and free.

The most frequently proffered evidence for Markan priority is how well it explains the dependence between the gospels which clearly exists as well as how poorly alternatives do. For example:
"It is intelligible that Matthew gave the request to their mother, removed the wording of the request altogether, re-edited the unsatisfactory wording of Jesus' question too, interpreted δόξῃ with βασιλείᾳ and left οἴδατε (Matt. 20.22) in the plural because the two brothers cannot be replaced by their mother throughout the following verses. The opposite alterations, which Mark would have had to make if he had been using Matthew, are not intelligible at all. Such details should be at the heart of the argument for Markan priority."
Casey, M. (2004). Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (Society for New Testament Monograph Series Vol. 102). Cambridge University Press.

But as massive as the literature on this is, it is by no means the only line of evidence. Dating Mark involves clues internal to Mark (same with the other gospels). For example, Mark 13 is so important here that it warrants an entire chapter in J. G. Crossley's The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (Library Of New Testament Studies).`

 

[tfvespasianus]

By what definition do you determine what is probable and what isn't?
There are assumptions that underly your determination of what is probable.

As what is before us is to a large extent a Historical question, we should apply when of the central axioms of historical research, the Principle of Analogy. In fact, we all use this principle in our daily lives without realizing it. Briefly stated, we do evaluate claims based upon creating analogies from the world around us which we assume is somewhat consistent. Thus, when we lose our house keys, we do not immediate expect that it was the result of a malevolent supernatural force or that someone surreptitiously entered into our home, took the keys and is planning to come back later. Both of these things (for the sake of argument) could be true, but we recall all the times we have misplaced something and we are aware of many stories about other people misplacing things. By analogy, we deem one explanation more likely than other possibilities.

So, in my post I wrote mainly about the degrees of verbal correspondence between the three documents (the synoptic gospels) and what inferences we can make from there. I think we should be able to agree that something can be reasonably seen as more likely, but that doesn’t mean that it is what happened. Unlikely things do happen. Nonetheless, appeal to supernatural agency is not usually done in an inconsistent fashion. That is, a partisan of a particular faith will use it to make the case for their faith, while usually claiming other faiths are wrong to do this. Thus, most faiths have stories of ‘miraculous’ healing or events, but the larger claims of these faiths are mutually exclusive. Application of the principle of analogy allows us to evaluate all claims with the same scrutiny.

take care,
TFV

 

[outhouse]

Goodacre's

His view is so far our there I almost never quote him on a topic like this. Not sure why Candida likes him so much.

 

[Rise]

The content of the Gospel of Matthew clearly shows it was intended for a Jewish audience whereas the other gospels do not share this trait.

Wrong. It was not written in Aramaic or Hebrew. It was written in Koine Greek.

Notice that I did not say anything about the language the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in, but I referenced the "content" of the gospel.

We can see the content of the book itself is written with a Jewish audience in mind.

Matthew:
-Establishes the geneaology of Jesus, which was critical from a Jewish perspective.
-Refers to Jesus as the Son of David more than the other gospels.
-Connects more references of old testament scripture and prophecy to Jesus than any other gospel.
-Refers to Jesus's mission first being to Israel.
-Is the only gospel we find the statement by Jesus that He has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.
-References the lie the priests circulated to spread doubt about Jesus's resurrection. Something which would have been immediately relevant to Jews living in Judea who may have heard the lie for themselves.
-Contains the strongest condemnation against the scribes and pharisees of any of the gospels.

The content of the gospel of Matthew all lines up with Eusebius recording the fact that Matthew was written for Jewish converts to belief in Jesus.

It was intended for Hellenistic Proselytes and gentiles in the Diaspora

What is the basis for your claim?

If you had actually read the book of Matthew, you would see it is ripe with anti Semitic rhetoric

Like what? Please give some examples for us.

as the unknown authors far removed from Judaism and Israel were already trying to distance themselves from Judaism.

An odd claim given that Matthew, more than any other gospel, makes an effort to connect Jesus back to the old testament and Israel as a nation.

What is the basis your claim that the Gospel of Matthew is trying to distance itself from Judaism?

False.

We know nothing of this group.

We also know it was not a church. It was a house, an assembly of Hellenist who found value in this new movement.

