The origin of the gospels. Marcan priority

[joluoto]

Mark is the first gospel, and the two other synoptic gospels: Matthew and Luke both uses Mark as a source. Mark was written some time between 66-70 AD, Matthew and Luke around 85-90 AD. The most unique gospel: John is also the yongest of the canonical gospels written around 90-110 AD.

Here's a good video about Marcan priority



Another peculiar thing about the Gospel of Mark is how it ends:

So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

This is Mark 16:8, and it ends with the women fleeing from the tomb of Jesus seeing him resurrected, and became really afraid, so they never told anyone. Kinda bummer ending. And some people definitely agreed that this ending needed to be fixed. So they did, and added verses 16:9-20. Basically an ancient version of fixing the ending. And you thought Mass Effect was the first time an ending needed to fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Verses_5–7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Verses_5–7

The oldest parts of the New Testament are the Pauline letters, several of them probably actually written by Paul. Meanwhile scholars argue that the youngest part of the New Testament might be the Epistles of John, dating them to about a decade after the Gospel of John. Though the Epistel of Jude has been one of the hardest to date, and might be everything from the oldest part of the New Testament (ca. 50 AD) to the very latest (around 110 AD). Jude is quoted by the Second Epistle of Peter, so the only thing we can be sure of is that it came before Peter 2. Peter 2 is usually dated to around 110 AD.

 

[MamboDervish]

So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

??
Hmm. If "they said nothing to anyone", then from whence does this tale of their fear originate?
Who was witness to these events 100 years after they occurred?

 

[joluoto]

??
Hmm. If "they said nothing to anyone", then from whence does this tale of their fear originate?
Who was witness to these events 100 years after they occurred?

The ending certainly was very contrdictory and unsatisfying. Thus the need to amend it.

 

[Exquisitor]

Well, that's news to me.

 

[Exquisitor]

 

[Logicman]

Mark is the first gospel, and the two other synoptic gospels: Matthew and Luke both uses Mark as a source...

"Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.” And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John." - Origen

Also, according to John 14:26, the Holy Spirit is a primary source for the Gospel authors. There was no need to copy another author.

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

 

[joluoto]

"Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.” And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John." - Origen

Also, according to John 14:26, the Holy Spirit is a primary source for the Gospel authors.

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

It's established fact that the gospels were written in Greek. And they are not actually written by the apostles they are named after (they are too late for that), but by communities that follows the traditions of the apostles they name the Gospels after. So the Gospel of Mark was written by people following the tradition the apostle Mark had established, and so on.

The Matthew was first was for a long time believed, as well that it was written in Hebrew. There is however no proof of that. The oldest versions of Matthew we have are in Greek, and no signs of it being a translation, however early translations of Matthew to other languages are translation from Greek rather than Hebrew or Arameic. Mark seems like the most baseline, and both Luke and Matthew seem to be building on Mark, as if they read Mark, thought things were missing, and thus decided to write their own gospel using Mark as their source. John is the most unique Gospel, that doesn't seem to be building on the others the way the synoptic gospels are.

 

[Logicman]

It's established fact that the gospels were written in Greek. And they are not actually written by the apostles they are named after

Your dating of the Gospels is off. You date Matthew, Mark, and Luke later than they should be. Also, the Gospels are NOT anonymous. That's a classic liberal claim that doesn't hold water. FYI, the early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS AND HIS RESURRECTION.

And then there's this: The earliest mention of the resurrection was within just a handful of years after the event.

"The 1st Corinthians Creed

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” – Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

While the word “received” (a rabbinical term) can also be used in the New Testament of receiving a message or body of instruction or doctrine (1 Cor.11:23; 15:1, 3; Gal. 1:9, 12 [2x], Col 2:6; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6), it also means means “to receive from another.” This entails that Paul received this information from someone else at an even earlier date. 1 Corinthians is dated 50-55 A.D. Since Jesus was crucified in 30-33 A.D. the letter is only 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. But the actual creed here in 1 Cor. 15 was received by Paul much earlier than 55 A.D.

As Scholar Gary Habermas notes:

“Even critical scholars usually agree that it has an exceptionally early origin.” Ulrich Wilckens declares that this creed “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” (8) Joachim Jeremias calls it “the earliest tradition of all.” (9) Even the non-Christian scholar Gerd Ludemann says that “I do insist that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional foundations is one of the great achievements in the New Testament scholarship.”

