Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Order of the gospels
I think that Matthew was the first of the written gospels and John the last,

The Greek experts claim Mark was the first.

Then there is the Q document theory which I reject.

There are sections of Mark that come from Matthew, some from Luke, some are original.

Can someone clarify this issue for me?

I honestly don't see why Matthew and Luke "had" to copy from Mark. I am sure the first written Gospel was either Matthew or Mark.
Neither Mark nor Luke were eye-witnesses.

Where did they get their information in such detail and consistency?

I know Luke stated that he got his detail from eye-witnesses, so Mark could have got the same, or they took stuff from Matthew. You bring a good point, Brother!
Mark probably recorded everything he heard from Peter, but it was likely that they were all working from some notes that were jotted down here and there throughout the time of Yeshua's ministry and even after it as they continued to discuss and worship together.
I've read before that the tax collectors in the Roman Empire were very skilled in shorthand dictation, so Matthew probably wrote a lot of Jesus' words while our Lord was on earth.
The Greek "scholars" are teaching that Mark's gospel was written before Mathew's gospel (and before Luke and John).

Most Pastors are taught this in seminary, just as they are taught that the Greek minority text (so-called Critical text) is the true New Testament and the other versions have questionable added stuff.

Most scholars are currently behind the Two Source Hypothesis as it so far is the best and most well-demonstrated explanation for the composition of Mark, Matthew and Luke. That theory states that Matthew and Luke borrowed (word for word) from Mark and another source (also word for word) that is now lost. That share material outside of Mark has been called "Q" for convenience sake, and it is unknown if it was one source or two or whatever. All that is known is that it's a lot of word-by-word overlap with some interesting quirks.

Furthermore, the nature of a critical edition is to lay out all of the known variations and make educated decisions upon which reading is most likely closest to the original tradition. As such no Seminary actually teaches that the Critical text is the "true" New Testament, as by that nature, it's an assessment of all possibilities. Because of this, it's also not restricted to the Greek NT either: Andreas Juckel (of M?nster University) gave a presentation about a critical edition of the Peshitta that is now well underway that I was fortunate enough to attend at the first Hugoye Symposium.

As the above said, nobody will say that the Alexandrian/Critical text is the original unless they haven't studied. The Byzantine Text isn't the original either. Interestingly, the Peshitta and Peshitto are almost like composites between the two. The only real major variations in the Greek New Testament that I'm aware of are in John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20. The rest of them are pretty minor. The Peshitta includes Mark 16:9-20, supporting the majority of manuscripts, while it doesn't include John 7:53-8:11. Comparing the Syriac text to the Greek is a fascinating thing indeed!

If you brothers haven't seen this yet, you should. Some time back I started to go through each verse listed there and check it's reading with the Aramaic NT...I got most of the way through, comparing these verses also with the other witnesses to the text outside of the Minority Greek text that W&H relied upon to craft their better "New Testament". I have it all written down, but need to get it online someday...The Aramaic Scriptures line up most of the time with that of the Majority Greek Text, but not always, sometimes going with what is found in the TR and sometimes what is found only in the Minority Text. You simply can't pin down the Eastern Aramaic comes from no other textual is unique to itself as a whole.

These are not just minor differances shown, as you can see. Now you know.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Thirdwoe Wrote::
You simply can't pin down the Eastern Aramaic comes from no other textual is unique to itself as a whole.
Agreed. I've noticed the exact same thing!

Here's a good list similar to the one you began compiling though,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Those KJV-only folks are at least useful for lists like this, lol.
Many Thanks for this scholarly information !!


The KJVO group is pretty much my main reason for not using the KJV very mcuh!
The New King James Version is a very nice modern translation of the Majority Text and is very close to the Perhitta in principal content.


And it dosent have the word "Easter" for Pashcha/Passover or "strain at a gnat" for strain out a gnat...where both places needed to be fixed in the old version. The New King James Version is the best of the modern English versions which translate the Greek NT Text.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)