WE KNOW real Jews did not want anything to do with this new movement as jesus was not the messiah in Judaism.

The movement FACTUALLY did not start in Jerusalem. There was no center to this movement as it started all over the Diaspora equally as people who were at Passover and took interest in the theology generated by the martyrdom left Passover and returned home all over the Empire where the mythology and theology built up rapidly and new information was shared and added every year at Passover when like minded Hellenist gathered together.

You state many things as though they are facts.
My question is: What historical sources are you using to draw your conclusions from?

Your statements don't line up with what we see in the primary source witness of scripture, early church writings, or Eusebius's church history. All of which tell us the first converts were Jews in Judea.

Cultural or Israelite Aramaic Jews would never follow a failed messiah who died.

If that is your only basis for concluding that the first believers could not have been true Jews then I can happily discuss whether or not Jesus is a successful messiah based on scripture.

 

[Rise]

As what is before us is to a large extent a Historical question, we should apply when of the central axioms of historical research, the Principle of Analogy. In fact, we all use this principle in our daily lives without realizing it. Briefly stated, we do evaluate claims based upon creating analogies from the world around us which we assume is somewhat consistent. Thus, when we lose our house keys, we do not immediate expect that it was the result of a malevolent supernatural force or that someone surreptitiously entered into our home, took the keys and is planning to come back later. Both of these things (for the sake of argument) could be true, but we recall all the times we have misplaced something and we are aware of many stories about other people misplacing things. By analogy, we deem one explanation more likely than other possibilities.

It is because of this principle of analogy that I point out the flaws that can occur if you take your own subjective perspective and limited understanding as the basis for speculating about what is true.
Different experiences, different understandings and knowledge, will change your perception of what is possible and probable.

Our western culture over more than a century has been based on written documentation where writings are assumed to resemble each other because they were copied.
Other cultures pass on information orally, relying on repeated recitation of information and extensive memorization. This is especially true of ancient cultures before the advent of mass produced writing and widespread literacy.

The disciples of Jesus were with him all the time. They would have undoubtly heard him teach the same thing to different audiences. Presumably using some of the same phrases and analogies.
Even today anyone who has sits under a particular preacher or teacher for several years as they talk to different audiences will eventually hear stories and even particular phrases repeated over and over, to the point where two people who sat under them will be able to relate the same thing in a similar way.

I have noticed the same thing happening in just a matter of weeks as I listen to a particular speaker on youtube concerning sustainable farming - Joel Salatin. He is very entertaining, using many of the same stories, phrases, and points to many different audiences across the country. Although every talk I listen to has some new information in it I can get out of it, some things have been repeated so much that I know what he's going to say and could finish the story or phrase for him.

So, again, speculating based on assumptions drawn from our experience can be helpful in analysis - But it would be wrong to lose proper perspective and start to solidify speculations and assumptions as dogmatic fact. Our assumptions will change based on our knowledge and experience.

So, in my post I wrote mainly about the degrees of verbal correspondence between the three documents (the synoptic gospels) and what inferences we can make from there.

You're basing a lot of major speculation on what that particular correspondence actually means. Especially if you're going to state that this speculation amounts to established fact. Even more so when this contradicts the weight of historic and internal gospel evidence we have that goes against it.

We have 7 difference church sources from the 2nd to 3rd century that all attest to Mark penning the gospel based on the words of Peter

Internal textual evidence supports this as true. The details and events in Mark are consistent with a gospel being related from the perspective of Peter.
The gospel often omits or adds details that reduce the personal embarrassment to Peter as an individual. The other gospels are not as forgiving in their portrayal of Peter's failures, and don't contain many details found in Mark which add more understanding to Peter's perspective.

Some examples to illustrate my point (there are many more, but for the sake of space and time I'll list a few):

Mark 14:27-31.
Peter swears he won't deny Jesus. It ends with "and they all said the same". No other gospel has that last part that points out that the other disciples were all equally guilty of denying Jesus.

Mark 9:2-6
The writer clarifies for us that the reason Peter suggested they build three tabernacles during the transfiguration of Jesus was because Peter did not know what to say and they were all terrified. None of the other gospels clarify this for us.