The majority of scholars who comment think that Paul probably received this information about three years after his conversion, which probably occurred from one to four years after the crucifixion. At that time, Paul visited Jerusalem to speak with Peter and James, each of whom are included in the list of Jesus’ appearances (1 Cor. 15:5, 7; Gal. 1:18–19).This places it at roughly A.D. 32–38."

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

September 17, 2013 The 1st Corinthians Creed “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, tha…

righterreport.com

 

[joluoto]

Your dating of the Gospels is off. You date Matthew, Mark, and Luke later than they should be. Also, the Gospels are NOT anonymous. That's a classic liberal claim that doesn't hold water. FYI, the early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS AND HIS RESURRECTION.

And then there's this: The earliest mention of the resurrection was within just a handful of years after the event.

"The 1st Corinthians Creed


While the word “received” (a rabbinical term) can also be used in the New Testament of receiving a message or body of instruction or doctrine (1 Cor.11:23; 15:1, 3; Gal. 1:9, 12 [2x], Col 2:6; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6), it also means means “to receive from another.” This entails that Paul received this information from someone else at an even earlier date. 1 Corinthians is dated 50-55 A.D. Since Jesus was crucified in 30-33 A.D. the letter is only 20-25 years after the death of Jesus. But the actual creed here in 1 Cor. 15 was received by Paul much earlier than 55 A.D.

As Scholar Gary Habermas notes:


The majority of scholars who comment think that Paul probably received this information about three years after his conversion, which probably occurred from one to four years after the crucifixion. At that time, Paul visited Jerusalem to speak with Peter and James, each of whom are included in the list of Jesus’ appearances (1 Cor. 15:5, 7; Gal. 1:18–19).This places it at roughly A.D. 32–38."

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

September 17, 2013 The 1st Corinthians Creed “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, tha…

righterreport.com

No serious scholar today hold these views. The oldest part of the New Testament are the Pauline letters, since many of them probably were written by Paul.

 

[Logicman]

No serious scholar today hold these views.

Nonsense. I previously listed a number who do. Also, see below.

The oldest part of the New Testament are the Pauline letters, since many of them probably were written by Paul.

"The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, (was) probably written about 53–54 ce at Ephesus, Asia Minor..." - Encyclopedia Britannica

Letters of Paul to the Corinthians | Summary, Historical Context, & Facts | Britannica

Letters of Paul to the Corinthians, either of two New Testament letters, or epistles, from the Apostle Paul to the Christian community that he had founded at Corinth, Greece. The two letters are now the seventh and eighth books of the New Testament canon.

www.britannica.com

 

[joluoto]

Nonsense. I previously listed a number who do. Also, see below.




"The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, (was) probably written about 53–54 ce at Ephesus, Asia Minor..." - Encyclopedia Britannica

Letters of Paul to the Corinthians | Summary, Historical Context, & Facts | Britannica

Letters of Paul to the Corinthians, either of two New Testament letters, or epistles, from the Apostle Paul to the Christian community that he had founded at Corinth, Greece. The two letters are now the seventh and eighth books of the New Testament canon.

www.britannica.com

No the first is probably 1 Thessalonians, since most date it as 51 ce. Some schlolar believe Galatians could be even older, around 48 ce, but that's a minority position.

One good reason to date Mark around 65-73 ce, is the reference persecution and war in Judea, that sounds like a reference to Nero's reign. Because before the Jewish revolt (66-73 ce) there was no serious persecution of Jews or Christians, and the war mentioned is probably said revolt. Luke and Matthew both uses Mark as reference, so they have to be later. Luke also references the concerns about the Destruction of the Temple, which dates it to have to be written after the Jewish Revolt. Matthew also references the the destruction of the Temple, so it clearly has to be written after the revolt.

Acts is another interesting example. The author is probably the same as Luke, since the Greek rhetorical style is so similar and Luke seems to flow naturally into Acts. Just like Luke, Acts uses Mark as a source, and also looks back at the destruction of Jerusalem during the Jewish Revolt. There are some theories that Acts also uses the Roman author Josephus as a source, which means Acts in that case must be written at some point in the early 90s ce.