There are some details found in Mark that don't really alter the story being told, but which point to the fact that the story is being told from the perspective of Peter.
Look at Mark 11:20-21 compared with Matthew 21:18-19. You see the same incident with the fig tree and the key information relayed in both gospels, but in Mark you find the added details of Peter recalling what it's significance was and speaking to Jesus in response to this revelation.

These kinds of things are consistent throughout the Gospel of Mark and point towards Peter as the source. So the text is internally consistent with the idea that Mark was actually written by Mark, sourced from Peter, just as the church history and early church fathers record.

When all of that is quite consistent with church history, why would you throw all of that out to embrace something a purely speculative analysis of the text that can't be proven?

 

[outhouse]

We can see the content of the book itself is written with a Jewish audience in mind.

No that is not correct, it was written for gentiles and proselytes.

What historical sources are you using to draw your conclusions from?

Harvard and Yale

And I cannot teach you everything in a single reply. Knowledge is power, please don't debate unarmed,

Like what? Please give some examples for us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament

As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases

First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:

you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?

The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.[Matthew 28:13-15]


The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25)

 

[outhouse]

The disciples of Jesus were with him all the time.

You don't know that. Your spouting unsubstantiated apologetic rhetoric that holds no credibility in any way.

The best we guess is that he had his inner circle with him. 3 or 4 tops.

the 12 is probably straight up mythology.

These followers no matter what number did not have anything to do with any gospel in the NT

We have 7 difference church sources from the 2nd to 3rd century that all attest to Mark penning the gospel based on the words of Peter

Apologetic Rhetoric with no credibility at all.

The gospel authors are factually unknown. Stop posting things you don't know anything about. You need to use credible sources to substantiate your claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous

A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.AD 125) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.

 

[outhouse]

why would you throw all of that out to embrace something a purely speculative analysis of the text that can't be proven?

Ironic. Throw out credible analysis for your rhetoric.

No, thank you ill stick with the professors that teach real history.

Bud I can provide you with a real education, but you have to stop posting about historical context you know nothing about.

Its obvious you don't have a clue about the topics at hand

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My vote for now: probably the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Our western culture over more than a century has been based on written documentation where writings are assumed to resemble each other because they were copied.
Other cultures pass on information orally, relying on repeated recitation of information and extensive memorization. This is especially true of ancient cultures before the advent of mass produced writing and widespread literacy.

It's also true that oral traditions mostly didn't care much about "canonical" material. A story could be told a thousand different ways and no one went around killing each other over the details.

The disciples of Jesus were with him all the time. They would have undoubtly heard him teach the same thing to different audiences. Presumably using some of the same phrases and analogies.

The apostles are so awesome they can also tell stories about times they weren't there, as well.

We have 7 difference church sources from the 2nd to 3rd century that all attest to Mark penning the gospel based on the words of Peter

And they can all be wrong, especially when trying to hammer down the idea that Pete was in charge of the church.

These kinds of things are consistent throughout the Gospel of Mark and point towards Peter as the source. So the text is internally consistent with the idea that Mark was actually written by Mark, sourced from Peter, just as the church history and early church fathers record.

When all of that is quite consistent with church history, why would you throw all of that out to embrace something a purely speculative analysis of the text that can't be proven?

Imagine you are watching Sleeping Beauty and then you watch Maleficent. The former isn't really from anyone's POV, though the latter is clearly supposed to be from Mal's POV. It just seems that, with your logic, the latter is proof someone, maybe Dioval, was actually there with Mal or else this story couldn't happen.

 

[tfvespasianus]

You're basing a lot of major speculation on what that particular correspondence actually means. Especially if you're going to state that this speculation amounts to established fact. Even more so when this contradicts the weight of historic and internal gospel evidence we have that goes against it.

We have 7 difference church sources from the 2nd to 3rd century that all attest to Mark penning the gospel based on the words of Peter
[...]
When all of that is quite consistent with church history, why would you throw all of that out to embrace something a purely speculative analysis of the text that can't be proven?

Although I believe that I did state earlier that what we have is ‘speculation’, I will reiterate it here. We do not have video tapes, multiply-attested, securely dated contemporaneous accounts from witness hostile and friendly, nor the use of a time-machine. We are both building a case based on what evidence we do have.