 

[Logicman]

No the first is probably 1 Thessalonians, since most date it as 51 ce. Some schlolar believe Galatians could be even older, around 48 ce, but that's a minority position.

One good reason to date Mark around 65-73 ce, is the reference persecution and war in Judea, that sounds like a reference to Nero's reign. Because before the Jewish revolt (66-73 ce) there was no serious persecution of Jews or Christians, and the war mentioned is probably said revolt. Luke and Matthew both uses Mark as reference, so they have to be later. Luke also references the concerns about the Destruction of the Temple, which dates it to have to be written after the Jewish Revolt. Matthew also references the the destruction of the Temple, so it clearly has to be written after the revolt.

Acts is another interesting example. The author is probably the same as Luke, since the Greek rhetorical style is so similar and Luke seems to flow naturally into Acts. Just like Luke, Acts uses Mark as a source, and also looks back at the destruction of Jerusalem during the Jewish Revolt. There are some theories that Acts also uses the Roman author Josephus as a source, which means Acts in that case must be written at some point in the early 90s ce.

Here's a good read for you:

Why I Know the Gospels Were Written Early (FREE Bible Insert) | Cold Case Christianity

The evidence from history (and the texts themselves) most reasonably points to the early authorship of the Gospels.

coldcasechristianity.com

 

[NotreDame]

No serious scholar today hold these views. The oldest part of the New Testament are the Pauline letters, since many of them probably were written by Paul.

Surely you can invoke a more sound rebuttal than the porous phrase “no serious scholar today” which is essentially scholars you find compelling. Hardly persuasive as a retort.

It is tantamount to, in a legal dispute, myself uttering as a rebuttal to the other legal argument that “no serious attorney today hold those views” legally. Such a snarky, self-serving comment, doesn’t rebut the substance of the opposing POV.

Facts and evidence establishes what you claim as truth, as factual, and rebut opposing claims. What you opine as “no serious scholar today” isn’t evidence or facts showing your view is true or another is false.

 

[joluoto]

Another important thing that goes into Marcan priority is how baseline Mark is. None of the parables or sayings are in Mark, and it's unlikely that they would not be included if they had been known by the author. If Mark comes later we have a problem with Mark omitted things that were included in Luke and Matthew. The later works use the earlier as a source.

The Priority of Mark - Patton's View​

There are other signs as well, as Mark translates Arameic words to Greek rather shoddily, while Luke and Matthew actually change the language to more fluent understandable Greek. If they came first, why wouldn't Mark adopt their vocabulary. Many signs that Mark was first, and Luke and Matthew used Mark.

There are many scholars (but far from all) that believes there is a missing gospel. A source Luke and Matthew used besides Mark, that Mark did not know about (written around the same time?) but Luke and Matthew had at their disposal. That unknown source is called Q by scholars.

Well not that Q, but John de Lancie is always welcomed in my posts.
And certainly not that other Q.

The hypothesis is that Matthew and Luke independently from each other used Mark as a source. Indpendently because Luke and Matthew actually disagrees on a few things. Still they do have things in common that are not in Mark. Other scholars believe Luke also used Matthew as a source, despite disagreeing with many things in that text, thus eliminating the need for a unknown Gospel.

The Existence of Q​

Two-Source Hypothesis​

The whole argument about the order of the Synoptic Gospels is called the Synoptic Problems. Today most scholars agree that Mark was first and agrees that Mark is a source for Luke and Matthew. But they disagree wether Luke and Matthew are independent of each other, or wether there is a unknown source they both also used.
The largest problem with the existence of Q is that this missing gospel is not named in any early Christian writings.

A Monopoly on Marcan Priority?
Fallacies at the Heart of Q

 

[joluoto]

A discussion about Marcan priority.

 

[joluoto]

What are the arguments in favor of Markan priority?​

More on the arguments for Markan priority. Mark is more baseline, the language rougher than in Matthew and Luke where they basically use then same verses (Matthew and Luke cleans up the language of Mark), Mark uses more Arameic words transliterated into Greek, while Matthew and Luke translates the words to Greek, indicating Mark came first, and Matthew and Luke in a way worked as editiors when their gospels were assembled. Also Mark does not comment on the destruction of the Temple (70 CE), while Matthew and Lukes do, indicating the Temple was still fine when Mark wrote his Gospel, but was something Matthew and Luke could not ignore, would be one of the big events of their time.