On that note, previously you appealed to super natural agency as a reason for sustained verbal correspondence between two documents. I am heartened to see you back away from that somewhat, instead positing a cultural/sociological explanation (i.e. that’s the way people did things back then) and then positing the reliability of Papias/Eusebius. I will address the second part first as I don’t know that I will have the time for the former.


Papias writes in the mid-second century and we possess only excerpts from his work from later than that. The earliest witnesses (e.g. Clement) make no mention of the ‘Gospel of Mark’ or ‘The Gospel of Matthew’. As for what Eusebius himself says of Papias ‘he was a man of very little intelligence’ (History of the Church 3.39.13). Moreover, what other tales we do have from Papias (recounted by sympathetic authors) have him recounting fabulous tales; He states that Judas Isacariot bloated to the size of a city street, oozed pus and urinated worms and that the general vicinity of his demise is impassable to this day (ca 150) [from Apollonaris of Laodicea citing Papias in Comments on Matthew]. Moreover, if we are to rely on Eusebius citing Papias, then we have to ‘own’ that Matthew was written in Hebrew (Aramaic?) and then we have to explain how an independently translated document (i.e. our Matthew) has high degree of verbal correspondence with a document composed in another language (i.e. our Mark).


Additionally, Luke admits that he is compiling his gospel. The material that he shares with Matthew and Mark are thus explained and, moreover, there can be little dispute as to the cause of verbal similarities between passages. If the method stands to reason in Luke, why does it not stand to reason with respect to Matthew and Mark? Papias?

Take care,
TFV

 

[tfvespasianus]

Another interesting surviving fragment that we do possess from Papias is:


As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man.


Found here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm


Is this likely an authentic Jesuine saying (i.e. some people are gonna get some really, really big grapes) or, if not, we does it say about Papias’ credibility as a historical source?

p.s. nice to see you Kelly of the Phoenix

 

[Hawkins]

Don't be silly. They are all human made theories. History can hardly be efficiently verifiable. You can't even verify what is said in a newspaper 50 years ago, not to mention what had happened 2000 years ago.

The scholars provide the different opinions according to their studies about what happened 2000 years ago. They only said about certain possibilities or guesses on what had happened. Don't think that anything can be confirmed. We don't even have the original scrolls. The earliest scrolls we can acquire are dated around 4th century. It's up to your faith to believe which scholar's guesses are to be believed. That's the situation.

 

[outhouse]

Don't be silly. They are all human made theories. History can hardly be efficiently verifiable. You can't even verify what is said in a newspaper 50 years ago, not to mention what had happened 2000 years ago.

The scholars provide the different opinions according to their studies about what happened 2000 years ago. They only said about certain possibilities or guesses on what had happened. Don't think that anything can be confirmed. We don't even have the original scrolls. The earliest scrolls we can acquire are dated around 4th century. It's up to your faith to believe which scholar's guesses are to be believed. That's the situation.

We dont throw the baby out with the bath water.

What is academically known with different amounts of plausibility attributed, you seem to be completely unaware of, is very valuable study of the past.


What exactly are you having a hard time with?

 

[paarsurrey]

Which Gospel Came First?

None of the four Gospels came from anywhere. Neither Jesus wrote them, nor dictate them, nor authorised anybody to write them on his behalf.
It were anonymous collections named after the disciples of Jesus just for credence.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

Which Gospel Came First?

None of the four Gospels came from anywhere. Neither Jesus wrote them, nor dictate them, nor authorised anybody to write them on his behalf.
It were anonymous collections named after the disciples of Jesus just for credence.
Regards

Your not addressing the question, you have perverted it with you non stop proselytizing your personal faith

You don't have the knowledge to really discuss any aspect of the origins of the gospels.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

By what definition do you determine what is probable and what isn't?

Many, but one being the definition of "miracle" as "something vastly improbable." If miracles were probable, they wouldn't be miracles. Ergo, much of what is described in the gospels is improbable given the same reason believers assert that it is important: if Jesus' miracles were probable events, then who'd care?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

None of the four Gospels came from anywhere.

Ex nihilo creation? Interesting.

Neither Jesus wrote them, nor dictate them, nor authorised anybody to write them on his behalf.

So what?

It were anonymous collections named after the disciples of Jesus just for credence.

Wrong. The authors didn't claim to be disciples of Jesus (in John, we find the authors explicitly differentiating themselves with the disciple whom they state is their sources).