And of course Matthew agrees with Mark alot, Luke agrees with Mark alot, Matthew and Luke does seldom agree with each other. This could mean Matthew and Luke were written about the same time independently from each other, but it doesn't have to mean that. It could also just mean Matthew and Luke simply were in disagreement over alot of things, but they don't really disagree with Mark, as the first text tend to be authorative in many ways.

 

[devildavid]

Here's a good read for you:

Why I Know the Gospels Were Written Early (FREE Bible Insert) | Cold Case Christianity

The evidence from history (and the texts themselves) most reasonably points to the early authorship of the Gospels.

coldcasechristianity.com

Cold Case doofus.

 

[Mulefoot]

Of course, subscribing to the Q theory (which I have no problem with) puts it well ahead of Mark and dates it as early as the 30's.

 

[Mithrae]

It's established fact that the gospels were written in Greek. And they are not actually written by the apostles they are named after (they are too late for that)

Q might have been written by Matthew (or a Greek translation of Matthew's sayings collection)

60/40 that Mark was written by Mark (otherwise we'd expect apostolic attribution), around 65-70CE

'Matthew' definitely wasn't written by Matthew, but by a Jewish Christian around 70-73CE (its extreme emphasis on Jesus' imminent return in 10:23 and 16:28 is basically impossible to place more than three years after the temple's destruction)

60/40 that Luke/Acts was written by Luke (the 'we passages,' and the earliest manuscript with the beginning of the gospel attributes it to Luke), sometime after 78CE (note that while Acts shows a dependency of Josephus' Jewish War written 76CE, it doesn't seem dependent on Antiquities written in the 90s).

70/30 that John was written by John (it alone of the four claims eyewitness status, a claim additionally confirmed in its appendix/ch21; and it has the strongest and earliest attributions of all gospels, not only prior to Irenaeus but from divergent sects, the heterodox gnostics as well as proto-orthodox)

 

[Logicman]

Q might have been written by Matthew (or a Greek translation of Matthew's sayings collection)

There's no evidence the Q Document ever existed.

Ten Reasons to Question Q: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm

No one has ever seen a Q document.

Prior to recent times, no one had ever heard of Q.

Fallacies at the Heart of Q : http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fallacy.htm

You like mythology, then that's your myth -- that Q ever existed. Oh ye of GREAT FAITH!!!

 

[devildavid]

There's no evidence the Q Document ever existed.

Ten Reasons to Question Q: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm

No one has ever seen a Q document.

Prior to recent times, no one had ever heard of Q.

Fallacies at the Heart of Q : http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fallacy.htm

You like mythology, then that's your myth -- that Q ever existed. Oh ye of GREAT FAITH!!!

There's no evidence Jesus ever existed.

 

[Daisy]

There's no evidence the Q Document ever existed.

Ten Reasons to Question Q: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm

No one has ever seen a Q document.

Prior to recent times, no one had ever heard of Q.

Fallacies at the Heart of Q : http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fallacy.htm

You like mythology, then that's your myth -- that Q ever existed. Oh ye of GREAT FAITH!!!

You know what's the most ironic, LM? Believers get accused of believing in myths/fairy tales/make believe all the time, and what do unbelievers do? They make up their own myths/fairy tales/make believe...lol...

 

[Mulefoot]

There's no evidence Jesus ever existed.

As pretty much every respected NT scholar believes Jesus existed, what do you call the available body of facts or information indicating that for those scholars, that Jesus did exist?

 

[Drowning Man]

As pretty much every respected NT scholar believes Jesus existed, what do you call the available body of facts or information indicating that for those scholars, that Jesus did exist?

Would you say that most "respected NT scholar(s)" are Christians, or not?

 

[devildavid]

You know what's the most ironic, LM? Believers get accused of believing in myths/fairy tales/make believe all the time, and what do unbelievers do? They make up their own myths/fairy tales/make believe...lol...

What myths do unbelievers make up? Any examples?